Jan. 29, 2006 - 16:16 MST

ANOTHER WHAT IF ?

It's Sunday once again and if nothing else there is a column by Ed Quillen a former newspaper editor who lives over in Salida, Colorado (on the Western Slope -- the other side of the Rocky Mountains from here). He is a man whose opinions and common sense I admire.

Perhaps saying that someone has common sense actually means that they think the same way you do ?

His column in the editorial section ("Perspective" is what it is called now on Sunday) is a good one I think. Here now is the column in full:

SEAT-BELT LAW WOULDN'T HELP

"Let me be real clear about seat belts. The farthest I have driven in the past 35 years without buckling up is halfway around our block, when I was cleaning my old Blazer one afternoon. The cab had so much junk inside that it was more convenient to park next to the trash can in the alley rather than tote the refuse across the yard. I felt guilty for the entire minute of beltless 5-mph driving, although I must confess enjoying the small frisson that comes with risky behavior."

"Otherwise I've worn my best always. However, I can think of only one time that a belt saved me. That came in 1970 when I was driving way too fast across South Dakota with a load of in-aws. The car encountered a slick spot on the highway -- it appeared to be some cow manure that might have fallen off a truck earlier that day -- and I spun out. The seat belt kept me behind the wheel so I could do something about the spin. Otherwise I'd have been thrown across the bench seat, and the consequences could have been dire, since the steering wheel and brake would have been out of my reach."

"So I wear my seat belt, I do not find it uncomfortable or constricting. I encourage others to do so, and if I'm driving, the car doesn't move until everyone is buckled."

"It is not a decision that affects only the driver of passenger. As my long-ago spin-out taught me, if there are people slilding all over a spinning car, the driver may not be able to regain cotrol -- and that means some beltless driver could come careening into you on some slick road. The libertarian argument that it's entirely a personal decision that affects only the person making the decision doesn't hold up."

"But with that said, Im still dubious about the proposed change in our state law. As it is, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. A peace officer cannot pull you over just for not buckling your seat belt, but if he pulls you over for something else, and observes that you're not wearing a seat belt, he can cite you for that too."

"If "failure to wear a seat belt" became a primary offense, then you could be pulled over and cited for that alone. And at the statehose last week, there was tearful testimony in support of that change, along with the arrangement of 282 pairs of shoes on the west steps of the Capitol -- one pair for every person killed in a Colorado traffic accident in 2004 who was not wearing a seat belt."

"The testimony came from a Delta woman whose teenaged daughter, who was not wearing a seat belt, died when her car rolled over and ejected her last November."

"Losing a child has to be one of the most horrible thins that can happen, but just how would a primary seat-belt law have prevented this tragedy ? We would have to presume that at some point before the rollover, the young woman would have been pulled over and cited for failure to wear her seat belt, and then she would have decided to wear her belt henceforth."?

"That's improbable. And if a mother cannot instill seat-belt use in her own daughter, how can the state especially when there's already a law on the books ?"

"Another problem is enforcement, I asked a retired State Patrol major about this. He said that it's not that hard to tell if someone is wearing a shoulder belt if your'e going east on a two-lane road at less than 50 mph and the motorist in question is going west. But on freeways at higher speeds, the trooper has too much else to watch to be very attentive to seat-belt use."

"So enforcement would be sporadic. Sure, some people would be pulled over for not wearing their seat belts. But would there be enough to make a meaningful difference ? In other words, of those 282 people who died in 2004 who were not wearing seat belts, how many would have been pulled over for not wearing seat belts, then decided to change their ways, and then decided to change their ways, and then were involved in an accident where seat belts would have made a difference ? Seat belts greatly improve your odds of survival, but they don't guarantee you'll live through an accident."

"All those empty shoes were a powerful statement. But it was an emotional statement. And that's all that changing the seat-belt law would be -- a statement, rather than a measure that would actually make our roads safer."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I pretty well agree with Mr. Quillen's statements.

Although I always used my seat belts due to things I had read professionally and experienced in the field, Heather resisted the use. Not too long before we started home September 5, 1997 she had finally adpoted the practise of using the belt. About noon that day, a nice bright sunny day, warm, Edenlike it was, I came afoul of a piece of oil patch gear that had dropped off a truck ahead of me. Cresting a slight rise, there it was and I had no time to brake, swerve or anything else. Consequences ? Our car rolled over and over, across the opposing traffic lanes. The car roof on my side was bashed in deeply and probably was what caused my neck to be broken. BUT NEITHER ONE OF US WAS THROWN OUT OF THE CAR AND WERE RESTRAINED IN A REASONABLE MANNER. Goes to show that nothing is 100 percent sure in all cases. Wearing a seat belt would not have prevented my broken neck, but the bigger danger of being ejected and killed was avoided.

But something not mentioned in Mr. Quillen's article is the fact that if enacted, such a law will give law enforcement the legal ability to pull someone over, just to check to see if they are wearing seat belts. Or to cite that as a reason. It would give law enforcement the prerogative to put "profiling" back into common usage, using checking for seat belts a reason. So again the DWB and DWP would again be in use. (DWB = "driving while black" DWP = "driving while poor")

And as far as that's concerned, a scofflaw non-seat-belt user would have plenty of time to put their seat belt on before stopping the car at the side of the road when pulled over.

Ever since I was a kid (and probably before Heck was a pup) folks often would say, "There oughta be a law." So down the line, we have more laws and more laws. Has it really done that much good ?

Goes back to the way I feel about things and how we raised our kids. For the most part no law is needed to keep our kids from becoming criminal, or damn fools -- they were trained by us to be adult when the time came for them to be that way. Most of our kids were adult before they were out of their teenage. Not that we take credit for that, that is because they are themselves and did profit a bunch from how we raised them.

Making new laws most of the time, the way I see it, does not cure anything, just adds to the cost of government. And the big thing, BIG BROTHER is breathing down our necks once again and the emotional folk are making it easy for them to have the laws to back up their Big Brotherism. So this seat-belt thing brings forth ANOTHER WHAT IF ? . . . . . . . . . .