Casper Star-Tribune Online

Advanced Search

Poll: Don't allow police to stop unbuckled drivers

Story Tools

Print this story

E-mail this story

Rate this story

Text Size

Share This Story:

trib.popular

By JOSHUA WOLFSON
Star-Tribune staff writer

Thursday, January 31, 2008 10:16 AM MST

Kathy Tompkins always wears her seat belt. But she doesn't want police to pull over drivers solely because they aren't buckled up.

"It's a privacy thing," said Tompkins, a Jackson resident since 1998. "What is going to be next? You aren't sitting right in your seat? Where do you stop?"

Tompkins is among the 60 percent of Wyoming voters who would oppose legislation that would allow police to stop a car and issue a ticket solely because an occupant isn't wearing a seat belt, according to a Star-Tribune poll. Currently in Wyoming -- a state wear seat belt usage is below the national average -- police can give tickets to people who don't buckle up, but officers can't stop a car for that reason.

To conduct the poll, Mason-Dixon Polling and Research of Washington D.C. interviewed 625 registered voters by telephone from Jan. 18 through 21. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

For some Wyomingites, like Ann Hines of Casper, opposition to stronger seat belt regulations comes down to a matter on personal freedom.

"Seat belts should be up to the individual person," said Hines, a retired school teacher. "You read that people are saved by seat belts, and you read that people who would have been all right if they hadn't been wearing a seat belt."

The poll found that women (41 percent) were more likely than men (31 percent) to support a stronger seat belt law, although a majority of both groups oppose traffic stops for seat belt infractions.

Marcia Federer is part of the minority of Wyoming voters who would support such a law. She says it's a matter of safety.

"A lot of the fatality accidents are caused because people aren't wearing seat belts," said Federer, a rancher who lives in Cheyenne. "They might be alive if they had been wearing them."

Federer says she always buckles up and makes her grandchildren do the same.

"I'm not driving away until you put your seat belt on," she said. "It's just what we do."

Politically, independents (71 percent) have the greatest opposition to a stronger seat belt law, followed by Republicans (65 percent). A small majority of Wyoming Democrats would support such a regulation.

Green River construction worker Wil Allen is one of the many political independents who don't want to give law enforcement new powers to hand out seat belt tickets. He always wears his seat belt on highways, but feels confident to go without it on city streets, where traffic moves slower.

"When you are doing 25, 30 mph in town, everyone else can do the same thing," he said. "It's relatively safe."

However, Allen said he would favor giving police the power to pull over teenage drivers who aren't wearing seat belts.

"Teenagers need to be buckled up until they learn to drive properly because of experience," he said.

Seat belt use in Wyoming is on the rise, but trails the 81 percent national average, according to a Wyoming Department of Transportation survey. The survey, conducted in June, found 70 percent of the state's driver's buckle up. That's up 11 percentage points over the previous year.

Reach Joshua Wolfson at (307) 266-0582 or at josh.wolfson@trib.com.


Elk avoid traps		Coach faces sex abuse counts

Article Rating

Reader Comments

There are 51 comment(s)

Comments to this story.

Wait... wrote on Jan 31, 2008 2:33 PM:

" This is the complete story? Who paid for the poll? How many lives could be saved if people did buckle up? Who is the authority on that? Where are their quotes?

Poorly written trash does not enlighten the citizens. "

BELLSTOWN wrote on Jan 31, 2008 3:18 PM:

" I always thought that wearing a seat belt should be a personal decision: "Let the stupid ones kill themselves...", but the following event changed my mind. A month or two ago, a truck traveling southbound on my commuter route, hit an extra icy patch of road, spun around and ended up in the northbound lane, where a passenger car broadsided the truck. It was one of the extra hazardous driving days, as the weather had warmed during the day, and the snow on the road froze in the afternoon as the sun went down, and turned into black ice. I had already seen lots of cars off the road that day, and no matter what speed you were going, anything but 0 mph was too fast for existing conditions. The southbound truck was going approx. 35 in a 55, which was about the average speed that day, on that particular highway. The driver of the northbound car, that hit the side of the southbound truck was killed in the impact, she wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Her daughter was wearing a seatbelt and got some bruises. Of course the family of the dead mother of 4 is mad at the driver of the truck, who was cited for going faster than conditions permitted. That driver could have easily been me, since I came by the scene on my way home about 20 minutes after the accident happened. I can only imagine how it must feel like to be responsible for the death of that woman. For the rest of your life. Had she only been wearing a seatbelt. Moral of the story: if I ever end up causing an accident on wintery roads, I sure hope all involved are buckled up, like I am. And if they're not, I don't want to be responsible for the consequences. So, whether or not the police can pull you over for not wearing one, the people who don't wear one should be the only ones responsible for their injuries or death, because accidents happen. "

ebmfck wrote on Jan 31, 2008 7:53 PM:

