Seatbelt Ticket

[Transporter]

Well if you pay your own medical bills then do what you want I guess.If your on a plan that everyone pays into then I guess your spending other peoples hard earned money to repair your bodies injuries that could have been prevented with a seatbelt.Just an idea but I hate seatbelt tickets too and wish they couldnt give them.

 

[BigJake]

Are you kidding man? If the seat belt laws had anything to do with public perception or exposure then the legislators would have put it up for public vote. How do you think that vote would go based on current public perception and exposure? They chose seatbelts because the enforcement (troopers, deputies, officers, etc) was already out there and not generating enough revenue to subsidize their existance. Seat belt violations were a "gimme" and nothing more.

I wasn't arguing that authorities weren't truely concerned about safety because they didn't regulate other safety risks, in fact, I stated "How many troopers would write educational seat belt tickets to non wearers if there was no money involved. How many would take the time to pull you over, step out into the elements and traffic to try and save your life with a seat belt reminder if there was no fine/money involved." I think this is a true test of their true concerns and intentions. I feel that if there was no money involved and just voluntary concern for motorists safety was the only incentive, you would never see any law enforcement pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt just so they could educate the public they are paid to serve.

I have no doubt that all law enforcement personnel knew that seat belts save lives prior to it being a fine generating citation. How many people, before it was law, got pulled over for not wearing one just so the officer could bolster public perception and a bunch of other factors as you put it. Did legislators propose doing this for free as a public service or just jump right into a revenue generating fine situation. Think about that for just a minute, did any law enforcement care about people wearing seat belts before there was a fine attached? You and I both know the answer to that one, and if one of us doesn't then one of us is no doubt asinine.

Good debate though, I enjoy having it. EW

It's sad, you really don't have a clue.

 

[EricW]

It's sad, you really don't have a clue.

Enlighten me, I don't get out much........EW

 

[X-it]

Dogooders passing laws they think save lifes. But pretty soon you wonder how the heck it gets to be such a pain in the a$$ rule enforced unfree country, in the end all the rules and regulations add stress which in turn causes more deaths than what it was intended to save.

 

[skibreeze]

Dogooders passing laws they think save lifes. But pretty soon you wonder how the heck it gets to be such a pain in the a$$ rule enforced unfree country, in the end all the rules and regulations add stress which in turn causes more deaths than what it was intended to save.

Pretty simple to put a seatbelt on, no stress involved. BTW, they do, in fact save lives.

 

[NDflatlander]

You broke the law deal with it.

 

[Superjag]

Are you kidding man? If the seat belt laws had anything to do with public perception or exposure then the legislators would have put it up for public vote. How do you think that vote would go based on current public perception and exposure? They chose seatbelts because the enforcement (troopers, deputies, officers, etc) was already out there and not generating enough revenue to subsidize their existance. Seat belt violations were a "gimme" and nothing more.

I wasn't arguing that authorities weren't truely concerned about safety because they didn't regulate other safety risks, in fact, I stated "How many troopers would write educational seat belt tickets to non wearers if there was no money involved. How many would take the time to pull you over, step out into the elements and traffic to try and save your life with a seat belt reminder if there was no fine/money involved." I think this is a true test of their true concerns and intentions. I feel that if there was no money involved and just voluntary concern for motorists safety was the only incentive, you would never see any law enforcement pulling anyone over for not wearing a seat belt just so they could educate the public they are paid to serve.

I have no doubt that all law enforcement personnel knew that seat belts save lives prior to it being a fine generating citation. How many people, before it was law, got pulled over for not wearing one just so the officer could bolster public perception and a bunch of other factors as you put it. Did legislators propose doing this for free as a public service or just jump right into a revenue generating fine situation. Think about that for just a minute, did any law enforcement care about people wearing seat belts before there was a fine attached? You and I both know the answer to that one, and if one of us doesn't then one of us is no doubt asinine.

Good debate though, I enjoy having it. EW

I humbly disagree (Not about the debate part, this is enjoyable. Sure beats actually working.) One of the difficulties here is that you are not differentiating between the roles of the legislator and the role of law enforcement. Yes, the legislator may have factored in the additional revenue which would be created when they enacted the seat belt law, but that really has very little to do with the role of law enforcement officers. You allege that law enforcement would not pull people over and cite them for not wearing a seat belt if there was no $$ involved. I would argue that the $$ is irrelevant to the officer (even if it's not to irrelevant the legislature). It's not like the officer gets some of the money for writing you a ticket. The officer is simply enforcing the laws which he or she is directed to enforce. He or she is doing his or her job. That's it. Now, hopefully the officer does have a concern for public safety at heart, but that's not the point. He or she is responsible for law enforcement (thus the name), and so if the legislature says to pull you over for not wearing a seat belt, that's what's going to happen. If the legislators say to give you a ticket for not picking up your dog poop, that's what's going to happen.

Let's look at your logic another way. There is some sort of applicable fine for literally every criminal offense on the books in this country. Using your logic, we could say that law enforcement doesn't care about public safety at all , because the underlying rationale for every arrest they make must be revenue generation, not the concern for public safety. Following that to it's logical conclusion would result that ALL laws (and their subsequent enforcement by law enforcement) must simply be aimed at generating revenue, and not out of concern for public safety. So, if a cop sees me swerving all over the road and pulls me over for DWI, it must be because he or she wants to generate revenue, not because he or she cares about public safety, right?

As side note, I also disagree with your assumption regarding how a seat belt vote would turn out. While it's really a non-issue, as neither of us would ever prove our position, I suspect that the seat belt law would have far greater support than you imagine.