WHEN IT comes to saving lives, reducing injuries and cutting down on the taxes and insurance premiums I pay to subsidize the irresponsible and illegal activities of others, Gov. Mark Sanford and I agree on one thing: Legislation to accomplish those goals, as the governor put it last week, “ought to be centered on the things that will make the biggest difference.”

Unfortunately, there is nothing to suggest — much less prove — that the governor’s proposal to let violations of the seat belt law be used in lawsuits, on insurance rates and on driver’s records would make “the biggest difference.” In fact, there’s no evidence that those changes to our current law would make any difference.

In contrast, what studies have consistently found is that the most important thing states can do to increase seat belt use is to 1) require it in state law and 2) let police enforce that law. The idea of having to “let police enforce the law” sounds strange, but in most states, the only way legislators could get libertarians like Mr. Sanford to agree to require seat belt use was by agreeing to handcuff police — barring them from stopping violators unless they break some other law as well. (That’s also how we ended up with the provisions that protect violators from having their actions used against them in lawsuits, counted on driving records or considered in their auto insurance rates.) “Primary enforcement” provisions like the one our Senate recently passed have consistently increased seat belt use by 10 to 15 percentage points, and reduced deaths by 7 percent.

The next most important thing states can do to increase seat belt use is to enforce the laws aggressively, and to make sure the public knows that’s happening. Studies suggest that states can further increase seat belt use by making the law apply to all passengers and imposing “fines and/or license points” for violations; South Carolina does impose a fine for violators.

Other than that “and/or” suggestion for license points, the ideas that Mr. Sanford implies would “make the biggest difference” don’t appear on anyone’s list of laws that have been demonstrated to increase seat belt use. A spokesman said the governor was speaking generally about the need for laws to “make the biggest difference” and that Mr. Sanford’s support for the market approach to seat belts was primarily philosophical.

So let’s not pretend that the objections are about how to accomplish the greatest good.

Don’t get me wrong. If I were queen of the world, we’d make all the changes Mr. Sanford suggests. Even if they didn’t change behavior (and I think they probably would a bit), they’re just fair.

Of course, anyone who really prefers “exposing an individual to the real cost of their actions,” as Mr. Sanford suggests, would also let health insurance companies and Medicaid refuse to cover treatment for people injured when they aren’t wearing a seat belt, and prohibit the tax-funded emergency medical technicians from taking them to the hospital. Little wonder he doesn’t propose that: When I suggested that approach to motorcyclists who were denouncing calls for a helmet law, I was inundated by furious motorcyclists who were outraged by the thought of having to actually live with the consequences of their decisions, as they were advocating.

But while I would be happy to add Mr. Sanford’s market-based theories to the law, I would never sacrifice the one measure that I know will save lives for one that might save lives — particularly since I know that any of his measures would be the kiss of death for a seat belt bill.

Mr. Sanford knows very well that his proposals are the ones that seat belt opponents tried to tack onto the bill during Senate debate. In case anyone was fooled by the crocodile tears of safety opponents, Sen. Glenn McConnell was kind enough to explain that the amendments were being offered because he had learned long ago in trying to defeat legislation, “if you can’t derail it, try to load it down with baggage.”

In addition to the hollow “most-effective” argument, Mr. Sanford also is peddling the idea that the goal of the seat belt bill is to give police a way to suck money out of people. That’s both offensive and absurd.

Simply ask yourself this: Do police have any shortage of targets for tickets now? And if you said yes, have you left your house in the last, say, 30 years? It’s a lot easier to spot speeders than to spot seat belt violators.

Beyond that, the $12 fine that so worries Mr. Sanford actually represents a reduction. The current fine for violating the seat belt law is $25; public safety supporters agreed to reduce it specifically to address trumped-up concerns about “seat belt traps.”

But the biggest flaw in the personal-responsibility argument has always been that it overlooks the fact that it is already against the law to leave your seat belt unbuckled. And neither the governor nor any of the other seat belt opponents has called for repealing that law. It’s more than a little disingenuous to say it’s OK to have a law that requires people to wear seat belts but it’s an affront to individual liberty to allow police to enforce that law.

And it is simply not conceivable that anyone who truly believes in promoting personal responsibility would want to shelter those who break the law from punishment. After all, doesn’t “personal responsibility” mean accepting the consequences for your actions?

Ms. Scoppe can be reached at cscoppe@thestate.com or at (803) 771-8571.