Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am reading these posts and find it strange that people are looking at getting a summons for not wearing a seat belt is similar to be arrested for not wearing one. I am a retired NYC police officer and have been to the scene of many accidents. I have seen what can happen to someone not wearing their seat belt as compared to someone in a similar accident wearing one. There is a definite difference between what happens to someone wearing one and someone not wearing one. Someone knowing that they can get a summons for not wearing a seat belt may not wear one anyway. After being issued a summons or two for it may persuade that same person to wear it. With that being said, here in NY officers can use their discretion for traffic violations. I have pulled over many more people not wearing their seat belt and explained to them why they should wear it and let them go more than I have pulled people over and actually written a summons for it.
A child in a booster seat is an entirely different situation. I would always issue a summons for someone with a child who should be in a booster seat. The reason for this is simple. A child is not going to use a booster seat on their own and a parent that does not put them in one is simply being irresponsible. Many tests have shown that children in a booster seat are safer than children that are not in one in a crash so any parent who does not put a child in one is clearly not looking out for the best interest of their child. It is not as if booster seats are expensive or difficult to use. I am amazed at the amount of people who have written posts in this thread and others that do not want to put their child in a booster seat. What is it that you find so difficult about using them?
With the above being said, if people do not agree with the laws in their community they have to take it up with the people that make the laws and let their voice be heard. Write letters, make phone calls, etc. If enough people are for or against a certain law the people that make the laws will listen. They will do this to use it as a point in their next election. Complaining to or about officers who can do nothing but enforce these laws is pointless since there is absolutely nothing they can do about it.
Cell phone use while driving is something that, in my opinion, should be a law. It is similar to a drunk driver in the sense the driver using the cell phone is not only putting his or her self at risk but also putting other people at risk. I have pulled people over whose driving was so erratic I would have sworn they were drunk but as approaching the vehicle I would see them using the cell phone. People do not realize how dangerous it actually is to drive while using the cell phone. For people who insist they drive fine while using the cell phone I will just say that people that drive drunk or impaired say they are fine while driving in that condition as well.
Ever see someone decapitated by their seat belt? It ain't a pretty sight. I still maintain that any action or non-action on my part that doesn't in any way harm another should be legal. I do wear my seat belt, most of the time. And I can say that it has saved my life or limb in an accident. I'm not arguing that they don't save lives, they do. My argument is that it is none of the government's business!
A seat-belt violation may not equate to an arrest or a felony charge, but it does equate to the state attempting to turn you from an officer of the law into a tax collector. That must grate on your nerves. I know it would mine, if that were my profession.
When the cop walks up to your window and says "License and registration, please", he is acting first as a tax enforcer, and only later does he get around to concerning himself with public safety. Your registration certificate is nothing but a receipt for having paid the annual tax on your vehicle, but that is his first priority. If you don't have that receipt, you go straight to jail, without even hearing about your burned out license plate light.
You are forgetting proof of insurance.
A traffic stop like that is generally a catch-all for everything from DUI, driving without a license, no insurance....all the way down to paying your vehicle resistration taxes and wearing a seatbelt.
I wouldn't trivialize it as a taxation stop, that certainly will vary by jurisdiction though.
Around here they are mainly after drunk\drugged drivers and no insurance.
Ever see someone decapitated by their seat belt? It ain't a pretty sight. I still maintain that any action or non-action on my part that doesn't in any way harm another should be legal. I do wear my seat belt, most of the time. And I can say that it has saved my life or limb in an accident. I'm not arguing that they don't save lives, they do. My argument is that it is none of the government's business!
I agree with you except that you want freedom but you don't have to take full personal responsibility for your actions. If you cripple yourself without a seatbelt you will get to collect government aid and so on and so forth.
I'd be 100% in favor of letting people do whatever they want if it doesn't put others at risk, if they signed some sort of waiver so that if they become a financial or other burden as a result that they take personal responsibility and not be allowed to collect tax dollars or benefits etc.
Perfect example: Helmet laws, sign an organ donor card and you get exempted is my suggestion. 5000 deaths a year on motorcycles in the US anyway, might as well get some organs out of the deal.
I agree with you except that you want freedom but you don't have to take full personal responsibility for your actions. If you cripple yourself without a seatbelt you will get to collect government aid and so on and so forth.
I'd be 100% in favor of letting people do whatever they want if it doesn't put others at risk, if they signed some sort of waiver so that if they become a financial or other burden as a result that they take personal responsibility and not be allowed to collect tax dollars or benefits etc.
Perfect example: Helmet laws, sign an organ donor card and you get exempted is my suggestion. 5000 deaths a year on motorcycles in the US anyway, might as well get some organs out of the deal.
I'm fully with you, except I don't feel the need to have the seat-belt laws or helmet laws at all. There need not be any waiver. Neither does their need to be a government safety net for such instances. People have insurance for such instances, let the matter remain between them and their insurance company. Insurance companies could then offer incentives, like lower rates for people who agree to buckle up, and then if they don't, and hurt themselves, they're released from their obligation to pay. Or you can pay the higher premium and not buckle up, but they pay for your treatment. And so on, and so forth.
