| Author | Message | ||
     Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 189 Registered: 7-2004 |
According to the NHTSA (http://www.buckleupamerica.org/), 5/23-/6/5/05 was "Click It or Ticket" Mobilization season. That's when the Fed doles out money to local law enforcement agencies to set-up checkpoints to ferret out people too stupid to wear their seatbelts. In return, the police set-up traffic-stop checkpoints, get overtime, since this initiative is not supposed to eat into regular policing, and municipalities get incremental revenue from fines and sometimes from court cost fees. Unfortunately, there's no empirical evidence that a 2-week crackdown changes behavior among drivers who habitually haven chosen to ignore all warnings about the risks of driving without a seatbelt. And, since 82% of NJ drivers wear seat belts, according to NJ's Division of Highway Traffic Safety, police are stopping or slowing down four drivers to possibly snare less than one possible offender -- assuming they simply don't buckle-up before the checkpoint. Nationwide over 12,000 agencies participate in the federally-backed campaign, and checkpoints are just one part of the effort. Other elements include $26-million worth of tough-talking PSAs, steep fines, and lots of lobbying for "primary enforcement" laws, which allow cops to ticket those whose ONLY offense is not buckling up. NJ is one of only 20 "primary enforcement" states, which now allows a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle and issue a citation when the officer observes an unbelted driver or passenger. Secondary enforcement means that a citation for not wearing a safety belt can only be written after the officer stops the vehicle or cites the offender for another infraction, the original law in New Jersey. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 164 Registered: 4-2003  |
There should not be a blitz but continuous enforcement without it laws tend to be toothless. | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 119 Registered: 2-2005 |
This is such a pet peeve of mine and it is by no means an attack on your post, but more of a rant for people being iggnorant to the dangers that everyday life poses until its too late. Just cause you don't like your seatbelt you need to wear it anyway! it will save your life...I hate hearing its uncomfortable or I have a disability. How about this, If you are disabled and can't wear a belt...then don't drive or ride in a car, there are pleny of variations in cars and in seatbelts and accessories to adjust the seatbelt now. What happens when you are ejected from a motor vehicle...Usually Death. Just wear it people. Stop pretending that the police and Rightwing is out to get you on this issue, and bother you, its not a big deal...It slows traffic a bit, shows everyone the police care about something (being the son of a cop, trust me the cops could really care less except on the 15th and 30th...and back when my dad was a cop he was cursing the citizens for paying him so poorly). Just wear your seatbelt...It will save your life if you have a serious accident and it will reduce the risk of injury if you are in a minor accident. Yes there are always those accidents where they belt can cause an injury just like with airbags..but they are designed on the laws of averages...average height and build to protect the most people possible, and Im sure everyone is convinced it is their right not to wear it. Overall its a phenominal tool to keep your body from getting launched from a vehicle or worse into the dashboard or window. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1108 Registered: 5-2004  |
I wear my seatbelt all the time. Nothing to do with a law, I just don't think it's a reasionable risk to take. My question is this, however. Why do we need a law for seatbelts? Why can I not take my life into my own hands? Unlike a motorcycle helmet, not wearing a seatbelt cannot (as far as I can imagine) endanger others on the road. Are we going to legislate other self-protective measures, such as outlawing visiting McDonald's more than once a week? Smoking is still perfectly legal, yet quite lethal over time. Why are seatbelts mandated, when we willingly do things every day to endanger ourselves? | ||
| Sheena Collum SHU Citizen Username: Sheena_collum Post Number: 142 Registered: 4-2005  |
I'm not sure, but I think Insurance Companies may have something to do with it. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 167 Registered: 4-2003 |
Rasto; I agree the gov should not be in the business of legislating behaviors unless your behavior has a direct and adverse affect on those around you, but if what you are doing or in this case not doing has no adverse effect except to yourself then the government has no right to legislate otherwise. But they have done and will continue to do so. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1110 Registered: 5-2004 |
Why then don't insurance companies get smoking outlawed? Why don't they ask people about their eating habits (not simply their current health)? I doubt the law is to placate insurance companies. They could make much more money by simply disallowing (or capping) claims if the claimant was not wearing a seatbelt during the accident. On this kind if thing, I'm very much a libertarian. Make me buckle up my kids? Absolutely. Make me buckle up? Invasion of privacy (IMNSHO). Again, as I said, I always wear my seatbelt. But that's a personal preference, not because there is a law. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 168 Registered: 4-2003 |
