Seat Belt Tickets...Specious Law Overturned!

[Phatscotty]

If the state can tell you that you must wear a seat belt, then it can also tell you that you must wear a helmet, for you safety. It can tell you what to eat, what to wear, what to spend, what you can't have. The state can also tell you how many hours a day you can be out in the sun, in the name of safety.Skin cancer will be all the rage once the media says so.

[radiojake]

If the state can tell you that you must wear a seat belt, then it can also tell you that you must wear a helmet, for you safety. It can tell you what to eat, what to wear, what to spend, what you can't have. The state can also tell you how many hours a day you can be out in the sun, in the name of safety.Skin cancer will be all the rage once the media says so.

We already have helmet laws here for bicycles and the motorized variety - Fines are over $100 here in Melbourne if caught riding without one.
About 18 months ago I got caught turning left through a red light on my bicycle (we drive on the left-side of the road) in the city. The red light was for the trams and I was otherwise safe because there were no cars heading in my direction. Anyway, I didn't see the pigs behind me and they pulled me over and gave me a $293 fine. I couldn't believe how expensive it was- I've had speeding fines that haven't cost that much (a few years ago, mind you) - I think traffic infringment fines should be inline with how dangerous that act. A bicycle turning left is not $293 worth of danger.

Revenue raising at its finest.


( Re: OP - a seatbelt saved my life about 9 years ago - I think you are a moron if you do not wear them)

[PLAYER57832]

UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

Wait - according to you in assorted other posts,"the rest of us" are already paying your (children's) medical bills.

Do you support a reproductive ban on people at or below your income bracket so "the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills?"

As soon as you are willing to pay for my husband's fire service, both of our various community volunteer work, etc.

Oh, yes, and we have applied for insurance, but pre-existing conditions mean the companies refuse us, never mind that we paid into them for 30 years.

One system being broken doesn't justify keeping another one broken.

[PLAYER57832]

UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

OOOOOPS... we do. So, as long as we have to subsidize medical costs (insurance rarely covers everything in an accident), and potentially subsidize your disabilities, the state has the right to tell you to wear a seatbelt.

Reversing this law is not "power to the people", its "power to the stupid".

"this" is about reversing seat belt stings.

Which only matters if you think its OK to go without your seatbelt.
Stings are a touchy issue regardless, but to target this specifically (as opposed to ALL stings), is idiotic.

In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

[Phatscotty]

if the gov't is going to mandate seatbealt use, then it should force companies to build automatic seatbelts into all of its vehicles. no matter the cost.

people are always going to forget, and people are always going to say to themselves "but I'm just going 2 blocks" people are always going to say "I dont feel like wearing my seatbelt right now". Certainly, you understand. The fight will never be won, but it will raise a lot of revenue.

If you truly care about safety, then you should understand the safety aspect is being enforced all wrong.

[Woodruff]

UPDATE: In Minnesota we have repealed the part of the law that allows law enforcement to set up seat belt stings. Major victory here

Also, for states that have camera radar enforced tickets, look how these guys are fighting back, within the law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPt-AzyTcg

Power to the People

Fine, as long as the rest of us don't have to pay your medical bills when you get in an accident and don't have to support you and your kids if you become disabled.

OOOOOPS... we do. So, as long as we have to subsidize medical costs (insurance rarely covers everything in an accident), and potentially subsidize your disabilities, the state has the right to tell you to wear a seatbelt.

Reversing this law is not "power to the people", its "power to the stupid".

"this" is about reversing seat belt stings.

Which only matters if you think its OK to go without your seatbelt.

No, I must disagree. I absolutely believe in the seatbelt law. I do NOT believe in setting up areas to raise money by catching people not wearing their seatbelt.

In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

[Woodruff]

people are always going to forget

No. Once the habit is established, forgetting really doesn't happen. It's automatic.

and people are always going to say to themselves "but I'm just going 2 blocks" people are always going to say "I dont feel like wearing my seatbelt right now".

Then they suffer the consequences regarding the law.

[jay_a2j]

We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

[Phatscotty]

people are always going to forget

No. Once the habit is established, forgetting really doesn't happen. It's automatic.

and people are always going to say to themselves "but I'm just going 2 blocks" people are always going to say "I dont feel like wearing my seatbelt right now".

