OPINION: Forced compliance
If it's springtime, it must be time for the seemingly annual attempt in the Legislature to make seat belt use a primary traffic offense in Colorado. The state already has a law requiring the use of safety belts for drivers, front-seat passengers and many minors, but police can write citations for violations if they've stopped the driver for another offense, such as a broken taillight, running a stop sign or another violation. That's called a secondary violation. The bill that passed out of the Senate on Thursday would enable law enforcement officers to stop drivers they observe not using a safety belt.
Let's get a few things straight before continuing. Data from a variety of sources show that wearing safety belts increases survivability and lessens the chance of serious injuries in automobile accidents. That being the case, it makes sense to use them. So all you trauma doctors and nurses don't need to write in to object to this editorial. The editorial board knows the facts and Our View isn't suggesting drivers ignore the statistics and the law. But it is suggesting Colorado doesn't need another law that will be difficult to enforce and would likely have a marginal return for the enforcement effort involved.
Colorado already has about 80 percent compliance with the current law. A new law isn't likely to make that figure climb much higher.
If the law passes, will motorists see police officers giving them an extra once-over as they pass on the street? Would such extra attention draw officers' attention away from their own driving? A police officer's job is difficult enough without asking them to pay special attention to whether other drivers are wearing safety belts.
Another troubling aspect of this bill is the federal funding tied to it. Bill sponsor Sen. Betty Boyd, D-Lakewood, said the federal government would send the state $12 million if the bill passes, but might penalize it if it fails. "It's an incentive we can't afford to thumb our nose at. It makes perfect sense," she said. Actually, senator, it's a bribe we must pass up if Coloradans have any hope of avoiding every edict that comes down from Washington.
In theory, the U.S. Constitution limits the power and authority of the federal government and the Tenth Amendment specifically leaves any unenumerated authority in the hands of the states and the people. These days, however, whenever some federal lawmaker or bureaucrat wants to usurp that authority, they'll often use coercion and extortion to encourage states to toe the federal line. We should resist all such efforts; if a law is good for Colorado, it should stand on its own, without the threat of federal penalties pushing it through the Statehouse.
Even without the problem of federal meddling in the state's business, this bill is troubling. It seeks to limit the choices of individuals, supposedly for their own good.
Apparently the 20 percent of Colorado drivers not in compliance with the current law need the state to reach into their cars and buckle their safety belts, because, you know, they're not really capable of making decisions for themselves. Not every senator believes that, though. The bill passed the Senate 25-10, with all the Republicans and one Democrat voting against it. According to a story in Friday's Gazette, "Sen. Greg Brophy, R-Wray, said if the Legislature's aim was to protect public health it should also require every citizen to exercise or use sunscreen or outlaw smoking." Although Boyd called Brophy's concerns "craziness," he's right to worry. Boyd's comments regarding the federal funds show her willingness to bend Coloradans to the will of the government in Washington. With the Obama administration's goal of more government involvement in health care, it's not a stretch to anticipate more regulation of our lives, for our own good, you understand. If Boyd and others can't admit that, they're either not very forward-thinking or they're simply dishonest.
Some will argue that this isn't end-of-our-freedom legislation, and they're right. But it is one more small step of taking responsibility away from free citizens who must be free to make their own decisions.
Concerns about their actions costing the rest of us in higher Medicaid costs and insurance premiums, while valid, should be addressed in other ways, perhaps by limiting payouts in cases in which it is determined that a driver was responsible for his situation by failing to use safety equipment in cars. Let the market address any perceived problem with people not buckling up when they get on the roadways. As Ben Franklin once said, "experience is a hard school, but some will learn in no other.''
