FrankDrebin
Moderator
Stop someone without reasonable suspicion to believe they committed, or are about to commit a crime? That's unconstitutional.
Click It or Ticket Mobilization
- Thread starter stardate
- Start date
- Status
Stop someone without reasonable suspicion to believe they committed, or are about to commit a crime? That's unconstitutional.
Spotted Owl
New member
Then perhaps we should station a cop in every McDonalds to make sure no one eats too many artery-clogging Big Macs.
1. Primary or not, if you don't wear a seat belt, you're breaking the law.
2. Because they are paid for with tax dollars, the roads are regulated public property. Those regulations included licensing, vehicle safety and emissions, speed limits, weight limits, hazardous materials, chemical influence and personal safety devices. None of those things are "unconstitutional". If you don't like them, don't drive on public roads. Almost none apply to private property.
3. Unbelted people are a liability to other people. One loose person can bludgeon an entire vehicle full of people. Unbelted drivers have less control during a crash.
4. If this was about money, why are they doing so much advertising? Who is so stupid to be surprised if they get a ticket during "National Seatbelt month"?
I really doubt this campagain would exist if so many people didn't get killed (or kill others) every year because of their failure to comply with a simple law. So much bellyaching over nothing.
Want to get those cops back? Don't give them anything to ticket.
2. Because they are paid for with tax dollars, the roads are regulated public property. Those regulations included licensing, vehicle safety and emissions, speed limits, weight limits, hazardous materials, chemical influence and personal safety devices. None of those things are "unconstitutional". If you don't like them, don't drive on public roads. Almost none apply to private property.
3. Unbelted people are a liability to other people. One loose person can bludgeon an entire vehicle full of people. Unbelted drivers have less control during a crash.
4. If this was about money, why are they doing so much advertising? Who is so stupid to be surprised if they get a ticket during "National Seatbelt month"?
I really doubt this campagain would exist if so many people didn't get killed (or kill others) every year because of their failure to comply with a simple law. So much bellyaching over nothing.
Want to get those cops back? Don't give them anything to ticket.
Generally, I STRONGLY disagree. If you are very badly injured in an automotive accident, due to not using a seatbelt, the chances are overwhelming that I will be involuntarily compelled pay your medical bills. Simply stated, that is not fair and spending my hard earned money to keep you alive certainly harms me.
To illustrate:
a) An individual -- even one with good medical insurance -- is hospitalized for months (including post-hospitalization therapy, etc.) due to a car accident (and we all know the injuries’ severity is likely to MUCH worse without seatbelt use).
b) At very best, my health insurance and car insurance rates will increase due to this accident; that’s real harm with real money extracted from my wallet.
c) In addition, if you are destitute and/or you exceed your heath insurance’s financial limits, your medical care will then be covered by welfare (Medicaid, et al); here, too, that’s real harm with my wallet again being penalized for increased welfare taxes.
I hate government interference with personal liberties as much as anyone on TFL, and I certainly do not approve of “seatbelt stops”. However, don’t tell me no one else is harmed, because that is plainly untrue. Perhaps the solution is being sufficiently hard-hearted to allow individuals to die when they cannot afford to pay their own healthcare costs.
1) If they are stopping you and checking for seatbelt use, I would think that constitutes a roadblock.
2) Injury and fatality would also be down if all cars were required to have a rollcage and the driver wearing a firesuit and helmet. Look at racing, those guys hit the wall at 200 then go beat up on the guy that put them into the wall. I suppose by that logic, if it saved people, we mus do it.
3) I agree with you on that point. Kids should be buckeled up. But adults should have the ability to decide whether or not they wear it.
4) If the local police writes the ticket, doesn't the money go to them?
5) Yep, cops are just doing their jobs.
When you do those, you run the risk of hurting others. When you don't wear your seat belt, you don't run that risk.
So here is what we do. You are required to now carry insurance. If you crack yourself open, and don't have insurance, or can't pay for the bill, you lose your license for life.
Just remember, rollcages, firesuits and helmets save lives too. 5 point racing belts too. I want them to be mandatory. If it only saves one life, isn't it worth it?
Seat belt usage.
Nobody can force you to wear your seat belt. But i can think of 5 persons right off hand that would be alive now if they had been.
If you want to be thrown about or ejected from your vehicle in case of a collision with whatever, be my guest. But infants and minor children need to be strapped in, even if your to stupid to do so for yourself.
