Seat Belt Submission

Buckle up! Because today we're going to answer an important question that few people ask.

Namely, are seat belt requirements really about protecting lives... or is something else going on?

Image courtesy of Remy Lovesy

Drivers' Ed

Not that long ago, the act of fastening a seat belt was considered kind of weird. For the first fifteen years after carmakers were mandated to install the apparatus, only about 14% of Americans used it. That all changed in 1984, when New York started a chain reaction that snowballed into enforcement law enactments throughout the land, save New Hampshire, by 1996.

Fast forward to 2025. Strapping in has become second nature for most Americans. Over 90% of drivers and passengers do it religiously. There are a pair of obvious reasons why individuals engage in this behavior at such an astonishing clip: they don't want to get hurt and they loathe paying fines. Of the two, bulwarking bank accounts is the primary motivating factor. That isn't speculation. In virtually every case, state-specific seat belt adoption shot through the roof only after laws were passed to punish the noncompliant.

Regardless, in little more than a generation, almost an entire country has obediently submitted. Opposition to the practice -- and the coercion surrounding it -- is exceedingly rare. You'd have better luck finding a needle in a haystack than you would locating a campaign against harness culture. Given the history of the seat belt situation, that's actually quite surprising...

Taken for a Ride

What if I told you that one guy is largely responsible for restraining hundreds of millions? As nutty as it sounds, it's true! His name was John States, an orthopedic surgeon who devoted a huge portion of his life to reshaping the protocols of the automotive world. Doctor Seatbelt, as he was eventually called, began ratcheting up the pressure upon cofounding the still-powerful Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM). By the 1970s, he had seeded standards and recommendations into various journals of medicine, patented latch technology, championed airbags, and vigorously tapped into funding from federal/state/corporate sources.

Come 1984, the doctor was ready to push in his whole stack. Armed with the AAAM injury scale he helped develop, John States drafted (and lobbied for) the New York law that ultimately became the dystopic domino that knocked down bodily autonomy for drivers and passengers everywhere outside of New Hampshire.

From that moment on, John assumed somewhat of a backseat role in the crusade. Governments and NGOs grabbed control of the wheel, spouting rhetoric like "Click It or Ticket." Advocates repeatedly insisted that the unbelted posed a threat to occupants of other cars, despite a categorical undressing of the "human missile argument" in the New York Times. More recently, racial affinity groups like Aspira and the Congressional Black Caucus have thrown their full support behind rather extreme versions of policing this supposed "urgent national health priority." *

In foreseeable fashion, state legislatures went from rejecting the concept in the Reagan years, to sneaking it in as a secondary enforcement measure (parlance for limiting infractions to cop interactions initiated by other causes) during his successor's term, to the preponderance (70%) of the nation later deeming it a 'pull over' offense in its own right.

Showing Restraint

North Dakota is well aware of this punitive escalation. It was one of the final states to bend the knee, opting for a secondary framework in 1994. That status held until 2023, when lawmakers tightened the screws by converting to primary and increasing the fines in lockstep.

Fairly typical stuff, with one notable exception: there was a brief window in 2021 where fate teased a turn toward freedom. State senator Jeffrey Magrum (who was a representative then) introduced HB1257 to fully liberate adults in ND from seat belt regulations. While it failed to reach the governor's desk, we can learn a lot from Magrum's brave gesture.

For starters, journalists injected bias into the first sentence of their reporting, labeling HB1257 supporters "ultra-conservative." As in, the writer and editors strongly implied that only the fringiest members of the GOP would dare contemplate such a stance.

Next, take a glance at who came out of the woodwork to provide verbal and written testimony. You'll notice a conga line of agency and association spokespeople fiercely opposed the proposal. My personal favorite was the coordinator of a Grand Forks 501(c)(3) who relayed her dismay over the financial repercussions for North Dakota of decriminalizing the beltless. Mind you, this is the same woman who begged a county commission not to cut the $25,000 tabbed for her program... an operation that presents itself as a small potatoes grassroots coalition despite being housed within a billion-dollar health system AND aligned with a worldwide charity that paid out over three million in compensation to its chief executive in 2022!

