This is a printer friendly version of an article from
www.goupstate.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose
Print.
Back
Article published Nov 18, 2003
Primary enforcement of seat belt law makes legal and safety
sense
State lawmakers preparing for the start of the next
legislative session should pay attention to a study released this week on the
effectiveness of seat belt law enforcement.The study conducted by a consulting
firm for the Air Bag and Seat Belt Safety Campaign compared states with primary
and secondary enforcement of seat belt laws.States with primary enforcement
allow police officers to stop motorists for failing to obey the seat belt law.
States, like South Carolina, with secondary enforcement do not allow the police
to stop motorists for violating the law. A driver can only be cited for breaking
the seat belt law if the police stop him for some other reason, like
speeding.The exception in South Carolina is for children. A driver can be
stopped if an officer sees someone 17 or younger not wearing a seat belt.It
should be no surprise to anyone that seat belt usage is higher in states with
primary enforcement. In fact, the study indicates that seat belt use is 15
percentage points higher.But that statistic represents more than compliance with
the law or some vaguely desirable social good. It translates into saved
lives.The study estimates that 1,400 people will die in the next year who would
have lived if there had been a primary enforcement law in place to push them to
buckle up.Why is that? Because wearing a seat belt cuts your risk of dying in an
accident by about half, depending on the vehicle in which you're traveling and
where you sit.So why doesn't South Carolina have a primary enforcement law?It's
certainly come before the General Assembly often enough. Each year, a bill that
would establish primary enforcement makes its way through the legislative
process, but it always stalls somewhere along the line. This year, it failed to
make it through the Senate.Too many lawmakers have a misguided ideological
objection to the seat belt law. They think it violates the individual's right to
not wear a seat belt and run a higher risk of getting killed.But mandating
safety on the roads, as well as holding down the costs of auto insurance, are
valid purposes of state government. The seat belt law does not infringe on any
activity or belief. There is no reason not to embrace primary enforcement.And
the current compromise is just silly. We have a law, but we placate those who
don't like the law by prohibiting the police from enforcing it. Does that make
sense to anyone?When lawmakers go back to Columbia in a month and a half, they
should restore sense to the law and increase safety on the highways by passing
primary enforcement.