Seat Belt Laws and Fines by State

[PaulConventionWV]

How are seat belts dangerous? I've heard people drum up this idea that seat belts are dangerous before, but I've never really seen any substantiation for this claim. It really does seem like they are safer than being unfastened. Just because there are laws against not wearing them, it doesn't mean they are automatically bad for you.

Also, I often wonder how enforceable this law really is. How does an officer prove that you were not wearing a seat belt? Does the judge just take their word for it? Has it gone that far that the testimony of an officer is blatantly all that is needed in order to convict you anymore? At least with speeding they have these handy devices they claim can tell them how fast you were going, but with seat belt laws we're supposed to just trust that the officer saw the exact position of that little leather strap as you zoomed by at 65mph? What kind of evidence do they use to convict someone of that? It should be pretty easy to put your seat belt on while being pulled over without the officer noticing, so how do they even prove that they really saw you without your seat belt on? It just doesn't make any sense that they can just say that you didn't have your seat belt on and it automatically becomes true... I don't understand.

 

[eduardo89]

How are seat belts dangerous? I've heard people drum up this idea that seat belts are dangerous before, but I've never really seen any substantiation for this claim. It really does seem like they are safer than being unfastened. Just because there are laws against not wearing them, it doesn't mean they are automatically bad for you.

2-point seat belts are dangerous, 3-point (and 4-, 5-, and 6-point) save lives and reduce injuries.

 

[surf]

How are seat belts dangerous? I've heard people drum up this idea that seat belts are dangerous before, but I've never really seen any substantiation for this claim. It really does seem like they are safer than being unfastened. Just because there are laws against not wearing them, it doesn't mean they are automatically bad for you.

Also, I often wonder how enforceable this law really is. How does an officer prove that you were not wearing a seat belt? Does the judge just take their word for it? Has it gone that far that the testimony of an officer is blatantly all that is needed in order to convict you anymore? At least with speeding they have these handy devices they claim can tell them how fast you were going, but with seat belt laws we're supposed to just trust that the officer saw the exact position of that little leather strap as you zoomed by at 65mph? What kind of evidence do they use to convict someone of that? It should be pretty easy to put your seat belt on while being pulled over without the officer noticing, so how do they even prove that they really saw you without your seat belt on? It just doesn't make any sense that they can just say that you didn't have your seat belt on and it automatically becomes true... I don't understand.

it's pretty easy to see if an over-the-shoulder belt isn't on (at least in my truck it is - got off w/a warning last time). old-school lap belts can be dangerous - whiplash, etc.

but if i'm just driving a mile or two to work or the store I still tend to go beltless at times because my truck is big and i'm driving no faster than 35 or so.

 

[bunklocoempire]

$92 out here for telling the man to suck it.

We're so safe and healthy after this that the insurance companies pay us....not.

But really, if anything is so awesome you'd think the money would start falling from the skies. All car related costs for myself has skyrocketed so the idea is bullshit. Just more funds the state can piss away -surprise.

I wear seatbelts off property and it ain't because of the state.

 

[MelissaWV]

Seatbelts are also meant to hold the body in certain positions and at certain points. If you are unusually tall or short or busty or skinny or missing an arm, sorry, you're out of luck. My mom's 4'11" and a seatbelt is more likely to saw her head off than really help out in a crash. Thankfully there are also airbags that will go off right in her face to help if there's ever any big trouble.

Not being strapped in does carry its own set of risks. Being strapped in carries another set. Barring you flinging out of your vehicle and becoming a projectile, you are unlikely to be risking anyone but yourself.

 

[fr33]

I've been in 3 rollover wrecks when I was younger. Each time I was told by law enforcement that I was probably lucky that that I didn't have my seat belt on because I would have been crushed.


Also, I want to wring the neck of those responsible for the dashboard warning my new truck gives me while I drive across a pasture without a seat belt fastened.

 

[invisible]

How are seat belts dangerous?