The law was more than likely put into place to "protect" the public from themselves so the government can be seen to be doing something about the death on the roads. As for smoking it can be done without others around. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1112 Registered: 5-2004 |
Smoking can be done so that you are not endangering others. Driving without a seatbelt does not endanger others. I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph. Why are they only interested in death on the roads? Why not death in McDonald's? (I'm just being difficult here. I don't expect the gov't to outlaw trips to the grease factory) | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 190 Registered: 7-2004 |
Insurance companies absolutely, positively are behind converting secondary enforcement (passive) states into primary enforcement (active) states. Fewer injuries and deaths reduce claims, fewer claims reduce costs, and lower costs increase profits. Insurance premium rates are, as economists like to say, "sticky downward," so lower operating costs are very slow to translate into lower consumer prices, if ever. Everyone should wear their seatbelt at all times; to do otherwise is ignorant and self-destructive. However, Federally sponsored programs like Click It or Ticket are an especially intrusive, annoying form of harrassment for the 82% of drivers who wear their seat belts, and downright bizarre when you consider they're being funded by a presidential administration that espouses states' rights whenever it has the opportunity. Maybe every driver should be stopped at checkpoints, forced to walk the line and submit to a breathalizer, simply because we live among idiots who choose to drink and drive. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 169 Registered: 4-2003 |
Careful what you wish for. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1113 Registered: 5-2004 |
Two Sense, We live in a country that revels in saying that being ingorant and self-destructive is our right. Again, why seatbelts and not other self-destructive actions? Drunk drivers kill others. Not wearing a seatbelt can only hurt you. There are very few other laws I can think of that protect you from yourself, where there is no real danger to others. For example, I can take a knife and cut my own arm. As long as it's not deemed a suicide attempt, it's not illegal. I can bash myself over the head with a brick (some have suggested I could use something like that) - perfectly legal. Yet I cannot drive down the road without a seatbelt on. | ||
| Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 1114 Registered: 5-2004 |
And I was not talking about the conversion from Passive to Active enforcement. The law had to be in place before it could be either passively or actively enforced. | ||
| Walker Citizen Username: Fester Post Number: 170 Registered: 4-2003 |
Rasto; I believe the law was forced on states by the feds in the late 70's as part of qualifying for highway funding at around the same time they reduced the speed limit to 55 and upped the drinking age to 21. There was a lot of resistance from the states but we are talking money here so guess who won. I think this goes back to some over zealous politician trying to be seen to be doing something but going about in a myopic manner. | ||
| Michael Janay Citizen Username: Childprotect Post Number: 1933 Registered: 1-2003  |
RAstro, How does riding a motorcycle without a helmet endanger anyone else on the road? | ||
| Jim Murphy Citizen Username: Jimmurphy Post Number: 181 Registered: 5-2001 |
I'll bite instead. It doesn't, but if you don't have health insurance, everyone else's tax dollars pay to try and fix your coconut. Same argument for seat belts. | ||
| Old and Gray Citizen Username: Pastmyprime Post Number: 121 Registered: 2-2005 |
HELLO PEOPLE!!!!! HEALTH CARE RELATED EXPENSES? HOW MUCH ARE YOUR PREMIUMS? | ||
| Two Sense Citizen Username: Twosense Post Number: 195 Registered: 7-2004 |
Maybe we should have our Health Department set-up road-side checkpoints to verify proof of health insurance. Unfortunately, the number of Americans who don't have bona fide health insurance eclipses the number of drivers who choose not to wear their seatbelts. And, this situation no doubt is costing society more than unbelted drivers being torpedoed through their windshields -- not to mention pushing the U.S. even lower among developed nations' along the yardstick of how countries care for their citizens. | ||
| Brett Weir Citizen Username: Brett_weir Post Number: 651 Registered: 4-2004 |
Click it or Ticket also checks for compliance with child car seat and restraint laws. Is that okay or should every jackass with a driver's license have the constitutional right to endanger their own children as well? | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 1980 Registered: 4-2002 |
Good Post Brett, also smoke detectors, CO detectors, reflectors on bikes, etc. All inexpensive ways to help protect lives. While medical insurance is a major problem for everyone, that is a direct cost factor which cannot be legislated as easily as a seat belt, especially when there is no way to pay for every person to be covered (well none that has proven to be acceptable by government - yet). |