" The Wyoming State Patrol says they can stop you for not wearing a seat belt as a primary reason and have for at least 9 years. Either they don't know the law, or they are enforcing a law which does not exist. My first stop for not wearing a seat belt was in 1999 on Hwy. 789, 8 miles S. of I-80 by Officer Finn, who drives a vehicle with license # 95. He was also unaware that as a member of a compact state, Wyoming can't require you to get a WY driver's license until your current license from a fellow compact state expires. Wyoming needs to educate their officers a little better on the law. "

Sara S wrote on Jan 31, 2008 9:21 PM:

" Part of my job includes conducting research into injury-related fatalities, including highway deaths. This information is then used by agencies and policy makers to help design prevention strategies. All research points to the fact that, when people choose not to wear a seatbelt, they unnecessarily increase the risk of injury, and especially on the State’s rural roads, death. Many Wyomingites apparently are hung up on the myth that their choice not to wear a seatbelt impacts only them, that it’s about privacy. While I’m strongly in favor of keeping the government out of people’s private affairs in the vast majority of circumstances, the right to privacy should end when a behavior has significant negative consequences for others. When someone is injured and/or killed in a highway accident, especially one preventable through the use of a seatbelt, negative consequences include emotional stress to friends and family, the actual costs of the accident (medical, insurance, vehicle repair/replacement costs, funeral and burial expenses in the event of a death, and so forth), and costs to taxpayers to help save us from ourselves from our irresponsible behavior (e.g., engineering costs, highway construction costs). Making failure to wear a seatbelt a primary offense is another way to get people to act responsibly for the benefit of all of us, since not everyone seems to want to do it themselves. If you’re interested in the nitty gritty of Wyoming highway fatalities, and rural highway fatalities in the U.S. generally, go to http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/CFOI/march07osha2.ppt starting at slide 19. The moral of this comment: seatbelt use is not just about you! "

Sgt. wrote on Feb 1, 2008 1:40 AM:

" ebmfck You must have failed to read WSS 31-7-137 which states that you must notify the state within 10 days of any change of address. And im sure that you are not aware that WSS 31-2-201 requires you to get a Wyoming License plate upon becoming a resident ans or obtaining employment (no grace period) then ofcourse since you are now a resident you are required to notify the state of your address and have a valid Wyoming License. "

wycan wrote on Feb 1, 2008 9:41 AM:

" Having a seat belt law that is enforced only under
special conditions is ludicrous. Either you have a law or you don't. What's wrong with the lawmakers in this State? Ridiculous ! ! ! ! "

MB wrote on Feb 1, 2008 1:58 PM:

" I still fail to see why it's not a good idea to buckle up. "

Dubois Bob wrote on Feb 1, 2008 4:36 PM:

" O.K., don't enforce the seatbelt law with traffic stops. How about then reducing the medical insurance coverage of an unbelted, injured driver.
OR, drivers that don't wish to use a seatbelt must pay a premium for insurance.
Personal freedom is one thing to declare, but we live in a society that is dependent on each other to help reduce costs. Why should we pay for someone injured needlessly by their own irresponsible behavior? "

ebmfck wrote on Feb 1, 2008 9:48 PM:

" Hey sarge, read the booklet you guys hand out and you'll find you're wrong. "

teach wrote on Feb 2, 2008 5:33 PM:

" I have nothing against wearing seatbelts. I wear mine all the time. But I do not think that officers should be able to pull you over for not wearing your seat belt. It just gives them one more reason to pull you over to check for other things. To me, that is an invasion of privacy. "

Patriot wrote on Feb 3, 2008 11:20 PM:

" You call this a news story?? What happened to the editor when this trash was supposed to be proofed?? A slow day at the water cooler?? This is garbage. I have pulled a dead man out of a vehicle that rolled over doing 22 mph. Speed has nothing to do with it. "

Road Warrior wrote on Feb 4, 2008 2:19 AM:

