New Hampshire, Join The Rest Of Us

(CBS)  When I was a kid, I became intrigued by the state mottos that I saw on various license plates. Growing up in Chicago, I was used to seeing "Land of Lincoln," and that slogan seemed perfectly acceptable. I actually felt bad for the people of Oklahoma whose license plates bore the motto, "Oklahoma is OK." My feeling was that if you're going to brag about your state, then brag about it. Don't say it's just "OK." You don't see Texas plates saying, "Texas Is So-So." New Mexico's "Land of Enchantment" was alluring to a city kid, but New Hampshire's motto topped them all. The first time I saw "Live Free or Die" on a license plate, I knew that it had to be the best slogan of any state. I loved its defiant pride. But now, in the area of seat belts and safety, that spirit of "nobody's going to tell us what to do" just doesn't make sense.

Currently, New Hampshire is the only state that doesn't have a mandatory seat belt law. They do require that restraints be used for children and teenagers, but not for adults. Wednesday (May 31), their state senate is scheduled to vote on such a bill. The New Hampshire Senate Transportation and Interstate Committee voted three to two to recommend that the bill be killed. If it is, obviously some of the people of New Hampshire will also suffer that fate.

One member of the committee who voted against the bill, Bob Clegg, says, "I choose not to buckle, and I think it's baloney that the government would tell me that I have to, or else."

New Hampshire has the lowest rate of seat belt use in the country, 49 percent, according to the National Transportation Safety Board — no doubt an organization that Clegg and others consider a bunch of outsiders pushing "baloney." However, New Hampshire's own Safety Department says that last year 77 percent of fatal crashes in the state involved people who were not wearing seat belts.

So it's not surprising that many people in New Hampshire believe that seat belts save lives. But that doesn't mean that they think there should be a law requiring their use.

Some of them feel that a law in "stay out of my business" New Hampshire might backfire. Another committee member who voted against the bill, state senator Robert J. Letourneau, said that requiring people to do things breeds resentment, while encouraging them doesn't. So he and others are afraid that if there's a law "forcing" people to use seat belts, the people of New Hampshire will rebel and have the attitude of, "Nobody can tell me what I can do in my own car," and actually use seat belts less than if there were no law.

It seems to me that this attitude underestimates the people of New Hampshire. Any group that could come up with "Live Free or Die" is not stupid. They're not a bunch of immature adolescents who resent it when their parents say they have to do their homework before they go out, and then don't do their homework and sneak out. We're talking about mature, intelligent adults. Just to be defiant, do they speed up when they see a sign that says "School Zone?" Do they sell liquor to kids because they resent that there's a law against it? Do they go to work naked because they don't feel the government should tell them they have to wear clothes?

Some people believe, "If the only one I may hurt is me, why should the government be involved?" Proponents of seat belt laws point out that New Hampshire would get $3.7 million from the Federal government for enacting a seat belt bill, and the state would save an estimated $48 million in medical costs. That money's not "baloney."

Putting money aside, if you are a victim of an accident because you don't use a seat belt, you aren't the only one affected — what about the loved ones left behind? Should they have to suffer because you wanted the government to "mind its own business?"

Obviously, I'm hoping that common sense will prevail and that New Hampshire will join the rest of the nation and pass a seat belt bill. If not, I'm afraid that their motto might have to be changed to, "Live Free And Die."

---

Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from "Sesame Street" to "Family Ties" to "Frasier." He has also read many books, some of them while in a car (but not while driving).

By Lloyd Garver

[michellem99-2009]

I am a Mainer and I live in the west but my heart is all Maine-New England. I know being out here everybudy is nosy /a busy body. I hate seat belts but will wear them if in a car. WA state it is 101 dollar ticket. I am an outsider here. I say wear the seats but I don't like the nanny govt and the nanny is GW Bush for starters. While I see the common sense in donning seat belt for safety reasons. I also feel drivers need to realise there are persons on foot. They need to look out for us. I am a legally blind person and I ask that you be aware of others. Also I have family in New England. As a Maine born and raised person,Plese use your seat belt as I have lived in NH and by now they would be wearing seat belts. My Dad hates them but in ME he must. NH must too.

[perimogi]

Seat belts save lives, having said that, how far should a government go to protect people from themselves. So far, no governmental entity has banned the sale of cigarettes in there jurisdiction, yet, that would save millions of lives and millions of dollars. When the government is willing to stop the sale of cigarettes (although they can not afford the loss of the tax revenue), they can order people to wear seat belts. Until then stay out of it.