You can't lean forward to see what happened to the guy who swerved into your blind spot from the next lane, your side mirrors become much less useful and effective. You also become distracted and unable to safely remove something from your pocket, like money for a toll, or perhaps a lighter if you smoke. I feel that seat belts are dangerous as hell, and I feel much less safe wearing one.

Also, I often wonder how enforceable this law really is. How does an officer prove that you were not wearing a seat belt? Does the judge just take their word for it? Has it gone that far that the testimony of an officer is blatantly all that is needed in order to convict you anymore? At least with speeding they have these handy devices they claim can tell them how fast you were going, but with seat belt laws we're supposed to just trust that the officer saw the exact position of that little leather strap as you zoomed by at 65mph? What kind of evidence do they use to convict someone of that? It should be pretty easy to put your seat belt on while being pulled over without the officer noticing, so how do they even prove that they really saw you without your seat belt on? It just doesn't make any sense that they can just say that you didn't have your seat belt on and it automatically becomes true... I don't understand.

Cops don't have to prove anything, judges just take their word on anything and everything. Yes, it really has gone that far, and it's been that way for like 30+ years now. Cops lie all the time, including lying about what the radar says, or what they supposedly saw you wearing or not wearing, or doing or not doing. What needs to happen here is to apply the Constitution, and allow requests for a JURY TRIAL to be granted in the traffic courts. Granted, it wouldn't solve this problem completely, but it would sure go a long way.

 

[invisible]

I want to wring the neck of those responsible for the dashboard warning my new truck gives me while I drive across a pasture without a seat belt fastened.

Go under the dash and snip the wire to the indicator, or jumper across the sensor so that it thinks your seat belt is always fastened. A few minutes with a Chilton manual should tell you everything you need to do it. I doubt that it would cause issues with a vehicle inspection.

 

[Keith and stuff]

If it was really about safety, you would have to wear a helmet at all times in a car, or go to jail.

 

[MelissaWV]

If it was really about safety, you would have to wear a helmet at all times in a car, or go to jail.

You would also see vehicles come with symmetrical harnesses that distribute impact more evenly and do not create one line of broken bones and potential abdominal injuries across one's torso.

To put it more simply... look at your child's car seat. Look at a professional driver's harness/seatbelt. Now look at the standard seatbelt.

The increase in road traffic accidents and the seat belt compliance rate contribute to higher rates of injuries resulting from seat belt use. Chest and/or abdominal abrasion at the site of seat belt contact are commonly seen, and with the exception of subcutaneous bruising, the sternal fracture is the most common seat belt injury.

Sternal fractures are seen with increasing frequency in motor vehicle accidents, especially since the introduction of seat belt legislation. Since that time, the incidence of sternal fractures has increased threefold.

 

[DamianTV]

The subtle point was missed.

The Law is NOT about Safety, it IS about Obedience by absorbing your Currency.

They do not care whether or not there is any Victim in the alleged Crime committed. You dont wear a seatbelt, it hurts no one but yourself. Thus, there is no Victim, and there can not be any Crime. Such Laws only lead to being Fined for not brushing your teeth.

 

[Peace Piper]

If it was really about safety, you would have to wear a helmet at all times in a car, or go to jail.

Obama Trendies Want Mandatory Helmets For Walking

14 out of 20 signed petition endorsing draconian nanny state measure

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 9, 2013
http://www.infowars.com/obama-trendies-want-mandatory-helmets-for-walking/

Should the government enforce the mandatory use of helmets while walking? 14 out of 20 people we asked at the University of Texas supported the draconian measure, emphasizing once again how the majority of the general public will accept almost any nanny state measure no matter how ludicrous.

The petition was entitled “Compelled Helmet Use for Misfortunate Public’ (CHUMP), and called for the City of Austin to enforce mandatory helmet usage for all citizens in addition to the creation of special walking lanes where people could walk obliviously while texting on their cellphones.

Most of the individuals who signed the petition had it explained to them very clearly. Some signed straight away, while others took a little convincing but happily put pen to paper.

