"FREEDOM FIRST" DEDICATED TO THE REPEAL OF ALL STATE MANDATORY SEAT BELT HARNESS LAWS William J. Holdorf, 5839 S. Harlem Ave., #517 Chicago, Illinois 60638 INTRODUCTION History has proven that taking away individual personal freedom in the name of government claiming to do good is the easy path to tyranny. Freedom is more important than safety. A bird in the best cage is safe but not free. Our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago, while they had security, they valued liberty far more. In signing the Declaration of Independence they pledged: "For the support of this Declaration, and with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor". Benjamin Franklin expressed this point even more when he said: "Those who can give up essential liberty for the sake of a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." The following information is not presented to debate the value of wearing or not wearing a seat belt, nor to oppose or discredit voluntary use. It's purpose is to explain why all state mandatory seat belt harness laws should be repealed in order to protect our constitutional right to freely choose our own individual personal safety and health standard wi thout government interference or coercion. This right is reflected in the risks we are willing to take in choosing our employment, life style, recreation and leisure time, as well as in the world of sports. There is nothing wrong with voluntary seat belt use, as it is with all other kinds of individual personal safety and health suggestions and recommendations in life; however, there is a great deal wrong with all state mandatory seat belt harness laws. Pass this information on to all your friends and ask them to send copies to all governors and state legislators, all members of Congress, as well as the president, in order to support repeal of such unconstitutional laws. BASIC FACTS ABOUT SEAT BELT LAWS 1. Seat belt laws represent unabated tyranny on the march as each year since 1985 law enforcement has been expanded. Enforcement of such laws infringe on a person's rights as guaranteed in the Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments, and the Civil Rights section of the Fourteenth Amendment (1). 2. Seat belt harness laws are an unwarranted intrusion bygovernment into the personal lives of citizens; they deny through prior restraint the right to determine a person's own safety and health standard for his/her own body, the ultimate private property. Not using a seat belt is a victimless state-created crime that does not hurt or threaten anyone. 3. While the use of a seat belt might save some people in some traffic accidents, there is ample proof that in other kinds some people have been more seriously injured, and even killed, only because of forced seat belt use. In the latter case that means the state is knowingly and willingly a party to random premeditated wrongful deaths, a criminal offence if committed by an individual in the private sector. Also the injuries and deaths caused by forced seat belt use are not given the same degree of publicity (2), if any, as given those who are supposedly saved by seat belt use, thus in compiling traffic accident data, that bias exaggerates the so- called benefit of seat belt laws, which misleads the public into thinking seat belt use automatically means safety; non-use automatically means death in all kinds of traffic accidents, which is false. 4. In spite of the fact the government is forcing the use of a device that can be injurious and even lethal in certain situations, the government refuses to be held financially responsible for such injuries and deaths. Instead, the government expects the injured or survivors of those killed while wearing a seat belt to obtain financial satisfaction from their own savings, or insurance, or by suing the auto makers. 5, There is also ample proof that some people have survived a traffic accident only because a seat belt was not used - injured, perhaps, but not dead. Such persons, by law, are subject to a citation and a fine, as well as possible arrest and jail for not dying in the accident using a so-called safety device arbitrarily chosen by politicians. Traffic data on such accidents only reflect one more injury without using a seat belt harness, which further helps to mislead and exaggerate the so-called benefit of seat belt laws. 6. If a person is killed while using a seat belt, law supporters claim the traffic accident was so severe not even a seat belt could save the person. That might be true in some cases, but the severity of an accident is never mentioned in compiling a list of persons killed while not wearing a seat belt, which adds to the heavy bias and misrepresentation in compiling traffic accident data in defense of seat belt laws. 7. Evidence of seat belt use increasing injuries or contributing to a person's death is well documented in the hundreds of successful lawsuits filed against the auto makers since the advent of seat belt laws in 1985 (3). Court ordered settlement and punitive damage awwards forced the auto makers to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the injured or survivors of those killed as a result of the failure of a seat belt to savew as promised. Some lawsuits were settled out of court, which seals the evidence of seat belt malfunctions and design defects from the public, including other lawyers with similar cases. Such lawsuits against the auto makers is further proof state governments have forced people to use a device that sometimes has proven injurious and even fatal and, therefore, state governments should share in the financial cost awarded by the court against auto makers. 