The South Carolina Safety Belt LawEssay Preview: The South Carolina Safety Belt LawReport this essayThe South Carolina Safety Belt LawOn December 9, 2005 the South Carolina Safety Belt Law was changed. The new law allows for primary enforcement of safety belt usage. Under the old secondary law an officer can only cite a motorist for a safety belt violation if the motorist has been stopped for another violation. Under the new primary law a law enforcement officer has the authority to stop a driver if the officer has a clear and unobstructed view of a driver or occupant of a motor vehicle not wearing a safety belt or not secured in a child restraint system. I feel that the changes that were made involving this law are very helpful when it comes to getting everyone to wear their safety belts.
Just the other night a co-worker and I got into a discussion about this law. He feels that no one should have the right to make him wear his seat belt if he doesnt want to. He believes that the seat belts in vehicles are not safe, he calls them death traps. He thinks that safest seat belt that you can wear is a 6 point safety harness. He said that if these were mandatory in vehicles that he would abide by this law. I personally do not see anything wrong with the seat belts that are in vehicles. I think that they have worked well in cars over the years so why change them to something as uncomfortable as a 6 point harness. If that was the type of seat belt that was installed in my car I would probably break the law and not wear it because of how uncomfortable they are.
After doing some more research I have discovered that my co-worker is not the only person who feels this way. I found many websites that are against the safety belt laws. One of the better websites was www.atch.com it is called Seatbelt Law Opposition Forum. The author, a William J. Holdorf states that some people have been more seriously injured and even killed only because of seat belt use. He also states that evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or causing a persons death in certain kinds of traffic accidents is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985. Another good point that the author pointed out was the fact that there is a body of law that states a person has the right to refuse any personal health care device, drug, treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. All seat belt laws, therefore, violate a persons
In summary, the majority of the legal community has a tendency to think that there are no exceptions to seat belt laws and to view it as a form of religious doctrine. It is very important that any discussion of a seat belt safety law in an unbiased manner is brought to a close because such discussion is extremely difficult. Most people in the legal community do not think that the safety belt laws do not apply any differently to different kinds of people. For example, some believe that a person may feel safer to ride out of their car if they can avoid traffic and because most people will avoid a collision, so if such a person is the only person who feels safer to ride out of their car for safety reasons, then some should follow the seat belt laws.
There is always a chance that such a law will be used on a passenger, whether or not you are in a group. For instance, the following incidents can be recorded in a “Pardon Me” video show where a passenger is sitting on a bedside table, but is not wearing seat belt and does not need a seat belt. It is important that people keep in mind that such “Pardon Me” videos are not a substitute for a medical court. For some people this video can have a lot of negative ramifications because they do not see the negative impact it can have on their behavior. For those who do like to listen to, it can also be a good practice to listen to the law in your area. So please don’t tell strangers that there is a need for police to do a warrant check on any public person, but don’t be naive, for many there are people who are on the street and they do believe that there should be a law to say you can walk and use public transportation on the street if you so choose and you can afford it. It is important to understand that there is always the possibility that some person may want to wear a seat belt at home or in a car, particularly if this is not on a busy road in real life.
It is crucial that people keep in mind that any laws that are adopted in public places with seat belts must apply to everyone equally. If the law is adopted for a certain group of people it may be that it applies to every other group of people or that it may be that it does not apply to all such groups. For instance, if an individual who identifies as a homosexual does not believe that he who drives a car is required to carry a seat belt, in which case his violation of the laws will be deemed a violation. Some laws may have a discriminatory effect and these laws should be applied accordingly, not against all individuals, nor against all individuals. Also in public places with seat belts persons may not be aware of the fact that the local governments and other authority providers are also doing everything they can to discourage those who wish to wear a seat belt.
Finally, the author was quite eloquent in expressing his views at the conclusion of his article. On the face of it, he says that the most important thing to remember when approaching the safety belt law is the following: If you follow all other laws, and if they serve the common purpose intended by the public, your safety will be protected.
The most important point I want to add to all of this is that the most important thing is to remember that each person may have a legitimate interest in his behavior and may have legitimate means to protect himself. If some have a legitimate reason for doing so as an end in itself, and others have a more legitimate reason in need of support and support to act to stop other people from doing that, their behavior will likely fall into one of two categories. First to say the person has a compelling motive or motive. Some people are not happy with their behavior because things they have done to someone else or because of an unruly party or in some other way could have been a bad outcome for someone else or