“Seatbelts Save Lives.” When I was growing up, I saw this slogan often. Even before seatbelt laws, ads encouraged people to wear seatbelts. I remember watching driving safety films in high school that graphically depicted what could happen if the driver or passengers of a car didn’t wear seatbelts. They also showed what could happen if the driver was distracted or drinking, but that’s another topic.
By now the results of wearing seatbelts should be indisputable. Countless lives have been saved and countless injuries have been prevented. Nevertheless, most seatbelt laws date from the 1990s. For decades, the auto industry claimed that putting seatbelts in cars would mean admitting they are not safe. And many people didn’t feel the need to wear them. Meanwhile racecar drivers wore harnesses and helmets to help them survive accidents.
The physics of automobile crashes show how much momentum a vehicle of a certain mass must shed as its velocity changes from X to zero. These numbers are a matter of science, not politics or ideology. Yet, we still have a sizeable percentage of the population who resent any intrusions on their “freedom,” such as laws requiring seatbelts or motorcycle helmets. And in recent years government restrictions like these have become partisan issues, with one party feeling the need to defend freedom against the other party’s attempt to over-regulate our lives. Indiana still does not have a helmet requirement for this reason.
On the surface, the ideology of “freedom” makes sense. Why shouldn’t I be able to decide for myself whether to wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet, or a mask in public, for that matter? Granted, it makes sense to require restraint systems for small children because they’re too young to decide and much more vulnerable than adults, but even so, “my body, my choice,” right?
Safety requirements based on science may be an inconvenience, or an imposition, but besides saving life and limb for those who comply, these also benefit others, and society in general. Wearing a seatbelt and shoulder harness, and to be fair, airbags, and better car designs have made it possible for many people to walk away from accidents rather than incur life-long disability or death. They, their spouses, and their children have been spared the loss of a loved one, and in many cases the loss of the loved one’s income as well. Society has benefitted by not having as many people become dependent on government support. Further, an accident involving personal injury draws in law enforcement and emergency services personnel, in some cases lifeline helicopter crews. All these individuals, not to mention those in other vehicles, are required to risk their lives, in some cases because others didn’t want any restrictions on their personal “freedom.”
John Locke wrote that liberty does not mean license. With freedom comes responsibility. Freedom means thinking about how our actions might affect others, not just ourselves. All choices have ripple effects – consequences to others – some foreseeable, such as those above. Some we just can’t predict. And exercising our freedom also involves using objective facts and logic.
So, why is it necessary to write seatbelt laws, product safety regulations, or government guidance to stay-at-home? Because too many people can’t see past their own interests. Their personal “freedom” seems more important than the potential effects of their choices on others. And without the reminder of law, some people “forget” to wear seatbelts or helmets. Without government involvement some people might even “forget” to wash their hands. Steve Martin once joked about such a defense for a murder charge…Prosecutor: “Didn’t you know killing someone is against the law?” Defendant: “I forgot!”
Some think like “The Coyote” in the old “Roadrunner” cartoons and look for easy one-step solutions to complex problems. It would be great if “all we have to do” is the one thing that “sounds good” or “looks about right” and everything else would fall into place. The Coyote thought all he had to so was shoot himself out of a canon and he would catch The Roadrunner, but it never worked out that way. His reliance on a simple, one-step, solution to his problem always brought a cascade of painful failures. But I still give him a lot of credit for perseverance.
Coyote logic tells us that one-step will solve the problem, that what is true for me is true for everyone else, that one or a few examples represent the whole truth, that the possibility something is true therefore makes it likely, or that likelihood somehow equals proof. Meanwhile, scientific logic asks other questions. After I do this, then what? What if I’m wrong? What if it’s not all about me? What if I’m not seeing the big picture? What am I missing? What if it’s not just “freedom” versus “oppression?” If Wile E. Coyote had asked these kinds of questions, he might have caught The Roadrunner.
I’ve heard some Baby Boomers say they grew up not wearing seatbelts and they lived. This is called the “survivor fallacy,” AKA, “dead men tell no tales.” Of course, it’s easy to draw the conclusion you don’t need seatbelts if you’re still alive and the odds have been in your favor. Those who lost their lives remain unable to comment. In 2008, I heard a radio personality say he thought the economy was doing fine – because he just got a new contract with a sizeable increase. Sadly, his contract had nothing to do with what millions of other people were experiencing.
The same kind of Coyote logic tells some people they don’t need to take a flu shot, practice social distancing, or wear masks in public. “I’ve been doing just fine without these things. I’m willing to take the risk.” But are we willing to risk the lives and long-term health of others, of healthcare workers, of our families and friends? Science tells us eventually a large percentage of the population will be exposed to the newest coronavirus. Are we willing to try to slow its spread and to keep the more vulnerable safe? Or are we determined to make this choice about partisanship? Like seatbelts and helmets, choices like this should not be a matter of taking sides, but using our freedom responsibly.
MurrayWorks 