It appears that Massachusetts drivers will soon be required to use their seat belts while driving.  The House narrowly passed a measure that will make seat belt usage, both for the driver and all occupants of a moving vehicle, a matter of “primary enforcement”.  The Senate and the Governor are expected to sign off quickly on the measure.  “Primary enforcement” is a legal term that means you can be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, even if you aren’t doing anything else wrong. 

     This has been debated for years, despite the statistics that indicate that seat belts save lives.  Most of the arguments against using seat belts have involved our freedom to do as we wish, without legal compulsion.  Another argument states that occasionally, seat belts can entrap a person in a car, when it is burning or has gone into the water.  Recently, some Massachusetts residents argued that mandatory seat belt enforcement might be used against minorities, as a form of “racial profiling”.

     As we usually do here at South Boston Online, we tossed all of these issues around – pro and con.  In the end, we came to the conclusion that primary enforcement of seat belt laws is a good thing.  Some objections to seat belts may be valid, but overall, primary enforcement makes sense.

     The primary reason for obeying (and enforcing) seat belt laws is saving lives.  Approximately 40,000 lives are lost each year to automobile accidents.  Studies by accident engineers and specialists, supported by the well-known tests on crash dummies, indicate that 5,000 lives or more might be saved by seat belts.  Many of these lost lives once belonged to children, or breadwinners, or caregivers, who were passengers, not the driver.  There’s something horribly unfair about this.

     It’s not well known, but seat belts also help the driver maintain control of a vehicle when trouble occurs.  If a driver isn’t wearing a seat belt, he/she can be jarred away from the brakes and steering wheel when a tire blows, when a skid occurs, or when the car is sideswiped.  If this happens, the car becomes a two-ton lump of fast-moving metal that could end up anywhere.  Do you recall recent stories about cars ending up in storefronts and living rooms?

     Frankly, we don’t know where the issue of our so-called “freedoms” came from.  It was probably a product of the more aggressive talk shows around here.  Please consider that drivers and their cars already must be licensed, insured, inspected, and registered.  Cars already must have working brakes, lights, horn, emission control devices, and so on (and on).  Cars can be legally pulled over for nothing more than a broken tail-light.  We don’t think adding in a seat belt requirement is an infringement of anyone’s freedom. 

     Perhaps more of our local talk shows should stick with sports as their topic, because they completely misunderstand the word “freedom”.  It’s well known that many laws exist to protect us from careless drivers – one more doesn’t affect our true freedoms in any way.

     To address another issue, there’s actually some truth that, under certain circumstances, a seat belt can trap someone inside a vehicle.  But the potential saving of a great many lives – upwards of 5,000 – outweighs the rather unusual possibility of being trapped.

     As for racial profiling, it exists of course, notably in the suburbs.  But not enacting a sensible law isn’t the answer.  Getting rid of rogue police officers who are bigots is the real solution.

     On balance, seat belt legislation makes sense.  Using seat belts is often inconvenient, especially for short drives, but overall, it’s a reasonable rule to enforce.  What do you think?