Iowa has no helmet law for motorcycles either, those that ride without one are referred to as = organ donors.
The money that is taken from issuing citations for violations of Iowa's 321 code goes - general fund - retirement for judges - and a small portion goes to the county it was issued in.
12-34hom.
Nobody can force you to wear your seat belt. But i can think of 5 persons right off hand that would be alive now if they had been.
If you want to be thrown about or ejected from your vehicle in case of a collision with whatever, be my guest. But infants and minor children need to be strapped in, even if your to stupid to do so for yourself.
Iowa has no helmet law for motorcycles either, those that ride without one are referred to as = organ donors.
The money that is taken from issuing citations for violations of Iowa's 321 code goes - general fund - retirement for judges - and a small portion goes to the county it was issued in.
12-34hom.
rallyhound
New member
those of you that support mandatory seat belt laws certainly cant argue then that we should also require locks on guns as well, for the general good of the public.
Oh wait, smart guns are even safer.
Oh wait, pumps are safer than semi auto.
Oh wait, doubles are safer than pumps.
And on and on.
Oh wait, smart guns are even safer.
Oh wait, pumps are safer than semi auto.
Oh wait, doubles are safer than pumps.
And on and on.
Unfortunately, the red sticker on the right side of my dash is mostly blocked by the tachometer. It's one of those "Buckle Up For Safety" stickers (showing a body with seat/chest belts buckled up) that was used to promote the mandatory use of seat belt law in Colorado some years ago. A fellow surgeon in town who knew that, while I wouldn't back out of my driveway without fastening my seat belt, I was not in favor of the "nanny state" attitude that wants to force all to do things for their own safety.
He pushed me to stick it on my dash and kept asking about it until I did put it on my motorcycle dash. I could honestly say I put it on my dash. He couldn't even bring himself to say ""motorcycle" out loud so the dash holding his sticker never came up.
It never fails to draw laughs but I doubt my fellow surgeon would see the humor in it.
Last edited:
Ben Swenson
New member
First of all, I wear my seatbelt if I'm going to be leaving the driveway. Period. Every time. Barring some bizarre circumstances, I will not have to pay the seatbelt fine. I still don't like it.
A lot of you are putting forth the idea that because seatbelts save lives, and save money that laws punishing people who don't wear them are a good thing. So can you tell me why seatbelt regulations are okay but government regulated diet and exercise isn't? Or why government alcohol control programs would be a bad thing? Or why dangerous hobby restrictions (motorcycles, cars, mountain climbing, boxing, martial arts, football, baseball, electronic tinkering, etc) shouldn't be implemented? Lives and money would be saved.
A lot of you are putting forth the idea that because seatbelts save lives, and save money that laws punishing people who don't wear them are a good thing. So can you tell me why seatbelt regulations are okay but government regulated diet and exercise isn't? Or why government alcohol control programs would be a bad thing? Or why dangerous hobby restrictions (motorcycles, cars, mountain climbing, boxing, martial arts, football, baseball, electronic tinkering, etc) shouldn't be implemented? Lives and money would be saved.
Smurfslayer
New member
FrankDrebin said:
"Fifth: If you don't like the law, why are you whining about the cops? Your elected officials were the ones who passed the law"
SS: Because it is primarily LE personnel who use their interest groups to lobby legislatures to enact laws like this. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cowardly legislators who will give LE anything they want to avoid the "soft on crime" label.
Also (not for Frank) Virginia is not, nor has it been a primary seat belt state - we're only a secondary enforcement state. I think that if a participating ( in the click it or ticket ruse ) state is a secondary enforcement state, they've gotten the NHTSA grant for OT and other uses, and they are conducting check points during that campaign - I would say it doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that.
Facts:
State enforces seat belts only as secondary offense
State accepts federal $$$ for click it or ticket campaign
State conducts road check points as part of this campaign.
Here you have a state which is conducting a check point, road block, courtesy stop; whatever as part of an enforcement campaign sponsored by the federal .gov. The above mentioned state is not legally allowed to write a citation for only a seat belt infraction, but they've set up road check points to UNCOVER these infractions. So, the police in secondary states, for lack of being able to convince the legislators to "go the extra mile" for the police get to not only write the tickets for the secondary offense, they get to actually create the "exigent circumstances" for the stop!