" Not only should we require seat belts to reduce societal costs, but further, we should outlaw unhealthy foods and all dangerous activities as well. There should be a special license to operate a lawn mower or ride a bicycle. Heck, while we are at it we should just direct deposit our paychecks to the government and let them handle everything for us. Life would be so much easier and SAFER that way. Certainly the insurance companies will reduce our premiums for said safety precautions. While we are at it why not let the police search our houses and cars for drugs. If we don't have anything to hide what is there to fear? "

Rance wrote on Feb 4, 2008 5:52 AM:

" Hey ebmfck, Sgt is right, read the state statutes. And I thought you claimed you were from Wyoming on the beer tax post? So, not only do you willingly break our state's laws, but it looks like we caught you in a lie. Boy, I'm sure glad we have wonderful contibutors to our communities like you up here working in the oil patch. Like thousands of other REAL Wyomingites, I can't wait for the boom to be over so you guys will pack up and go chase a buck elsewhere. Go tear up the roads and break the laws back wherever it is you came from. "

Gray wrote on Feb 4, 2008 1:41 PM:

" Driving is not a right. Driving is a privilege. In order for all of us to safely operate our vehicles together on the road nearly every aspect driving is, appropriately, regulated. From car and road design to operator licensure to traffic laws we as a society have determined that we need structure for the safety and prosperity of all parties. Seat belt wear is no different, it is in fact part and parcel of the entire endeavor of vehicle operation. Enforcement of seat belt wear should be just as vigorously pursued as are drunk drivers, speeders and vehicles that are not safe to be on the road due to defect of some type.
"

Polly Anna wrote on Feb 4, 2008 2:51 PM:

" The government should also require helmets for all occupants of passenger vehicles. There are a lot of head injuries in car accidents. Also abdonimal injuries. So people should be required to wear armor or wooden barrels while driving as well. Then the police could easily tell if you were compliant or not. No helmet, no armor... no mercy. They should pull you over and arrest you for putting yourself at risk like that. Simple football pads would be acceptable for any speeds under 20 mph (town driving). It's a matter of safety. It's for the public good. "

ebmfck wrote on Feb 4, 2008 2:57 PM:

" Rance - I am from Wyoming, but worked in Colorado for 3 years and had to get a Colorado license. If you could read, you'd get one of those handy-dandy booklets to study up for the driver's license exam and find upon reading the first 2 pages that I am right. "

Axle wrote on Feb 4, 2008 4:13 PM:

" What a bunch of complainers! Wear the damned seat belt, it free and might save your life or someone elses. The man is not keeping you down, you are proving your tin-hat wearing ignorance! "

Editor wrote on Feb 4, 2008 4:33 PM:

" A reader asked for more information about how the poll was conducted. That information was included in the printed newspaper, but we inadvertently left it out of the online version. Sorry about that.

Here's the explanation of the polling method:

"The Casper Star-Tribune poll was conducted Jan. 18-21 by Mason-Dixon Polling and Research Inc. of Washington, D.C. A total of 625 registered Wyoming voters were interviewed statewide by telephone. All said they vote regularly in Wyoming state elections. There were 394 Republicans (63 percent), 167 Democrats (27 percent) and 64
Independents (10 percent). Pollsters interviewed 317 women, or 51 percent of the sample, and 308 men, or 49 percent. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. The margin of error is higher for any subgroup, such as a gender sampling.
Those interviewed were selected by random variation of the last four digits of
telephone numbers. A cross-section of exchanges was used to ensure an accurate reflection of the state. Quotas were assigned to reflect voter turnout by county."

"

oldmunchkin wrote on Feb 4, 2008 6:58 PM:

" Another unnecessary law! How wonderful! What about those of us who have a valid reason for not buckling up in most cars? When you are as short as I am, the shoulder belt comes directly across my neck! If we were in an accident, I would be decapitated instantly. I prefer to take my chances being unbelted. I have a much better chance of survival then! "

Grumpy wrote on Feb 5, 2008 7:26 AM:

" I see the independent Wyoming spirt is alive and well. If you do not want to wear a seatblt, you should not be required to do so. However, if you do not wear your seatbelt and get injuredin an auto accidenti, we the people of the State of Wyoming, should not be required to expend any public funds for your medical expenses. After all, your idenpendent spirt would not allow you to accept a "Government Handout". Let them pull us over for non-seatbelt use and give us the option of accepting the ticket or signing a document that if we are injured, we will accept no help from the people of the State of Wyoming for our medical expenses and long term care. "