8. Hundreds of thousands of autos, vans and light trucks have been recalled as a result of discovering defects in certain seat belt designs after the fact, which means the motoring public has been forced by law to become unwilling guinea pigs, unlike how all other products in the marketplace are treated. In a letter published in the September/October 1990 edition of AAA World, a publication of the Chicago Motor Club, Jerry Curry, NHTSA Administrator, said, We opened 213 new defect investigations in 1989, the highest one-year figure in the agency's history. A total of 6.8 million vehicles were recalled that year; a million more than the national average. While Mr. Curry did not say how many such recalls involved seat belt defects, such recalls, again, reflect how the public is being used as guinea pigs for automotive products. Even seat belt manufacturing standards set by government are sometimes suspect. In Trial magazine, April 1990, in the article "Auto Seat Systems- Dangerous Safety Restraints? ," there is the following comment: Unfortunately, critical flaws in the safety standards have allowed manufacturers to deslign defective seat systems and restraints. These flaws also allow the defense to argue that the components not only met the standards (set by the government) but even exceeded them. Another important defense argument is the erroneous one that the state of the art in the industry is simply what everyone is doing. 9. There is a body of law that recognizes a sane person has the right to refuse any personal safety or health care device, drug, medical treatment, or surgery, even if such refusal might result in an earlier death or an increase in medical expenses. Seat belt laws violate that right, that is, to freely choose to use or not use a seat belt. Any medical professional attempting to do the same would be prosecuted, yet politicians claim they can ignore the law while hypocritically demanding strict compliance from the private sector. The freedom to choose one's own individual personal health and safety standard was upheld by the 1991 U .S. Supreme Court in the Johnson Controls case (4). Also, a federal appeals court upheld a $100,000 award in 1993 to a 320 pound woman who sued the state of Rhode Island for refusing to hire her back to work unless she lost weight. The federal Equal Opportunity Commission had earlier ruled obesity a protected right under the Americans With Disability Act, and the court agreed even though obesity is not mentioned in the Act and is a self-inflicted serious health hazard causing more medical expenses and premature deaths each your than highway fatalities. The U.S. Supreme Court also on June 10, 2002 ruled in the Echarabal v. Chevron case that Chevron could not refuse to hire Echarabal who had a liver ailment for a position in its refinery where the job environment would according to medical expert, exacerbate his liver ailment. The court's ruling in such cases clearly proves that each person has a constitutional right to make his/her own individual personal safety and health decisions even if such is hazardous to one's health and safety, and even if such will increase medical expenses. 10. While extensive and widespread national media coverage is always given information in support of seat belt laws (5), research and studies published in trade journals by independent professionals, that is, those not on the federal payroll, which challenge the so-ca1led benefit of such laws, are never printed in the national news media, thus the public is denied the right to know there is a legitimate and well documented contrary side to the seat belt law political controversy. At one time it was the same with air bags until one investigative reporter (6) decided to start publishing the truth about air bag dangers in certain kinds of traffic accidents. The bureaucrats in the U .S. Dept. of Transportation were so adamant against telling the public about such danger, which the public had a right to know, the reporter had to use the Freedom of Information Act to force the government to release its own records of air bag injuries and deaths. Such factual public disclosure has yet to happen in the case of forced seat belt use. 11. Politicians have no authority to willingly and knowingly force some people to maim and kill themselves in some traffic accidents using a so- called safety device, a seat belt harness, just because they hope others will be saved in other kinds of accidents merely by chance. The Constitution forbids the government from taking chances with a person's body; the government has no right to play Russian roulette with a persons's life. 12. The hundreds of millions of tax dollars spent in defense and support of seat belt laws has been wasted since not one penny has ever prevented an accident, the real cause of highway fatalities. This also includes millions of tax dollars wasted encouraging seat belt use through newspaper ads. and radio and TV announcements (7). Conversely, because we feel safer wearing a seat belt, studies have shown that some drivers tend to drive more recklessly. This is known as "risk compensation," which is covered in more detail in the 1995 book: "Risk" by Dr. John Adams, University College London, England (8). 