You can raise the hue and cry all you want about the good seat belts can do, and lives saved, but in the above scenarios, take a step back from the rhetoric for a moment.... At what cost?
"Fifth: If you don't like the law, why are you whining about the cops? Your elected officials were the ones who passed the law"
SS: Because it is primarily LE personnel who use their interest groups to lobby legislatures to enact laws like this. Unfortunately, there are quite a few cowardly legislators who will give LE anything they want to avoid the "soft on crime" label.
Also (not for Frank) Virginia is not, nor has it been a primary seat belt state - we're only a secondary enforcement state. I think that if a participating ( in the click it or ticket ruse ) state is a secondary enforcement state, they've gotten the NHTSA grant for OT and other uses, and they are conducting check points during that campaign - I would say it doesn't get much more unconstitutional than that.
Facts:
State enforces seat belts only as secondary offense
State accepts federal $$$ for click it or ticket campaign
State conducts road check points as part of this campaign.
Here you have a state which is conducting a check point, road block, courtesy stop; whatever as part of an enforcement campaign sponsored by the federal .gov. The above mentioned state is not legally allowed to write a citation for only a seat belt infraction, but they've set up road check points to UNCOVER these infractions. So, the police in secondary states, for lack of being able to convince the legislators to "go the extra mile" for the police get to not only write the tickets for the secondary offense, they get to actually create the "exigent circumstances" for the stop!
You can raise the hue and cry all you want about the good seat belts can do, and lives saved, but in the above scenarios, take a step back from the rhetoric for a moment.... At what cost?
I seem to recall that the main impetus for seatbelt laws came about because of the efforts of Senator Elizabeth Dole.
The automakers were threatened with a federal mandate for airbags or other passive restraint systems, but were promised an out if 2/3 of the US population was under seat-belt laws before the 1990 deadline.
Ah, found the website I was thinking of:
The Fraud of Seat Belt Laws
I buckle up every trip, but I'm so glad I live in New Hampshire anyway.
The automakers were threatened with a federal mandate for airbags or other passive restraint systems, but were promised an out if 2/3 of the US population was under seat-belt laws before the 1990 deadline.
Ah, found the website I was thinking of:
The Fraud of Seat Belt Laws
Lo and behold, the automakers were suckered right along with the voters who agreed to "secondary" enforcement. The automaker suckers got nailed with the airbag mandate, and the voter suckers got nailed with primary enforcement, in the end.
I buckle up every trip, but I'm so glad I live in New Hampshire anyway.
Click it or pay.......
Interesting revenue generation device now isn't it? I bet the insurance companies are all for it too.... The law is according to data and statistics a good one. I tend to think it is too. However when I see 12 different police vehicles in a line waiting to nail the next guy the spot LEO calls out is a little much. Mean time one mile away crime is in progress and a major part of the enforcement troops are busy giving coupons out.....
I know the next guy will say no it's not that way.........and I say yes it is and the eyes in my thick skull have seen it in action......
I wonder why just this short time is it a national program? I just don't get how the darts fly and hit a spot on the board of lets make some money??? Maybe next month will be National Stop the Hookers month???? It's politics and money that make this happy nation what it is........ :barf:
It is B.S. and I bet most LEO's don't care too much for it either?...just for the reasons mentioned above..... Glad I'm not part of such a program.....
Don't get me wrong......Seat belts do help save lives and I wear mine all the time.... It smells a little like the smoke out policy and laws that were jammed down smokers throats........and no I am not a smoker either..... Did I mention something about the revenue such enforcement brings into government????????????????? Hmmmmmmm very interesting isn't it
Interesting revenue generation device now isn't it? I bet the insurance companies are all for it too.... The law is according to data and statistics a good one. I tend to think it is too. However when I see 12 different police vehicles in a line waiting to nail the next guy the spot LEO calls out is a little much. Mean time one mile away crime is in progress and a major part of the enforcement troops are busy giving coupons out.....
I know the next guy will say no it's not that way.........and I say yes it is and the eyes in my thick skull have seen it in action......I wonder why just this short time is it a national program? I just don't get how the darts fly and hit a spot on the board of lets make some money??? Maybe next month will be National Stop the Hookers month???? It's politics and money that make this happy nation what it is........ :barf:
It is B.S. and I bet most LEO's don't care too much for it either?...just for the reasons mentioned above..... Glad I'm not part of such a program.....