Then they suffer the consequences regarding the law.

Okay, but what about the point that it was focused on, that the regulation should be on the corporation to install built in auto-seat belts, not regulating the people driving to the corner store.

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

[Baron Von PWN]

people are always going to forget

No. Once the habit is established, forgetting really doesn't happen. It's automatic.

and people are always going to say to themselves "but I'm just going 2 blocks" people are always going to say "I dont feel like wearing my seatbelt right now".

Then they suffer the consequences regarding the law.

Okay, but what about the point that it was focused on, that the regulation should be on the corporation to install built in auto-seat belts, not regulating the people driving to the corner store.

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

because an auto buckling device is retarded. much simpler to have your car emit an irritating noise so long as your seatbelt is unbuckled.

Regardless a very simple way to avoid such a fine is to simply put on your seatbelt. " Blast! I'm safer now CURSE YOU GOVERNMENT!"

[Phatscotty]

the reality that seat belt tickets nation wide result in over 1 billion dollars in revenue for states. Can you at least acknowledge the conflict of interest, and that this law thrives on mistakes that people make.

What you advocate for and ridicule is a sub-conscious bowing down to authority every single time you get into your car. The citizen will be broken mentally to understand that if they do not take this action (buckling a belt) you might pay 200$, even though the specific act does not even provide safety, only encourages it for a possible future incident, where the odds say you have a better chance of survival/minimal injury.

It's a specious law. Specious - "apparently good or right though lacking real merit"

[PLAYER57832]

No, I must disagree. I absolutely believe in the seatbelt law. I do NOT believe in setting up areas to raise money by catching people not wearing their seatbelt.

In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

Often times, things like this get painted as "just a way to save money" because either some reporter wants to create controversy or someone thinks that is the "spin" people will hear most. In truth, the REAL money is not from tickets, but from the savings in medical costs. I do think that is worthy, though it has to be done within certain parameters.

[PLAYER57832]

We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

Pretty ironic for you crow about thinking for yourself! You have made it plain too many times you do not truly think for yourself.

[Phatscotty]

No, I must disagree. I absolutely believe in the seatbelt law. I do NOT believe in setting up areas to raise money by catching people not wearing their seatbelt.

In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

Often times, things like this get painted as "just a way to save money" because either some reporter wants to create controversy or someone thinks that is the "spin" people will hear most. In truth, the REAL money is not from tickets, but from the savings in medical costs. I do think that is worthy, though it has to be done within certain parameters.

You can't justify that statement player. In order for your statement to stand, it would have to assume that the person who gets a seatbelt ticket was just about to get into an expensive auto accident. That is not the case, as there are far more seat belt tickets written out than there are accidents with injuries.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

These were pretty common in CA for a while. However, there are a lot of problems. They do not work well with car seats, for example and some other issues. I cannot remember all the details, but you don't see many of those any longer.

I am sure something could be designed, but at some point.. just telling people to do it themselves really does work better, even if it takes a law to enforce it.

[jay_a2j]

We just have to learn to accept that some people desire to live in freedom and others would rather have government dictate their lives for them. (that way they don't need to think for themselves as much)

Pretty ironic for you crow about thinking for yourself! You have made it plain too many times you do not truly think for yourself.

Oh shut up and bow down to the government you serve! Your hypocrisy is astounding!

[Phatscotty]

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

These were pretty common in CA for a while. However, there are a lot of problems. They do not work well with car seats, for example and some other issues. I cannot remember all the details, but you don't see many of those any longer.

I am sure something could be designed, but at some point.. just telling people to do it themselves really does work better, even if it takes a law to enforce it.

yes but it's such a common mistake. it's like writing out tickets to people who get in an accident, or trip over a stick. Sometimes people arent watching where they are going, which can be extremely dangerous and end up costing millions as well. Some people can train themselves better than others.

Also, you should know, this law affects the poor disproportionately.

If someone gets injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt, it should be on them. given that society does not work that way currently, all I can do is try to support things that try to bring society back to/closer to personal choice/personal responsibility.

