Seat belts, not state belts

Tuesday, April 12, should have been the last day any IU student ever drove without a seat belt fully secured. Before that date, you might have gotten away with claiming ignorance or laziness, but now you know. From this point on, take heed and buckle up. \nOn that day, the death of Ashley Crouse occurred in a tragic hit-and-run accident. She was the passenger in a Jeep Grand Cherokee -- the only fatality, the only one not buckled. I find myself thinking more and more about all the times I've told myself that seat belts are unnecessary if it's a short drive around campus. \nWith a student death so fresh in our minds, whatever excuse I had that might have prevented pulling down that strap is gone. \nBless the Crouse family, the women of Kappa Kappa Gamma and anyone else who knew her, as these must be excruciating times. Keep situations like theirs in mind when you enter one of the most dangerous and prolific weapons of all time: the automobile. I implore you to lock yourself down before you put the car in drive. \nJust like Emilla Bristow said in Tuesday's Jordan River Forum in the Indiana Daily Student, "Hopefully ... everyone realizes just how reckless it is to ride in a car without using a seat belt."\nThere's no doubt that seat belts save lives and are a necessary precaution. But with that said, mandating who wears a seat belt is senseless, though it is law in Indiana. Adults who drive or ride in car have working seat belts should be able to make a choice as to whether they want to strap in before they drive. Mandating the use of seat belts for fully competent adults is comparable to banning cigarette smoking. The government doesn't have the authority to dictate whether or not people can put themselves in danger.\nA counterargument has been made that accident clean up and medical care place a higher burden on the state (and therefore the taxpayers) when drivers choose not to wear the belt. But if police officers must spend their time ticketing drivers without seat belts, they therefore create a similar burden on the taxpayers.\nMuch could be done to ensure that drivers (and passengers) are better informed and more capable drivers. Laws upon laws could be passed that would make the modern automobile and road much safer for everyone involved. Money could also be allocated to enforce and patrol speed limits and safer roads.\nThe state could certainly be more active in reducing dependence on cars. Planning cities with more density (rather than sprawl, which increases dependence on cars), creating more bike lanes and sidewalks and increasing bussing are allocations of money that could reduce more than just the number of people not wearing their seat belts. Using tax payer dollars in those ways could reduce dependence on foreign oil, reduce obesity or reduce carbon dioxide emissions. \nThe burden of safety on the road is ultimately on the people who use it: the drivers. The state's role should therefore be to educate or train better drivers and produce better driving conditions.\nIt's hard to argue that a crime has been committed when there is no victim per se, as is the case of fining seat belt offenders. And random seat belt checks will not force those who refuse to wear their seat belts to do just that. Worse yet, the money necessary to fund the "Operation Pullovers" around the nation could be better spent on the prevention of urgent crimes.\nWear your seatbelt -- just do it. It's not lawmakers' responsibility to force you to take care of yourself -- it's yours.