Libertarian wrote on Feb 5, 2008 11:53 AM:

" It's not about seat belts. Duh. It's about extending police authority to stop cars where ever they want, at any time. "Oh I thought I didn't see a shoulder strap...my bad. Hey, you smell like you had a beer earlier today. And your girlfriend's pupils look dilated. Step out of the car, sir." Make no mistake. Seat belts are the last things on cops' minds when they approach with that flash light. This is a Nazi bill. Shut it down. "

Kiley wrote on Feb 5, 2008 1:03 PM:

" I only wish that those of you who choose not to wear your seatbelts could spend just a week in the ICU of level I trauma center. I'm a 4th year med student, and for the last week I have been taking care a a girl who rolled her jeep, on a city street, doing about 35 mph. She was unrestrained and ejected and the "roll bar" of the jeep rolled right over her face. Her left eye? Gone. Her right eye? Probably won't last. every single bone in her face is not just broken, but shattered in literally thousands of tiny pieces. She will need hundreds of thousands of dollars (maybe even millions) of surgery just to give her some semblance of being human. She is also uninsured, so you as the taxpayer will be footing the bill. And that is only one patient. Every other patient in our ICU that was involved in a motor vehicle collision was unrestrained. We don't see any restrained drivers because none of them are hurt bad enough. Every day we make teaching rounds on our patients, and the take home is message is WEAR YOUR SEATBELT, not how to manage vent settings or start central lines. I've seen a lot of patients in the trauma bay, and I swear to you, you would much rather be the person who wore the seatbelt, no matter how big or small you are (no, old munchkin, you will not be decapitated). Please, WEAR YOUR SEATBELTS! And stop fighting against laws that make us all safer! "

Your barking up the wrong tree for the wrong reason wrote on Feb 5, 2008 3:03 PM:

" Libertarian driving is a privilage, not a right on the public's roads tin hat. If you do not want to be caught with meth in your car, don't put it into your car in the first place. This is an issue of public safety not your damned privacy. "

Here's an idea from Hank wrote on Feb 5, 2008 3:13 PM:

" I have no issue with fools not wearing a seat belt, or their kids. All that I would ask of the state is to require is that these people sign a notarized letter stating that they will accept no public funding for medical transport, treatment or final internment (burial or cremation) if they and/or their family members are involved in any automobile related accident. Their driver's license and vehicle plate must also carry this information in some form or fashion. Perhaps we could also make this a requirement for motorcyclists that choose not to wear a helmet?
"

Fred wrote on Feb 5, 2008 3:29 PM:

" Libertarian, I suppose that putting flouride into drinking water is also a grand conspiracy too, and that the glue on the back of a postage stamp contains government mind control drugs? "

Common Sense wrote on Feb 5, 2008 3:39 PM:

" Currently the system in Wyomin is, if you get pulled over for something else (like speeding or stickers), and you are wearing a seat belt, you get a five dollar discount on your ticket (which I think is nice, but whatever). That's the current way. So now we're talking about jumping straight from that to "Pull 'em over for being suspected of not wearing one." Why not an intermediate step of actually fining people who are pulled over for something else (like speeding or stickers), but are not wearing a seat belt. You get pulled over for speeding, you're not wearing a seat belt.... boom, fifty more bucks tacked on to your ticket. More for multiple offenses. But no pulling over just for seat belts. That's too far, too fast. "

Libertarian wrote on Feb 5, 2008 5:27 PM:

" Barking and Fred, you guys are tools. You probably like gun control and Hillary Clinton as well. Maybe we need some new hate crimes legislation too, because hate kills. If you don't like it, quit hating. Follow the law. Sound stupid? That's because it is. Point is this. It ain't the government's business if I wear a seat belt or not, in my own vehicle. If the system is not broken, don't add new laws to fix it. "