Don't get me wrong......Seat belts do help save lives and I wear mine all the time.... It smells a little like the smoke out policy and laws that were jammed down smokers throats........and no I am not a smoker either..... Did I mention something about the revenue such enforcement brings into government????????????????? Hmmmmmmm very interesting isn't it
"State enforces seat belts only as secondary offense"
Not in Colorado - it recently became primary though no one knows how that will be enforced.
The feds - congress - get around the tenth amendment by declaring an issue having to do with interstate commerce and have been out of hand for a long time.
The supreme court has declared random stops to check for drugs as a violation of the fourth amendment but random stops to check blood alcohol levels (by breatalyzer) do not violate the fourth amendment.
Go figure. They get away with those things because we allow them to. They respond to the bleeding heart do-gooders who claim they are saving us from ourselves for our own good.
:barf:
Not in Colorado - it recently became primary though no one knows how that will be enforced.
The feds - congress - get around the tenth amendment by declaring an issue having to do with interstate commerce and have been out of hand for a long time.
The supreme court has declared random stops to check for drugs as a violation of the fourth amendment but random stops to check blood alcohol levels (by breatalyzer) do not violate the fourth amendment.
Go figure. They get away with those things because we allow them to. They respond to the bleeding heart do-gooders who claim they are saving us from ourselves for our own good.
:barf:Aint no sense arguing about it. You dont want to wear your belt, fine with me. Pay your ticket and go piss and moan about it somewhere else. The government babies people because there are so many idiots that need to be, and unfortunately we all pay for it. I dont need to be told to wear mine, I know i'm a little safer with it. I dont need to be told coffee is hot, but evidently some people do. I did not know double bacon cheeseburgers would make me fat, guess i'll sue. Aw forget it. Who am I fooling, we all know the government is out to get us. They tap my phone lines, cover up alien crashes, follow me everywhere I go, and probably have satelite photos of me peeing off my front porch. Well, i've got to go, the FBI is knocking on my door again wanting to search the house.
Mike Irwin
Staff
I'm a big fan of people getting into accidents while not wearing seatbelts.
Thins the herd and improves the gene pool.
Thins the herd and improves the gene pool.
FrankDrebin
Moderator
We have a euphamism just for that: "Time and a half".
progunner1957
Moderator
"For our own good"
Seatbelt roadblocks? Hey, why stop there??
How about we all submit to random frisks on the street as we walk about town? That would be a good idea, too - after all, it might catch criminals with drugs and/or illegal guns.
While we're at it, how about we all submit to twice yearly police "home visits" where they go theough our closets, drawers and cupboards? That's a good idea too - after all, it might catch criminals woth drugs and/or illegal guns.
Both of these examples happen daily in Japan - for the prople's "own good."
Maybe we should live just like the people in Japan, if it's "for our own good."
On the other hand, if you want to live like they do in Japan -
GET OFF YOUR A** AND MOVE TO JAPAN!!!
Seatbelt roadblocks? Hey, why stop there??How about we all submit to random frisks on the street as we walk about town? That would be a good idea, too - after all, it might catch criminals with drugs and/or illegal guns.
While we're at it, how about we all submit to twice yearly police "home visits" where they go theough our closets, drawers and cupboards? That's a good idea too - after all, it might catch criminals woth drugs and/or illegal guns.
Both of these examples happen daily in Japan - for the prople's "own good."
Maybe we should live just like the people in Japan, if it's "for our own good."
On the other hand, if you want to live like they do in Japan -
GET OFF YOUR A** AND MOVE TO JAPAN!!!
In the vehicle that I can use and get away with it (not wearing seatbelts), would destroy anything modern on the road today .
I'm thinking of putting in at least a lap belt but that still won't keep me from hitting the steering wheel through and the car isn't built to take shoulder belts. (but if I did that the value would drop).
In the other two vehicles that I have I wear them. Not because I'm told to do so but because I want to.
Same with helmets. In ID you didn't have to wear them, I did. I think that people should have the choice to chose to wear safety gear.
Wayne
.I'm thinking of putting in at least a lap belt but that still won't keep me from hitting the steering wheel through and the car isn't built to take shoulder belts. (but if I did that the value would drop).
In the other two vehicles that I have I wear them. Not because I'm told to do so but because I want to.
Same with helmets. In ID you didn't have to wear them, I did. I think that people should have the choice to chose to wear safety gear.
Wayne
- Status