[Baron Von PWN]

No, I must disagree. I absolutely believe in the seatbelt law. I do NOT believe in setting up areas to raise money by catching people not wearing their seatbelt.

In a few cases the public good does justify sting-type action. Drunk drivers, people who don't put their kids in car seats and those who don't wear seatbelts.. are among them.

I don't agree with stings in those instances either.

To raise money, no. To increase safety/compliance when people are engaging in risky behavior, yes. It is a subtle, but very important distinction.

Often times, things like this get painted as "just a way to save money" because either some reporter wants to create controversy or someone thinks that is the "spin" people will hear most. In truth, the REAL money is not from tickets, but from the savings in medical costs. I do think that is worthy, though it has to be done within certain parameters.

You can't justify that statement player. In order for your statement to stand, it would have to assume that the person who gets a seatbelt ticket was just about to get into an expensive auto accident. That is not the case, as there are far more seat belt tickets written out than there are accidents with injuries.

not at all. Ticketing will make more people wear their seat-belts, resulting in fewer people being injured/killed in accidents, resulting in lower medical costs.

Driving without a seatbelt risks your life and puts the cost on society. Considering buckling a seat-belt is basically completely effortless I feel little sympathy if someone gets a ticket for being a moron.

[Phatscotty]

I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

[PLAYER57832]

I'm playing a bit advocate here, but if wearing your seat belt is a law, should we allow a car to be sold that gives drivers the option of buckling up?

These were pretty common in CA for a while. However, there are a lot of problems. They do not work well with car seats, for example and some other issues. I cannot remember all the details, but you don't see many of those any longer.

I am sure something could be designed, but at some point.. just telling people to do it themselves really does work better, even if it takes a law to enforce it.

yes but it's such a common mistake. it's like writing out tickets to people who get in an accident, or trip over a stick. Sometimes people arent watching where they are going, which can be extremely dangerous and end up costing millions as well. Some people can train themselves better than others.

Also, you should know, this law affects the poor disproportionately.

If someone gets injured and they weren't wearing their seat belt, it should be on them. given that society does not work that way currently, all I can do is try to support things that try to bring society back to/closer to personal choice/personal responsibility.

See, I personally would rather be "reminded" with a $100 ticket than a trip to the emergency room for my child or me.

[PLAYER57832]

I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

It is definitely both... and a fair amount of arrogance combined with "it just won't happen to me"

[Phatscotty]

I think compliance with the seat belt law has far less to do with intelligence level than it does with human error.

It is definitely both... and a fair amount of arrogance combined with "it just won't happen to me"

or, "it's 5AM and I worked until 11PM last light. I simply forgot. Oh well, there goes today's pay!"

hope your arent living check to check, because forgetting this one's gonna screw up everything.

[PLAYER57832]

hope your arent living check to check, because forgetting this one's gonna screw up everything.

I don't forget to put on my seatbelt... I have been doing it every day of my life since I was 3. My mother was big on it long before many cars even had seatbelts.
the closest I have come is when my then 18 month old managed to unlatch his car seat while I was driving. Thankfully, a couple of cars noticed, honked and I pulled over to deal with it.

[Phatscotty]

hope your arent living check to check, because forgetting this one's gonna screw up everything.

I don't forget to put on my seatbelt... I have been doing it every day of my life since I was 3. My mother was big on it long before many cars even had seatbelts.
the closest I have come is when my then 18 month old managed to unlatch his car seat while I was driving. Thankfully, a couple of cars noticed, honked and I pulled over to deal with it.

nice parental observation skills. perhaps I should call the state as I am concerned for the safety of your child as well as the cost of potential injury from not being latched in a car seat.

[jay_a2j]

hope your arent living check to check, because forgetting this one's gonna screw up everything.

I don't forget to put on my seatbelt... I have been doing it every day of my life since I was 3. My mother was big on it long before many cars even had seatbelts.
the closest I have come is when my then 18 month old managed to unlatch his car seat while I was driving. Thankfully, a couple of cars noticed, honked and I pulled over to deal with it.

nice parental observation skills. perhaps I should call the state as I am concerned for the safety of your child as well as the cost of potential injury from not being latched in a car seat.