55 Stay Alive wrote on Feb 5, 2008 7:51 PM:

" First of all, Libertarian, lawful cause is one of the most important tools in law enforcement. I was a California Highway Patrolman for twelve years before moving to Sheridan last year. In California, the pull-over seat belt law has been a valuable asset for gaining access to certain drivers we would not otherwise have access to. That's just reality. And those pull-overs stand up in court, trust me. We busted more DUI's from "seat belt" pullovers than checkpoints could even come close to. Which is good. Police officers are not stupid. They can tell a pickup truck with a bubba driver from a family of five going to the park. Looking at all the Texas plates around Sheridan and Gillette these days, and the high probability of drunk drivers and other bubba type degenerates, you definitely have a need for lawful cause stops here, whether you want to admit it or not. I'm not saying they're all bad, but they have to be checked out. You can't make assumptions. "

JRT wrote on Feb 6, 2008 12:12 AM:

" I'm all for officers being able to pull people over for not wearing seatbelts. Look how many people are killed and injured while not wearing seatbelts. Look at all the people killed in one vehicle rollovers where they would have survived if they wore their seatbelts. Look at our insurance rates climb. "

Sgt. wrote on Feb 6, 2008 3:15 AM:

" Common sense says that the cops can pull you over for equipment violations white light to the rear. displaying the wrong color of lights, too many head lights, not using your turn signal, no tag light ect, ect. It has been my experiance that if a cop wants to pull you over there are hundreds of reason to do so. The cops don't need the seatbelt law to pull you over. This is about making our roadways safer and reducing the cost of insurance.
Until a case law named Delaware vs Prouse police could pull you over just to check you out because driving is a privilage. The supreme court then stated that the drivers who don't deserve that privilage would make themselves known to the police by their driving charecteristics. Not wearing your seatbelt IS an equipment violation as the law reads right now and like the DWUI laws in Wyoming the fines are so weak nobody pays attention to them.
If you are worried about cops making up the seatbelt excuse to pull you over then you must be worried that the cops are also making up other reasons to pull you over because they sure don't need to make up excuses when 90% of the drivers hurry up and put on the seatbelt before the cop gets to the window anyway. Put on your seatbelt, get off the phone, and drive it like you stole it! "

Ron M wrote on Feb 6, 2008 9:10 AM:

" 55, I agree that pulling over DUI drivers is important, even if you have to do it as a "seat belt" stop. A certain amount of profiling is necessary, I think we would all agree. But just because someone is driving a pickup with Texas plates does not mean they are a "bubba" or drunk at the wheel. That's pretty offensive stuff. I don't how you do things in California, but here we have something called respect. "

Max wrote on Feb 6, 2008 10:17 AM:

" If there is a need, as 55 said, for random pullovers to catch DUI drivers, then the legislature should just pass a law allowing random pullovers. Why approach it from the back door, and call it a "seat belt" law? That's dishonest and misleading. I'd support broader police power, if it meant catching probable drug dealers or drunk drivers like Libertarian or other liberals on this blog. Like the others have said, if you don't like it, don't break the law. "

Go Pokes! wrote on Feb 6, 2008 11:36 AM:

" I am a law abiding citizen and i think that police being able to pull you over for no reason is unjust. Max says that you should be able to have random stops, then lets just have random house searches and other illegal acts by police officials and make the state a police state. "

55 Stay Alive wrote on Feb 6, 2008 3:21 PM:

" Ron, I am not saying that ALL Texans are drunk drivers. I am simply saying that you need to check on it rather than make assumptions about their innocence. And as an ex-highway patrolman, I know that the best way to check is a seat belt pull-over. The reason this works the best is that something like a license plate light being out actually has to be out if you are going to stop someone for it. And the DUI ticket you write can be dismissed in court if the guy is smart enough to hire an attorney and look into it (which most are now). The seat belt deal is way better for officers because the officer can say with more believability to a judge that he "thought" the guy was not wearing one. It was suspected, so I pulled him over. Trust me, it works. That's all I can say. And that is the good part about "seat belt" pull-over laws like this, from a criminal justice standpoint. It gets you in that vehicle. Honestly, it's not that complicated. "

gator wrote on Feb 6, 2008 4:01 PM:

" What happens if someone like my husband after having heart surgery can't have the seat belt across his chest for a while. Is he going to have to carry a medical excuse. Maybe they aren't catching enough people driving fast, and need the money "

amazed wrote on Feb 6, 2008 7:01 PM:

