I'll call mommy & remind her to powder your bottom a little more, might
be diaper rash bothering you.

oldsage...why do you keep posting here man?...you are a troll thats
why....you are the pathetic type of person who thinks ppl like him more
if he jumps in their side of an argument....sad part is...in this place
that pathetic tactic works well...have fun with that buddy...jut
remember this you jaded old snot...i never said **** to you.....whos the
****ing whiney kid now?

pathetic trolls trying to comendeer a thread...look at you!

kids are young goats, so I know it can't be me.
Another tissue sonny boy

Okay, no more Mrs. Nice Guy. First of all, you immature little PUNK, I'm
no hillbilly. And as far as being over the hill or witless or any of
that? Well, if there's anything to be said about age, it's that with age
comes experience and with experience comes wisdom...

Having said that, I have a daughter who's a year younger than you and
even she has enough common sense to know that either you follow the
rules or you pay a penalty.

If you don't like this country and its laws you are totally free to
leave and go to a country that does not enforce the seatbelt law.

Cappish?

wow...that made all your lies and bull**** go away...well
said...hillbilly

And what lies would that be, pray tell?

(You know, you're just digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole,
don't you? A veritable pit into forum cyberhell, provided expressly for
those who cannot present an effective rebuttal and have to resort to
foot-stomping, crybaby, whiny, "But I don't want to so, why should I
HAVE to!" tactics.)

Hillbilly, huh? At least I know how to spell "liar."

Jean some people just CAN NOT stand the truth & don't know how foolish
they look, talking about things they are not intelligent enough to
understand. I have an appt. to keep.
Take care & sonny hers's the whole box of tissues.

I hear ya. Yeah, I'm kind of tiring of batting around this mouse myself.
Onward.

say whatever you like...ppl have read everything you have posted and
think you are as full of **** as i do.and at their request i will now
leave this thread for you trolls to have the last word...cause thats all
this is really about.bye bye

Seat belt laws trivialize law enforcement

Send this Article to a Friend
Printable page



February 23, 2007

Opinion Editorial

By Mike Krause
In the book Go Directly to Jail: The Criminalization of Almost
Everything, author James V. DeLong writes, "When the government
criminalizes almost everything, it also trivializes the very concept of
criminality."

A perfect example of this is Senate Bill 151, the primary seat belt law
currently under consideration in the Colorado Legislature. Far from a
legitimate public safety measure, this law is little more than a
finger-wagging nanny state edict, with high potential to distract police
from their public safety mission in favor of trivial enforcement of
unpopular personal behavior.

The Colorado State Patrol already rolls out en masse each year to
enforce Colorado's current secondary seat belt law through the zero
tolerance "Click It or Ticket" enforcement program—funded by your
federal tax dollars through the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration—which includes the use of both unmarked and low-profile
(marked but with no rooftop light bar) patrol cars.

Yet according to the Patrol's own annual report, its highway safety
strategy relies on high "trooper visibility" on Colorado roads "in order
to deter motorists from engaging in dangerous or criminal behavior."

If this is so, how does the targeting of seat belt offenses in patrol
cars specifically intended not to be "highly visible" actually promote a
safe driving environment? The short answer is that it doesn't.

It also begs the question of what kind of enforcement we can expect with
a primary seat belt law.

In 2005, Maryland State Police began nighttime seat belt sting
operations utilizing night vision technology—the same equipment soldiers
use in combat—to enforce that state's primary seat belt law. The
Maryland Governor later shut the paramilitary sting operation down,
calling it "government intrusion into personal decision making."

Also in 2005, the Seattle Times reported, "In the three years since
state lawmakers gave cops the go-ahead to pull over people for not
wearing seat belts, the State Patrol has become creative about spotting
scofflaws." One such creative waste of manpower involved plainclothes
Washington State Patrol troopers standing on street corners holding
"Buckle Up" signs, peeking into car windows and radioing ahead to
waiting patrol cars to ticket those not wearing seat belts.

As Ted Balaker from the Reason Public Policy Institute puts it, "since
drivers who don't buckle up aren't making anyone else less safe, laws
that bear down on these people don't make other motorists any safer
either."

In January, public safety officials told the Joint Budget Committee that
a primary seat belt law could save some seventy lives a year, but where
this number comes from is a bit of a mystery.

During the 2006 debate over a primary seat belt law (like in a horror
movie, this law keeps on coming back from the dead) advocates lined up
282 pairs of shoes on the Capitol steps—representing the number of
people killed in crashes in 2004 who were not wearing seat—in an attempt
to guilt lawmakers into passing the law.

At the time, Denver Post Columnist Ed Quillen asked a basic question "of
those 282 people who died in 2004 who were not wearing seat belts, how
many would have been pulled over for not wearing seat belts, then
decided to change their ways, and then were involved in an accident
where seat belts would have made a difference?"

Of course, no one really knows, but the short answer is probably not
very many.

Editorializing against the primary seat belt law, the Rocky Mountain
News notes, "Even in primary-offense states, seat belt use varies; it's
as low as 74 percent in Tennessee. And in seven states where seat belt
laws are secondary offenses-including Arizona, Nevada and Utah in the
Mountain West-residents buckle up more often than the national average,
with rates reaching 95 percent."

And indeed, according to statistics from the National Highway
Transportation Safety Administration, seat belt use in Colorado has been
steadily increasing, from around 65 percent in 2000 to over 80 percent
in 2006. And this has happened without a primary seat-belt nanny-state
edict.

Simply put, a primary seat belt law has the potential to make the
enforcement priorities and tactics of Colorado law enforcement as silly
as the seat belt law itself, which in turn leads to a general lack of
respect for the law.

Scrapping the primary seat belt law would be a good step for Colorado
lawmakers who care more about the integrity of the rule of law than the
personal safety choices of individual Coloradoans

i suppose by your logic these people are whiners and crybabys to...even
though way more acredited and experienced in this area than yourselves

man you need to stop and think about what you are saying. the decision
to wear it or not doesn't only affect you. it affects everyone around
you. i for one do not want to pay higher insurance rates just because
you want your freedom of choice.

How are they more experienced?

First of all, I have a background in insurance defense law, so I'm very
knowledgeable about the subject.

Secondly, I'm a law-abiding and tax-paying citizen.

And third, what point are you trying to make here? You're backing up
your opinion that you don't think it's "fair" with another opinion
stating virtually the same thing?

FYI, not wearing a seatbelt is not classified as a crime, so stop acting
as though it is. It's a Class C misdemeanor (at least in TN); it's NOT a
felony.

Also, fines here go toward rehab for individuals who were severely
injured in accidents in which they were not wearing their seat belt.

As far as I'm concerned, in general principle, YES, one shouldn't HAVE
to have a law telling them to buckle up; they should have enough COMMON
SENSE to do so.

BUT...since many people don't ...hence the law.

Get it? Or do I need to spell it out for you?

nope..i got it...your a fasciast

And you don't have a clue what the word means because I'm in no way a
fascist.