Shockingly, the previous tidbit wasn't the most memorable takeaway. Thanks to Senator Magrum, I got a peek behind the scenes. According to the politician from Hazelton, he was going to float another bill this year to rein back 2023's changes but was advised not to bother because too many of his colleagues (in a chamber that is 89% red) have grown accustomed to the status quo. "It amazes me that people are willing to accept this stuff as time goes on," said Magrum.

Under Influence

Clearly, Dr. Seatbelt's constrictive dreams are now our overreaching reality. But if they're saving thousands of lives annually, why would anybody fight them? I'll tell you why... because it's stolen self-determination from the populace in the exchange. On a subliminal level, seat belt severity has gotten us to acquiesce to the idea of stifling ourselves in service of safety. **

Lest you dismiss these concerns out of hand, let's spend a moment reviewing social influence. This core pillar of psychology revolves around three notions: conformity, compliance, and obedience. Each one, in its own way, alters attitudes and actions. When subjected to these forces over a prolonged period of time, people naturally demonstrate a tendency to change their opinions "so as to bring (them) into correspondence with what (they've) done or said," especially if the penance is relatively mild.

There's also a ton of research on the mental drawbacks of physical restraint. Restrictive practices can "leave lasting psychological harm" by "strip(ping) away a person's sense of dignity and autonomy." This "loss of control can feel dehumanizing." Kids are particularly susceptible to developmental trauma... which is why UK experts believe it "should only be used as a last resort." And mice have proven the desensitizing repercussions of repetition. Whether in a clinical setting or in the family minivan, coercion tramples "liberty of movement and decision-making."

Utilizing a psychiatric lens (with the aforementioned contours) sheds an altogether new light on the seat belt debate, wouldn't you agree? It's easier to see the ethical ramifications of compelling self-shackling. It gets to the bottom of why that incessant dashboard ding is extra annoying. It likely raises alarms related to cradle to grave abidance. Plus, it maybe explains why infractions cost a moderate amount, since pricing them higher might awaken violators' dormant defiance.

One thing is for sure. It definitely clarifies why so many obliged uncritically so quickly.

Roadside Assistance

Is it possible to unwind this societal experiment? Only if enough citizens loudly denounce it.

Seat belt defenders will, of course, try to stop any attempt at rollback. They'll cite whatever macabre stat they can to maintain the new normal. Tarnishing the reputation of anyone looking to loosen laws won't concern them one iota; they'll cast opponents as monsters for suggesting it.

As if the character assassination wasn't daunting enough, the paradoxes frustrate iconoclasts to no end. For instance, let's isolate the lone outlier, New Hampshire. NH registered 71 passenger vehicle occupant*** fatalities in 2023, placing it in a de facto tie for second safest per capita of the ten tiniest states. Considering the other nine average close to a 90% belted rate between them, perhaps enforcement laden with financial penalties isn't the panacea it's been promised to be.

Honestly, it wouldn't take much more than quoting the NHTSA's 12/16/24 press release to demonstrate how out of whack their relationship with death counts is. The USDOT division unironically thinks it can reduce national road deaths to ZERO! To help achieve their goal, they've lined up a battery of new nuisances for manufacturers and passengers alike... which theoretically may combine to lower the overall total by a single human per state per year.

Sadly, even an unassailable assault on their figures is no match for the deflection, dismissal, and drama they would deploy. It'll take a vast supply of what Senator Magrum refers to as "principled energy" to defeat their emotional arguments. He can't be the only one firing back at the media about the slippery slope of safety. Average Joes have to hammer home the risk profile difference between a local grocery trip and a white-knuckled slog on an icy highway. Others need to probe the possibility that anti-intoxication programs (which followed a nearly identical chronological trajectory) saved many of the lives attributed to polyester protection yanked across chests.

Above all, the dangers of criminalizing self-risk and 'government compulsion creep' must be stressed. Opting to wear a seat belt? Avoiding fatty foods? Voting? Their body, their choice. Throwing the book at someone else for doing the opposite? That's downright un-American!

Note: the post above may contain commentary reflecting the author's opinion.

This site does not render legal advice, nor does it intend to replace legal advice.

*Generally speaking, giving officers additional reasons to detain persons of color isn't a popular viewpoint with those they represent.

**No matter who tries to corrupt it, Ben Franklin's 'those who give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither' dogma endures

***By the by, what's with the repeated references to non-occupants (like pedestrians) adjacent to seat belt data? Are stats being blended?

Image courtesy of Therese Mikkelsen