" I'm proud of Kathy, but disagree with her 100%. I'm a pretty good driver; I've taken professional driving lessons. But I'm p**s-poor at buckling up. Lazy. Just plain lazy, even though I know better. I've been taught the statistics about the number of people that would have lived through that fatal accident, if they had been wearing the belt or their motorcycle helmet. I KNOW BETTER. But because I'm an otherwise careful driver, the chances of me giving the police probable cause to pull me over for something else--speeding, burned-out headlight, blowing a red light--is pretty slim. I admit that I believe the only thing that would overcome my laziness is my miserliness: Hit me in the wallet and maybe I'll "get it." If we aren't going to give law enforcement the chance to modify our behavior, repeal the seatbelt law and let the cost of insurance regulate our behaviour. "

Max wrote on Feb 6, 2008 7:34 PM:

" Pokes, all I am saying is that if you want to catch drunk drivers, drug dealers, people with unregistered guns, etc., you can't tie law enforcement's hands. Give them the authority they need for search and seizure on the spot. That's how you keep people safe. 55 is an ex-cop, and he is telling you straight up. This "seat belt" law gets them the access they need for random stops. So what are you hiding that you are so afraid of, anyway. Perhaps you are part of the problem. "

Scott wrote on Feb 6, 2008 8:21 PM:

" We've got clueless Fred saying, "don't be paranoid." Then we've got 55, an ex-cop saying that we need this law right away because it provides a front so that arresting officers can lie to judges more easily about pulling over random vehicles. Am I the only one who sees a problem with police officers looking for a better way to lie to judges? Did we enter crazy-world here? "

Logic wrote on Feb 6, 2008 8:46 PM:

" Gator, if you're husband has to break the law because of his heart surgery, he should have thought of that before eating all those french fries. Actions have consequences. Why is that so hard for liberals like you to understand. Like Axle says above, just follow the law. It's not rocket science, Hillary. "

Marvin wrote on Feb 7, 2008 8:45 AM:

" If ya don't wanna wear a seat belt or a motorcycle helmet, that is fine with me as long as my tax dollars are never used to pay for your medical bills or long term care once you become a veggie. Your actions, and inactions come with consequences and not just for you. Your "feedom" once it affects my life is no longer a personal choice. Deal with it. "

Doh... wrote on Feb 7, 2008 11:45 AM:

" A seatbelt law in effect with proper and effective sanctions/fines will ensure that 1) that seatbelt usage with today’s motor vehicles safety designs, airbags etc, safety passenger compartments, will ensure the safest use of those vehicles and its passengers. All first responders will appreciate that. 2) It is to make sure it is enforceable, and ensure all occupants are properly belted. Maybe tiered fine for violations like Iowa’s will help increase the usage.

The privledge to drive is a privledge, not a right. Your actions on the road, in your car have a direct effect to those around you or with you on the roadway.

Regardlss if you have a seatbelt on or not.

But your inaction, costs me money, for my insurance rates, medical rates, and possiblity, because you didn't click it, someone else will not have the direct care for a different trauma, or illness that may require immediate medical help, like strokes,haert attack etc....

It's your car with your family. You have the privedge of driving it. If you Choose not to operate under the priveldges and laws stating how to operate it, park and walk or find alternative transportation.

We have to make laws for those that won’t govern themselves (in behavior and actions) and guide those down a path of moral and legal obligation to every other person on the road.

So if you don't like being stopped by the cops, then buckle up... Don't give them a reason to stop you. It's simple as that. "

Go Pokes! wrote on Feb 7, 2008 11:57 AM:

" So essentially what you are saying is that guns and drugs are such a huge problem in Wyoming that we need to have random stops to find these things? How paranoid are we? My neighbor is not wearing a seatbelt, he could be running drugs. I think that if an officer has a legitimate reason to stop someone then so be it, tail light out, speeding, etc. But pulling someone over for a seat belt is ridiculous. I agree with the above post with adding extra fines onto a violation for not wearing a seat belt. Next thing we will be required to have a seatbelt on while sitting on our couch, we may fall and get hurt. It is a personal choice, such as choosing to look both ways while crossing the street or to ride a bull or not. Some people may just need the thrill of driving their car without a seat belt, it is their choice, not someone elses to make for you. I just think the government is pushing privacy out the window as a whole. First it is seat belts, then it is illegal wiretapping, whats next, tracking all people with a GPS, what if i don't want anybody to know where I am every single day? When do we stop making new idiotic laws. "

Whatthe!? wrote on Feb 7, 2008 12:26 PM:

" I would like seat belt use enforced by law because those choosing not to buckle up are likely endangering their passengers and/or children by not making them buckle up which is where my concern lies, with the kids who have no safetly guidance. If it lowered insurance costs that would be great, but can't remember getting any insurance costs lowered in my lifetime except in the case of multiple policy discounts. If it lowers the cost to the state which I heard on the news, then every representative and taxpayer should be on board for that reason. I don't get any satisfaction out of paying other peoples expenses, my own are sufficient, thanks anyway. "

JYN wrote on Feb 7, 2008 12:51 PM:

" Logic, keep your caustic remarks to yourself. Not all heart surgeries are food-related. Been there, done that, no cholesteral involved!