One woman was told that the petition was to “get people to wear helmets while they’re walking,” to which she responded “oh perfect, yeah, that’s great,” and immediately signed the petition.

When another man indicated his willingness to sign the petition, a woman responded, “You wanna make everybody wear helmets?,” to which he responded, “these dummies need to wear helmets.”

“It will help keep insurance costs down,” another woman is told as she signs the petition.​

We're going to hear over and over now that insurance is required how we all need to "help keep insurance costs down".

 

[PaulConventionWV]

it's pretty easy to see if an over-the-shoulder belt isn't on (at least in my truck it is - got off w/a warning last time). old-school lap belts can be dangerous - whiplash, etc.

but if i'm just driving a mile or two to work or the store I still tend to go beltless at times because my truck is big and i'm driving no faster than 35 or so.

That's true. I can see how the traditional 2-point seat belts would be dangerous, but I thought some people were actually arguing against seat belts in general.

 

[Keith and stuff]

That's true. I can see how the traditional 2-point seat belts would be dangerous, but I thought some people were actually arguing against seat belts in general.

My understanding is that if a driver has a seat belt on, he is more likely to cause an accident so I'd argue against seat belt use is certain circumstances, for safety reasons.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

You can't lean forward to see what happened to the guy who swerved into your blind spot from the next lane

You can't? News to me? I drive for a living and I've never had that problem.

your side mirrors become much less useful and effective.

How so? Such has not been my experience.

You also become distracted and unable to safely remove something from your pocket, like money for a toll, or perhaps a lighter if you smoke.

How are you distracted? Sure, it probably would make it more difficult to remove something from your pocket, but that's not the seat belt's fault. I usually remove things I might need to take out before I even start the car. You could do the same, you know.

I feel that seat belts are dangerous as hell, and I feel much less safe wearing one.

Well, good for you. I don't see any evidence for this assertion, but... good for you.

Cops don't have to prove anything, judges just take their word on anything and everything. Yes, it really has gone that far, and it's been that way for like 30+ years now. Cops lie all the time, including lying about what the radar says, or what they supposedly saw you wearing or not wearing, or doing or not doing. What needs to happen here is to apply the Constitution, and allow requests for a JURY TRIAL to be granted in the traffic courts. Granted, it wouldn't solve this problem completely, but it would sure go a long way.

The problem is that jury trials aren't worth the effort. You would have to spend time and money in order to go through with something like that, but I do agree with your sentiments in that last portion of your post. It's gone far out of control and it's sometimes just hard to believe that somebody can be charged for what someone thought they saw in a glimpse as they drove past. You'd think there would be a way to effectively fight this considering that the first thing most cops do is to try to get you to confess to your crime, wittingly or unwittingly. It seems like it would be easier for the aware citizen to fight a seat belt ticket since there really is no evidence for any claim that could be made regarding seat belt violations. It's the same way for cell phone violations which are now becoming primary offenses.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

My understanding is that if a driver has a seat belt on, he is more likely to cause an accident so I'd argue against seat belt use is certain circumstances, for safety reasons.

What circumstances? How is a driver with a seat belt on more likely to cause an accident?

 

[Keith and stuff]

What circumstances? How is a driver with a seat belt on more likely to cause an accident?

A driver with a seat belt is more likely to drive recklessly because he feels safer. A driver in a seat belt is also less likely to feel the full driving experience so he is less likely to have a close understanding of the driving experience. 2 factors when combined might mean more wrecks.

Than again, if there are passengers, it's important for them to wear a seat belt, for their safety, when the car is traveling at fast speeds. Of course, that isn't what speed belt laws are about. If a car is stopped for 20 minutes because of an accident, if an adult in the back seat takes his seat belt off, according to the law, he is an evil criminal!

 

[TaftFan]

The law is pointless, which is why I barely care one way or the other. I choose to wear one out of safety.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

The law is pointless, which is why I barely care one way or the other. I choose to wear one out of safety.

Anarchist.

 

[muzzled dogg]

Government's role is protector of life and therefore should mandate helmets and seatbelts