[vampire1288]

MY STATE INDIANA JUST CHANGED THE LAW TO ADD TRUCKS TO THE SEAT BELT LAW.. WHILE STILL ALLOWING MOTORCYCLES TO BE RIDEN WITHOUT A HELMET...WHEN THE PAPER PUBLISHES THE TRAFFIC TICKETS/ARRESTS FOR THE MONTH MOST OF THEM ARE SEAT BELT TICKETS... SOME POLICE SAY THE SEAT BELT LAW IS THE GREATEST AS THERE IS ALMOST NO DEFENSE AGAINST IT..AND IT IS A PAYABLE TICKET SO 0NE DOESEN'T LOSE A DAYS WORK TO GO TO COURT..AND THE MONEY COMES ROLLING IN...

[vampire1288]

MY STATE INDIANA JUST CHANGED THE LAW TO ADD TRUCKS TO THE SEAT BELT LAW.. WHILE STILL ALLOWING MOTORCYCLES TO BE RIDEN WITHOUT A HELMET...WHEN THE PAPER PUBLISHES THE TRAFFIC TICKETS/ARRESTS FOR THE MONTH MOST OF THEM ARE SEAT BELT TICKETS... SOME POLICE SAY THE SEAT BELT LAW IS THE GREATEST AS THERE IS ALMOST NO DEFENSE AGAINST IT..AND IT IS A PAYABLE TICKET SO 0NE DOESEN'T LOSE A DAYS WORK TO GO TO COURT..AND THE MONEY COMES ROLLING IN...

[vampire1288]

MY STATE INDIANA JUST CHANGED THE LAW TO ADD TRUCKS TO THE SEAT BELT LAW.. WHILE STILL ALLOWING MOTORCYCLES TO BE RIDEN WITHOUT A HELMET...WHEN THE PAPER PUBLISHES THE TRAFFIC TICKETS/ARRESTS FOR THE MONTH MOST OF THEM ARE SEAT BELT TICKETS... SOME POLICE SAY THE SEAT BELT LAW IS THE GREATEST AS THERE IS ALMOST NO DEFENSE AGAINST IT..AND IT IS A PAYABLE TICKET SO 0NE DOESEN'T LOSE A DAYS WORK TO GO TO COURT..AND THE MONEY COMES ROLLING IN...

[toddpw01]

Seatbelt education makes a lot of sense as a public service advertisement. Making it a law just seems like a great revenue stream for local law enforcement.

I've had my life saved twice by seatbelts but there are also times when I think it's idiotic that I am required by law to wear one. Are you going to ticket me for moving my car to a better space in an emptied parking lot without using my seat belt?

Natural selection will eliminate the people who weren't wearing seatbelts when they really should have. I find it stupid that some people preach individual responsibility while at the same time demanding that we be protected from our own bad judgement.

[nh4ronpaul]

UGH sorry...best slogan, best state, currently being ruined by Democrats!

NO SEATBELTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[diskman111]

Most of government regulations about the building, sale, registration, licensing, and operation of motor vehicles don't just affect the safety of the operator, they are designed for the safety of passengers and others on the road as well. Not wearing a seatbelt does not put a passenger or other drivers at risk. The responsibility lies with the risk taker alone.

The EMT from NY sited what I can only guess as tragedies he/she witnessed, and yet NY has a seatbelt law, so it doesn't fix the problem. Just like there are laws against suicide, does that prevent them? No. It might make society feel better, but it doesn't fix/prevent the problem.

As I stated earlier, I use my seatbelt all the time, and require all passengers in my vehicle to use them...but it's my choice. There's a point where you ask yourself where does it stop. What will be regulated next? It's not a knee jerk reaction, it's a reaction of having even common sense issues being dictated by laws. It's common sense not to jump out of an airplane, but do you deny the right of someone who enjoys it, to do it?

[mystixa]

Its obvious that the author doesnt have the vaguest idea what the whole notion of 'live free or die' means. That a law seems like 'common sense' is not enough. The idea of freedom, and a right to a lack of restriction is justification enough in itself.

These arguments about who we 'eave behind' are immaterial. Common sense to americans used to be that we live in the land of the free, not the land of the regulated.

Wed all be safer if noone drove cars, if we all telecommuted. Wed be safer if there is safety tape in all our showers and no aspirin in the medicine cabinet, and if our government was chosen for us. It doesnt mean there should be laws to that effect.

[limited94]

Why is that we can ride motorcycles? You don't have to wear a seatbelt, and rightfully so. But if the argument is that you must wear a seatbelt so that if you get in an accident, you will be safer, then how can you argue that it is ok to ride a motorcycle? If you get in a wreck, you will very likely be seriously hurt, so what is the safeguard? (and don't say helmet, that does'nt protect you from breaking a leg or neck)

I just don't understand how you can FORCE someone to wear a seatbelt, and then let a guy who wants to ride a motorcycle just fly on by.