13. In a free society, if a person is injured or, killed in a traffic accident because he/ she freely chooses to use or not to use a seat belt, that is a personal tragedy, as it is with all other kinds of freely chosen risks in life. However, if a person is injured or killed in a traffic accident because the government forced that person to use a seat belt, that is tyranny working, and reflects injury and death by government. PRIMARY .ENFORCEMENT STATES The insidious nature of seat belt laws is shown even further in states with primary enforcement. The following are examples of what can happen when a state passes a primary enforcement law. 1. Your vehicle can be stopped anytime, day or night, by the police merely under the suspicion a seat belt is not being used. And even if the officer is mistaken, once the vehicle is stopped the officer can begin routine interrogation and testing -force occupants to exit -visually check out the contents of the inside of the vehicle looking for any kind of a violation of the law, all without the right of legal counsel; all under the pretense of not using a seat belt. 2. Primary enforcement encourages the use of random roadblocks. Example: In a 1994 statewide campaign, North Carolina conducted 2,038 roadblocks in just two weeks under the pretext of checking for seat belt use. In spite of further use of random roadblocks that year, which the governor boasted increased seat belt use to 80%, total highway fatalities actually increased in the state for 1994 over the record of each of the preceding 3 years. 3. If not using a seat belt, you could be stopped for a minor traffic violation that otherwise would be ignored if using a seat belt. You may also be targeted because of a bumper sticker, your license plate, your age, race, or gender. Primary enforcement opens the door for police harassment, intimidtation and profiling. Young people, women and minorities are vulnerable, especially when traveling alone and at night, or in certain neighborhoods. 4. You may be subject to an officer"s misinterpretation of your answers, your attittide, or what the officer sees in your vehicle. You could become the victim of a corrupt act such as planting drugs in your vehicle by an officer. You could be accused of using drugs because the cash in your possession has the odor of drugs. Officers can confiscate your cash and vehicle if there is some drug residue without proving you knew about or caused the residue to be there. Courts have recognized most currency in circulation has some discernible drug residue. It is reported that 80% of the assets confiscated by law enforcement do not lead to a criminal charge, but only a small percent is ever returned. Confiscation of assets has become a lucrative business for some police agencies and offers big incentives to increase roadblocks and speed traps. 5. Some states issue a seat belt violation fine against the driver even if the driver is using a seat belt but a passenger is not, and even if the driver did not know about it. Drivers, therefore, could easily become distracted while driving by a constant watch of passengers, both adults and children in the rear seat. 6. Primary enforcement is an easy way to enhance state revenue through fines. Also, additional income comes from the federal government in the form of grants (bribes) to pay the police to enforce the seat belt law. Such grants are used by the police as lucrative overtime pay while enforcing the seat belt law, which is why the police support primary enforcement laws. And in some areas where job performance standards include a citation quota, seat belt violations offer easy compliance. 7. Some insurance companies target seat belt law violations as an excuse to increase rates even for drivers without an accident or violation record. In fact, even if you habitually use a seat belt but forget just once, that might be the time an officer stops your vehicle, thus your driving record is unjustly marred. 8. Some states level points against the driver's license for not using a seat belt in addition to a fine, which means a person is being punished twice for the same offence. Also, it means a driver's license could eventually be suspended for repeated offences even if the driver has been a careful driver for years with no accident or moving traffic violation. 9. If you are medically exempt from seat belt use, your vehicle could still be stopped since an officer cannot know until you are stopped. This applies to drivers who are using a seat belt but a passenger is not using one because of an exemption. Even with a medical exemption, once the vehicles is stopped, the officer can begin routine interrogation, testing and visually looking for any kind of a violation of the law. Also, persons with medical exemptions are subject to being stopped repeatedly during any travel route by other officers along the way. Further, providing an officer with your confidential medical records and reason for the exemption is a violation of your right of privacy. 10. It should be noted, the National Traffic Safety Administration, a federal agency, in a 1995 study: Safety Belt Use Law -An Evaluation of Primary Enforcement and Other Provisions, stated: "The analysis suggests that belt use among fatally injured occupants was at least 15 percent higher in states with primary enforcement laws." 1l. Primary enforcement is promoted as saving lives; however, stopping vehicles for non-seat belt use is only an excuse to arbitrarily and capriciously accuse people of traffic violations of one kind or another, thus issuing citations as a means of easily increasing state revenue and providing lucrative overtime pay for the police at the expense of fleecing the motoring public. EXAMPLES OF THE MARCH OF TYRANNY AS A RESULT OF PASSING A SEAT BELT LAW. Illinois In 1965, the Illinois legislature passed a motorcycle helmet law and the Illinois supreme court ruled that such a law was unconstitutional, thus negating forced helmet use. That ruling remained unchallenged for twenty years. In 1985, the Illinois legislature passed a seat belt harness law which was promptly challenged