The government does not need to be involved. If people choose to operate without insurance... well, there's that personal responsibility thing. You take your risks. Life itself is one big risk, and death will eventually get you. So it's just a matter of what level of risk is tolerable to you is an individual during your life.
I could possibly agree with the booster seat requirements, up to a point. But some countries are requiring them until kids are 12 years old, and making a 12 year old sit in a booster seat is absolutely absurd.
I'm fully with you, except I don't feel the need to have the seat-belt laws or helmet laws at all. There need not be any waiver. Neither does their need to be a government safety net for such instances. People have insurance for such instances, let the matter remain between them and their insurance company. Insurance companies could then offer incentives, like lower rates for people who agree to buckle up, and then if they don't, and hurt themselves, they're released from their obligation to pay. Or you can pay the higher premium and not buckle up, but they pay for your treatment. And so on, and so forth.
The government does not need to be involved. If people choose to operate without insurance... well, there's that personal responsibility thing. You take your risks. Life itself is one big risk, and death will eventually get you. So it's just a matter of what level of risk is tolerable to you is an individual during your life.
I could possibly agree with the booster seat requirements, up to a point. But some countries are requiring them until kids are 12 years old, and making a 12 year old sit in a booster seat is absolutely absurd.
I hear you, I'm merely offering real-life suggestions as those safety nets aren't going away. In reality, it's nice to be able to have the freedom to keep the safety nets with restrictions or do whatever the heck you want. Some people want the safety nets and this way everyone makes thier own choices and deals with the consequences. (as long as they aren't messing up others)
Ever see someone decapitated by their seat belt? It ain't a pretty sight. I still maintain that any action or non-action on my part that doesn't in any way harm another should be legal. I do wear my seat belt, most of the time. And I can say that it has saved my life or limb in an accident. I'm not arguing that they don't save lives, they do. My argument is that it is none of the government's business!
A seat-belt violation may not equate to an arrest or a felony charge, but it does equate to the state attempting to turn you from an officer of the law into a tax collector. That must grate on your nerves. I know it would mine, if that were my profession.
If an accident is sufficiently severe that you would be decapitated by your seat belt, you are not going to survive it without one. I will grant you that in some cases a seat belt will not save you (like being t-boned by a semi), but in most cases it will.
If you want an eye-opening experience, just take a look at the crash reports for Missouri, http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/HP68/search.jsp and use the filter for fatals. In more than 80 percent of fatal accidents, the person who died was unbelted and usually, if there is a belted person in the car, they survived, and often with only minor injuries.
Anyone who claims that not wearing a seatbelt does not matter is using logic that flys in the face of overwhelming statistical information.
The passenger compartments of modern cars are nearly as strong as the roll cages in 70's race cars. I have seen a Subaru Impreza rolled into a ball by an idiot playing rally driver and the passenger compartment was not significantly damaged. All four of the idiots in the car survived with only bruised muscles or ego. IAlways wear a seatbelt because I am safer when I do.
If it neither breaks your leg, nor picks your pocket, why do you care about it?
Any "human resource" pledged as collateral on the public debt is not allowed to damage his economic value to the creditor. Thus only "persons liable" are so restricted in their liberty. They no longer absolutely own themselves, and it is a crime to attempt suicide - or any self destructive action, so it seems.
Welcome to the People's Democratic Socialist Republic of America!
Where everything not mandatory will soon be forbidden.
If an accident is sufficiently severe that you would be decapitated by your seat belt, you are not going to survive it without one. I will grant you that in some cases a seat belt will not save you (like being t-boned by a semi), but in most cases it will.
If you want an eye-opening experience, just take a look at the crash reports for Missouri, Missouri State Highway Patrol - Crash Reports and use the filter for fatals. In more than 80 percent of fatal accidents, the person who died was unbelted and usually, if there is a belted person in the car, they survived, and often with only minor injuries.
Anyone who claims that not wearing a seatbelt does not matter is using logic that flys in the face of overwhelming statistical information.
20yrsinBranson
Wow, most of them didn't even survive long enough to go to the hospital.
I agree with the OP that we make mountains out of molehills most of the time.
As far as safety laws go, I don't have a problem with them for the most part. Sometimes they go overboard and because of that people just stop paying attention to them. That is a problem and that is why these things should be more broad rather than insanely specific, like how much a child weighs being the test for booster seats, etc.
For the record, my kid was big and was out of everything but the standard seatbelt at an early age and I would have fought tooth and nail anyone or anything that tried to force me/him to do anything different. It's not that I wasn't being careful with him, because I was, but not being careful in a specific, detailed way is what I have trouble with. If I was driving with him in my lap unrestrained then yea, that's a whole other matter and I'd have to agree I was endangering him and a fine would be appropriate.
Sometimes guidelines, rather than laws, are more appropriate. We can't get anything to 100% and it's stupid to try.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
