Was a national seat-belt law passed?

On radio and TV here in Boston, they are running this "Click It Or Ticket" campaign to inform people that they will get tickets if they don't buckle up. The commercials use phrases like "All across the country, police are bla bla bla" and "If you drive without a seatbelt, you'll get a ticket."

This sounds like a) A national campaign, and b) You can get a ticket just for not wearing your seat-belt. Did we pass a new law?

Up-side: Many lives saved.

:tinfoilhat: side: Ready-made excuse to pull 'suspicious' people over.

This is a state-by-state deal.

Notice, too, that these "campaigns" always crop up during holidays, when there are a lot of people traveling. Why only then, and not all year round? Besides, the only way the cops can catch people without seat belts on is if they are stopped for some other violation.

And the libertarian in me says that while seat belts do save lives, this is another instance of government intrusion in one's personal life. Furthermore, cops have to meet their monthly ticket quota.

Not all of the costs associated with car accidents are covered by insurance - especially if someone gets in an accident who doesn't have health insurance.

In other words, the government's trying to recoup some of the money it's been spending on dumbasses who can't take the two seconds to buckle up. It's kind of like the tobacco lawsuits.

I don't like being threatened, and these ads are definitely very agressive in that way. My spin: Jail time for the clucks that don't buckle their children up properly, and leave the rest of us adults the hell alone to make our own choice (for the record, I've always buckled up and even dragged my race car around to the schools to teach seat belt use to the kids).

you're costing the state money, amortized. Your "own choice" ends up adversely affecting others. Same as speeding or reckless driving.

If he isnt wearing his seatbelt how exactly is he costing the state money?

As it is now he would be making the state money when he gets fined, which is the real point of most traffic tickets (speeding, not wearing seatbelt) to make money.

As I said previously - if you're not wearing your seatbelt, you're more likely to be injured in an accident, and therefore more likely to cost the state money for emergency services as well as your hospital costs.

So, rather than make everyone pay for it via higher taxes, the state charges those whose actions result in the expenditure in the first place - those who don't wear selt belts.

letting "the state" pick away at our personal freedoms for our own good. There's no doubt unbuckled drivers are more likely to be injured, and there's no doubt it eventually finds its way to the rest of us through higher taxes, insurance rates, etc. But, as they say, it's a cost of doing business. In this case, I'd rather absorb this cost and keep the government from peeking in my windows to save me from myself.

how many other things? You want to give out tickets to fat people who order junk food too? Certainly that costs the government millions in medicaid and other costs when they get diabetes.

How about giving tickets to gays having sex without condoms. That costs millions in AIDS related expenses to the government.

Can't people choose to wear their seatbelt or not? I've gotten 3-4 tickets now for no seatbelt. One ended up over $ 400 because I didn't pay it in time.

I went before a judge who reduced it to $ 300. She threatened me with contempt for my bad attitude. I told her she could no doubt do that, but hopefully we choose judges with better judgement than that.

Also if Congress did pass it, would it not take effect until October 1st?

Out of all the fatal accidents I've covered more than half were deaths a seat belt could have avoided.

the federal government cannot itself force such laws, so they made federal highway funding contingent on seat belt laws... So each state, in order to get that funding, had to pass seat belt laws.

The fed govt may be running ads encouraging seat belts though.

This was done 8 or so years ago.

plus they are tag teaming them with more drunk driving ads.

where states were technically free to pass or not pass their own laws but if they refused to toe the line they would lose federal highway dollars. A federal diktat dressed in states' rights.

either change your law or lose highway funds things but secondary laws (ie where one has to have violated another law to get pulled over) still meets the standard. I noticed a slight change in Ohio in the commercials. They started off as buckle up or else not they are we will issue a ticket if you get pulled over for something else. I have a big fear of giving the police a primary seat belt law. It is way too easy for them to lie about that and pull over people who they don't like.

say you will only be ticketed if you are stopped for something else, if you are not wearing your seatbelt. two years later now thay can ticket you for the sole purpose of not wearing your seatbelt. Want to hear Irony? Florida did away with the Helmut law for Motorcycles.

That should require passage of a new law. Here there is an unusual coalition of extremely conservative and minority extremely liberal legislators who are standing in the way of passage.

I know I don't like the idea of police being able to pull over anyone at any time. That is what this law could lead to. I don't think either of us would want to be sporting a pink triangle in a West Texas town with that law.

when first passed, it was in addition to another infraction. Last ticket I got was just for no seatbelt. Seems how a lot of things take effect.

IIRC it was a couple of years ago (we already had a secondary enforcement law, at least for regular cars). It didn't hold up in court, though, I don't believe -- one of the few times I've been glad to see such a poorly-written law. Basically, the law was worded so blatantly that the higher courts couldn't really uphold it on appeal; instead of allowing the police to pull drivers over who they *observed* driving unbelted, it allowed them to pull anyone they chose over to "check compliance" or "determine compliance" with the seatbelt law. Talk about an invitation to harass! I don't recall any recent developments, but I think that law is nonfunctional now.