as was the helmet law. However, this time around there were new judges on the Illinois supreme court who did not have the same respect for individual freedom as expressed in the U .S. Constitution as did those judges in 1965. The 1985 Illinois supreme court judges set the challenge aside in order gain time to work out a solution. It was most obvious that if the Illinois motorcycle helmet law was unconstitutional in 1965, so must be the 1985 Illinois seat belt law. Being more political then the 1965 Illinois supreme court judges, the 1985 judges decided to first take up the 1965 ruling on the helmet law and they "found" that the 1965 judges were in error, although no one thought of that for twenty years of Illinois jurisprudence. As a result of their sudden insight, the 1985 supreme court judges merely reversed the 1965 ruling against the helmet law. After reversing the 1965 helmet law ruling, the 1985 judges now took up the challenge of the 1985 seat belt law and, suddenly, there was no problem anymore and, therefore, the 1985 judges cleverly ruled the Illinois seat belt law was constitutional. Strange how for twenty years that point was never raised before, which shows how judges can be just as political in their decisions as those in the legislature. So much for honesty in government! Texas The U.S. Supreme Court, in 2001, ruled in the Atwater/Largo Vista case (Texas), that it was constitutional for a police officer to stop a woman (note "seize" in the Fourth Amendment), handcuff and jail her, as well as impound her vehicle, for not using a seat belt. This case shows even the U.S. Supreme Court is confused about constitutional rights since in the cases cited in item #9 in the first part of this article, the court ruled in favor of the right to freely choose one's safety and health standard. REFERENCES (1) The first eight amendments of the Bill of Rights are individual rights. They are orders to government and its employees (bureaucrats). They cannot be taken away by legislation or popular vote. ( 2) In an article by Dr. Adams,"Risk Homeostasis and the purpose of safety regulations," Ergonomic magazine, (England), 1988, vol. 31, no.4, 407-428, he states: "There is also a wide disparity in the publicity given to opposite sides of the argument. Almost any snippet of evidence suggesting a beneficial effect for seat belt legislation stands a chance of receiving wide publicity in the press or on television. Repeatedly 'editorial reasons' are found for not publishing evidence which casts doubt on the claims made for seat belt legislation." In the Handbook ofTranportation Science, (Kluwer Academic, 1999), Dr. L. Evans gives in chap. 4, p 99, five claims made by air bag supporters and then states: " All five are false." Further: "For 30 years the public was inundated with messages grossly overestimating the benefits and ignoring the negatives of air bags." It should be noted, Dr. Evans supports seat belt laws while condemning air bags. However, there is no reason not to assume the same kind of manipulation of statistics in favor of air bags that Dr. Evans says are false, does not also apply to the statistics in support of seat belt laws. (3) The Washington Post, February 7, 1988, reported that an estimated 300 multimillion- dollar lawsuits are "now facing automakers." (4) The U.S. Supreme Court in 1991 ruled that management of Johnson Controls, a Milwaukee based auto battery company, could not prohibit women of child -bearing age to apply for a higher paying job that involved exposure to lead products since such exposure is known to be dangerous to a woman's reproductive organs. The Court said such a decision must be the free choice of each woman and not management, once all job hazards have been fully disclosed. (5) Journal. of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 32, 1987, "Seat Belts and Human Rights: AnAppraisal", by Stephen R. Greenberg, Ph. D. (Excerpt): "In an attempt to arouse favorable public opinion for the use of restraints in cars, many state governments encouraged statisticians and experts in the field of public safety to report only positive findings regarding the use of these devices. Such data would free the automotive industry from having to install the more costly air bag system because of governmental influence, ultimately pricing their products beyond the reach of many potential customers." (6) A reporter for a Florida newspaper (Sentinal) who was nominated for a Pulitzer prize for his air bag articles ( The rest of this paragraph was apparently omitted due to a typographical error. S.S., ed.) (7) American Journal of Public Health, 11-74, " A Controlled Study of the Effect of Television Messages on Safety Belt Use." Conclusion: (The) "study shows that television campaigns do not have any effect on use of safety belts, thus supporting the argument that approaches directed toward changing behavior are inefficient and often ineffective means of reducing highway losses." (8) Dr. Adams' 1985 book (out of print), "Risk and Freedom," covers the subject in more detail. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION www.seatbeltchoice.com www.lewrockwell.com.orig3 /holdorfl.html "Repeal Seat Belt Law" www.lewrockwell.com.orig3/holdorf2.html "Return of the Kings's General Warrants" Ideas On Liberty magazine, September 2002; The Foundation For Economic Education. Irvington -on -Hudson, NY www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=5192 "The Fraud of Seat Belt Laws" Liberty magazine, May 1994, "Trafficking in Numbers," by G. Nettler, professor emeritus, University'of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. (Rev. 11-6-05) (Code: FREEDOM FIRST -1)