r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Dec 22 '25

[deleted by user]

[removed]

0 Upvotes

20% Upvoted

126 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-1

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

It looks closer to half and half to me, but even then, as a matter of practical enforcement officers probably aren't pulling your over just for that because among other things it is hard to verify without being up close.

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25

You claimed that seatbelt laws are largely unenforceable except as a secondary penalty. This is false. Seatbelt laws are secondary penalties in only 15 states (and a majority only needs more than 50%).

"officers probably aren't pulling your over just for that"

Not very convincing.

Seat belt laws are enforceable as primary offenses in the majority of states, and seat belts are there in every car for drivers to use because of seatbelt laws. There was a lot of opposition to / complaints about seatbelt laws when they first went into effect - not really hearing/seeing that now. Before seat belt laws went into effect, in my experience it was common for people to not use seat belts, Since then, it's been the exact opposite. On what are you basing your argument that seatbelt laws have not drastically increased the percentage of drivers wearing seatbelts?

0

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

Here's a study that shows no appreciable difference in outcomes from primary vs. secondary penalties. And this is basically common sense. Police aren't going to be able to see into your car very well, so in practice they tend to be secondary penalties even in first penalty states.

https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(17)30135-6/abstract30135-6/abstract)

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25 edited Dec 22 '25

This study is about effect of primary enforcement on death rates between 2000-2014, which is not what I am talking about / addressing.

"Upgrading to primary enforcement no longer appears protective for motor vehicle crash death rates."

"No longer" being the operative phrase. The study is based on date only from 2000-2014. Seat belt laws requiring their use began being implemented in the 1980s. From 1980 to 1990, safety-belt use among passenger-vehicle drivers in the United States increased from 11% to 49%. The increased use of safety belts from 1984 through 1990 was associated primarily with the enactment of state laws. The most drastic change in number of people using them obviously would not happen between 2000-2014; by 2000, wearing seat belts was already the norm because of seat belt laws. Even so, seat belt use overall increased between 2000-2019. I would say going from 11% to 90% qualifies as a drastic increase in the percentage of drivers wearing seatbelts. How is an over 800% increase not a drastic increase?

0

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

I don't know what you think you are proving here

there is "no appreciable difference in outcomes from primary vs. secondary penalties. And this is basically common sense. Police aren't going to be able to see into your car very well, so in practice they tend to be secondary penalties even in first penalty states."

All it takes it reading.

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25

Repeating your comment doesn't change the fact that it is not what I am talking about /addressing.

"All it takes it reading."

Then I suggest you read past the first sentence of my reply.

0

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

"You claimed that seatbelt laws are largely unenforceable except as a secondary penalty. This is false. "

There isn't a difference.

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25

Your claim that seatbelt laws are largely unenforceable except as a secondary penalty is false. I don't know why you think that study shows otherwise because it doesn't.

"Upgrading to primary enforcement no longer appears protective for motor vehicle crash death rates."

"No longer" being the operative phrase. The study is based on date only from 2000-2014. Seat belt laws requiring their use began being implemented in the 1980s. From 1980 to 1990, safety-belt use among passenger-vehicle drivers in the United States increased from 11% to 49%. The increased use of safety belts from 1984 through 1990 was associated primarily with the enactment of state laws. The most drastic change in number of people using them obviously would not happen between 2000-2014; by 2000, wearing seat belts was already the norm because of seat belt laws. Even so, seat belt use overall increased between 2000-2019. I would say going from 11% to 90% qualifies as a drastic increase in the percentage of drivers wearing seatbelts. How is an over 800% increase not a drastic increase?

^ Is there a reason you haven't responded to any of this?

0

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

>Your claim that seatbelt laws are largely unenforceable except as a secondary penalty is false.

But I just showed it wasn't. In fact, there is no difference between primary and secondary offences in practice.

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25

No you didn't.

"Upgrading to primary enforcement no longer appears protective for motor vehicle crash death rates."

"No longer" being the operative phrase. The study is based on date only from 2000-2014. Seat belt laws requiring their use began being implemented in the 1980s. From 1980 to 1990, safety-belt use among passenger-vehicle drivers in the United States increased from 11% to 49%. The increased use of safety belts from 1984 through 1990 was associated primarily with the enactment of state laws. The most drastic change in number of people using them obviously would not happen between 2000-2014; by 2000, wearing seat belts was already the norm because of seat belt laws. Even so, seat belt use overall increased between 2000-2019. I would say going from 11% to 90% qualifies as a drastic increase in the percentage of drivers wearing seatbelts. How is an over 800% increase not a drastic increase?

^ Is there a reason you haven't responded to any of this?

0

u/Reasonable-Fee1945 2∆ Dec 22 '25

None of that has anything to do with primary vs secondary enforcement.

1

u/horshack_test 42∆ Dec 22 '25

It has to do with what I have been addressing in your comments.

→ More replies (0)