The thing that blows my mind continually is that since then, I could've be fined gazillions for kids bouncing around in my back seat or in the back of a borrowed pick up on country roads going at very slow speeds.

But school buses, wherein kids could potentially bounce around like pinballs upon any impact or quick braking situation, persist in being completely unregulated and without seat belts.

Think "Otto from the Simpson's. . ."
I drive my kid to school but not necessarily for that reason.

I know with school budgets hit hard by budget short falls, there's no way they'll change this. I just find it more than a little ironic.

What is/was the rationale behind this exception?

they just don't. . . .($$$$$$)

Translation. . .Halliburton and the Carlyle group has not yet quite cornered the market for production, installation, or enforcement of their usage.

Please excuse them, they've been most busy elsewhere.

die, but we need to focus on "passenger cars" and whatever "public transportation" needs to fall under these guidelines?

I do with your :tinfoilhat: as always.

I don't think a national law was passed; I think it's something left to the states. In Mass., they can't pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt; but they can cite and ticket you for not wearing a seatbelt if they've pulled you over for some other violation. I believe there are folks trying to get a law passed so that they can pull you over just for not wearing a belt. My take on the ads is that they're trying to make people think that if you don't have a seatbelt on, they can pull you right over and give you a ticket. It's not true, but a lot of folks might not know it and the ad could scare them into wearing it so they won't get a ticket.

it's true. that's the new part of the law. there is usually a warning period, where they will pull you over and you get a warning. Once the introductory period is over- ticket city.

I was just at Coolidge Corner today in Brighton and they had a sign- they keep track of seatbelt use and only 58% of people had their's on. That's pretty sad. If the new law makes more people use their seatbelts then it's for the best.

I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time. Even if I'm just moving my car across the street to avoid the street cleaner.

How did they sneak that one by without my hearing about it?

I remember reading about it- I could have my head up my ass though :-)

The new law is meant to do nothing more than give police a motive for pulling over cars. Now they can pull over cars, give teens, kids and minorities all the shit they want and still be justified under the law.

IIRC. Not all states are participating. But I think they get fed funds if they pass the seatbelt law

That always pisses me off. Back in the enlightened days of the early seventies, when some states, including this one, lowered the drinking age to 18, the fed govt eventually got all the states to raise it back to 21 under penalty of losing fed highway funds.

to 55. That was about 15-20 years ago. That one caused a revolt out west though and the congress backed off about 7-8 years ago.

and constitutional. As long as it's not coersion, the fed gov't can do it.

And although the law might have bad effects, I don't think there is invidious intent in passing the law. Primary intent of the law is to prevent death in car accidents.

Until states can manage their own funds (sovereign states, my ass) then feds control the strings on the pocket book. Personally, this doesn't bother me. States have limited powers, and rightly so. We need consistent laws.

They're running this shit on the radio non stop.

Personally, I don't feel comforatable driving without a seat belt on, but I don't need to hear some cop every commercial break.

I guess it's running all over. I haven't seen the cops doing anything special.

In Texas you only have to wear the seatbelt if you are sitting in the front seats.

If you are sitting in the back you dont have to.

Any other states like this?

For what its worth I do agree that seatbelts save lives, but I think it should be up to the individual to decide if they want to save thier life or not.

I wear mine, except when in the backseat of a car with the single strap belt instead of a 3pt one.

as it's deja vu - in Victoria where I live seatbelts have been compulsory since 1971, for the first 10 years or so people pissed and moaned about "their rights" but eventually people came to realise that the issue involved OTHER people's rights:

* the right not to be seriously injured in an accidetn by another occupant in the car you're travelling in - not wearing a seatbelt throws you around in even slow speed crashes - the force of that can cause serious injury or death to other seatbelted passengers

* the right of the rest of the community not to have to pay for your hospital treatment and possibly ongoing medical care for the rest of your life

* the right of cops/paramedics to not attend scenes of pointless and avoidable carnage more often than need be.

These days most people don't even think about the seatbelt - not wearing one is no more thought of a "right" than driving drunk is.

none of those are rights guarenteed by the constitution.

mentions anything about the right to pig headedly refuse to wear a seatbelt either does it?

specifically covers pig-headedness I believe.

and the right to be healthy and safe is one of those implied rights. Just like the right of privacy- it's not in the consitution, but we all like that it's there.

Probably sponsored by Homeland Security's Racial Profiling Department.

Seatbelts do save lives though, so buckle up.

Probably sponsored by Homeland Security's Racial Profiling Department.

Seatbelts do save lives though, so buckle up.

was that not wearing a seat belt in my state was not probable cause for pulling over a vehicle. I wondered the same thing as you.

and the cops are out in full force..

they aren't mandatory in the Live Free or Die state, for anyone over the age of 18.

We don't have a helmet law, either.

That said, I hit a moose last year, and I was wearing a seat belt, which contributed to saving my life.

that is, cops cannot pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, but if they pull you over for something else and notice you are seat belt free, then they can write a ticket.