Having said that, I agree with "just follow the law." Sound advice. I'll add to that, if you don't like the law, work to change it. "

Logic wrote on Feb 7, 2008 1:30 PM:

" JYN, it may not have been food-related, but it doesn't matter. We have to make people responsible for their own health in this country. Just because you were dumb enough to get yourself heart disease through whatever bad habits you have taken up, that does not give you an excuse to harm the general public by not wearing a seat belt. Do you know anything about the public good or civic responsibility? "

55 Stay Alive wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:21 PM:

" Pokes, how will you know if guns and drugs are a problem or not, if you don't pull them over. Trust me, with this many roughnecks, truckers and other low lives running around, there's a problem. I've been here for well over a year, and seen my share of dregs already. What are you afraid of? Follow the law, pull over when they tell you to pull over, and you have nothing to worry about. There has to be order. "

Sgt. wrote on Feb 7, 2008 4:31 PM:

" Hello, The supreme court has already decided this issue in Delaware vs Prouse. Random stops or compliance checks for illegal drivers is illegal. As stated in the courts opinion the criminals will, according to the supreme court, manifest their criminality or undeserving nature to drive based on other factors.

(speculation) If you are a law abiding citizen 80% of the cops desicion to give you a citation is based on your attitude toward the officer police officer 10% is if there is a percieved problem that the department is trying to crack down on i.e. safety awarness, CARTE operations, underage drinking stings, child seat operations ect.ect. 10% looking for the real criminals. I doubt this is a hard and fast rule but I think it is probably more true then not. A citation means more paperwork and court time on the cops days off. This is the reality that the cops have to deal with to keep drugs and drunk drivers off the roads so the deserving law abiding drivers are as safe as possible. It is a fact that felony cases have been made from speeding stops, equipment violations (including seatbelts violations), arresting fugitives. Anyone remember Timothy McVeigh? He was caught because of a traffic violation not because of the brilliant investigation of the oklahoma city bombing. So giving the cops the lawful presence to speak with you about wearing your seatbelt will accomplish two goals, 1. save lives and 2. fight crime. "

Pinedale wrote on Feb 7, 2008 7:42 PM:

" To Sgt, 55, Logic and the other wack jobs on this blog, you guys are nuts. Move to China if you like search and seizure so much. You guys have all but admitted that you are aching for this law so that cops can pull people over when ever they want, where ever they want, without real cause. I happen to respect private property, such as the inside of my vehicle. Some of my guns are registered, some are not. Sometimes concealed, sometimes not. Stay out of my business and no one has to find out. What is wrong with you people ? "

Road Warrior wrote on Feb 7, 2008 8:22 PM:

" Max and Adolf 55 are a complete embarrassment to themselves. 55 identifies the very reason cops are not allowed to search without probable cause. Occasionally they have NO RESPECT for our Constitution. Sorry 55, but I, and most of the United States, choose to live in a world that does make assumptions about innocence until probable cause says otherwise. "

JYN wrote on Feb 8, 2008 1:29 PM:

" I know alot about public good, civil responsibility, and HEART DISORDERS. Not all heart surgeries are the results bad habits. Ever hear of congenital defects (it means defects with which one was born)? One can live the most healthy lifestyle known to humankind, but still eventually need surgery due to a disorder beyond one's control.

My point was you were spot on with the statement about following the law. Personal attacks on someone who's circumstances you don't know detract from the sound comments.

"

Jimnae wrote on Sep 16, 2008 8:09 PM:

" Traffic safety advocates have said that tougher laws for adults would boost seat belt use by 17 percentage points in Massachusetts, preventing about 25 deaths and 4,000 to 6,000 injuries a year. Historically, Massachusetts has ranked near the bottom nationally in seat belt use.

---------------------
Jimnae
California Dui "

Submit a Comment

We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.

Please note: We provide our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.