Click It or Ticket Mobilization

[FrankDrebin]

1) If they are stopping you and checking for seatbelt use, I would think that constitutes a roadblock.

They're absoultely NOT stopping you and checking for seatbelt use. That would be unconstitutional. They have probable cause that you are in violation before they even THINK about stopping you, THEN they stop you. That's not 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.

Cost prohibitive and unreasonable. Racecar crash survivability has a lot to do with things other than just roll bars and fire suits. I've seen very FEW crashes on public roads that resulted in a fatality that could have been prevented with a roll bar or fire suit.

4) If the local police writes the ticket, doesn't the money go to them?

Only some of it. I think around here the ticket is either $65.00 or $85.00. Locals get $35.00 or $45.00 at the most and the rest is split up into many different areas, including public libraries, $5.00 to a law enforcement training fund, judge's retirement fund etc...The statute that designates all the many areas of fine disbursement is very long and boring to read.

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?

I'm not sure where I stand on mandatory helmet use. Helmets are requred by the DOT to be rated to hold together during an impact of at least 16.64 feet per second, which is coincidentally the speed your head will be travelling when it hits the ground if you fell off your bike (or a bar stool) while stationary. I think you're more likely to be killed if you're not wearing your helmet than you are to be permanently disabled. The insurance company's death benefit payout is probably less than a lifetime of medical care for someone who is really screwed up as opposed to kilt, so it would probably be beneficial for the rest of us that we have no helmet law, ie. cheaper for us to pay for dead bikers than really messed up bikers.

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.

Over 40,000 people are killed on the road in car crashes every year. I don't know how many were not wearing belts and could have been saved if they were, but I do know the number is significant, as is the number who were saved by belt use. There are "only" something like 10,000 homicides by firearms every year, including accidental ones. The relatively few accidental deaths by firearms without locks can't come close to comparing reasonably to the number of "non-seatbelt" deaths in crashes.

SS: Because it is primarily LE personnel who use their interest groups to lobby legislatures to enact laws like this.

Prove it. I believe the insurance industry has a lot more to do with it than police "personnel" through their lobbyists.

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.....

Time and a half.

Both of these examples happen daily in Japan - for the prople's "own good."

In Japan, the hand can be used as a knife. But not on a tomato.

 

[Smurfslayer]

You asked...

"Prove it. I believe the insurance industry has a lot more to do with it than police "personnel" through their lobbyists."

SS: It's public record, since minutes are kept in most if not all legislatures...
In VA, it was then Supt. Massengil (sp?) who lobbied successfully for secondary enforcement in the 90's some time. He swore in open committee "Virginia will never need primary seat belt enforcement".

Guess who's been back every year since championing primary seat belt enforcement?

Nope.
C'mon, you can do it...

That's right - The VSP.

Absolutely Insurance lobbyists are powerful, but not anywhere near as powerful as the LE lobby. Don't believe me? Here in VA, the single biggest contributor to Assembly members - Virginia Sheriff's Association (public record, also reported by the Richmond Times Dispatch. There are a couple other LE lobby agencies in the top 10 also.

It's not just seat belts. 70 mph in every state from FL to NC until you hit the brick wall in VA - 65 is all you get and you'll like it. Because with those extra 5 mph, you might LOSE CONTROL! The LE lobby in VA opposes just about every common sense motoring bill introduced except for DUI enforcement. Not only that, 20 over is a class 1 misdemeanor here. Very, very seldom does a LE sponsored, supported or lobbied bill go down to defeat... Delegate Orrock's "show me your papers" bill was one. This was to give cops the legal auth. to stop anyone they chose on the street, then demand id. It died thankfully.

And, for the record, a 'road block', 'check point', 'stop and talk' whatever you call it - it is a road block and a seizure if there is a group of police stopping several vehicles, all vehicles, or just some vehicles if there is no reasonable means available to avoid the placement of or encounter with the police. That makes it "non consentual", and thus, a seizure. I support them for drunk drivers, or as I like to call them 'future murderers', but doing this type of tactic for seat belts - especially in a secondary enforcement state is just over the line. This tactic, like the road side preaching one is likely to get for 65 in a 55, is one of the primary reasons that there is so much cop bashing. It's impossible to respect a hypocrite ( I have yet to encounter a traffic cop that didn't speed, even here in VA ) and it further enhances the "us vs. them" mentality prevalent in both communities.

The previous poster who pointed out - Why stop there? was spot on. In for a penny, in for a pound. Check those driver's licenses too - all occupants. Make sure if they're not of the same sex, they're married, or slap them with a cohabitating charge.



One other thing off the matter. These very same LE lobbying .orgs very often oppose armed citizens. FOP comes immediately to mind.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Guess who's been back every year since championing primary seat belt enforcement?

Nope.
C'mon, you can do it...

That's right - The VSP.

If they're so influential, why do they have to come back year after year to try to get primary enforcement?

And, for the record, a 'road block', 'check point', 'stop and talk' whatever you call it - it is a road block and a seizure if there is a group of police stopping several vehicles, all vehicles, or just some vehicles if there is no reasonable means available to avoid the placement of or encounter with the police. That makes it "non consentual", and thus, a seizure. I support them for drunk drivers, or as I like to call them 'future murderers', but doing this type of tactic for seat belts - especially in a secondary enforcement state is just over the line.

For the record, alcohol checkpoints either stop all cars, or a set number of car, maybe every third car, and THEN check for indicators of an alcohol violation. They can not be arbitrary. The Clickit or Ticket campaign is nothing like that. As I said before THEY DO NOT STOP CARS UNTIL AFTER A VIOLATION IS OBSERVED. I don't know why the difference is so hard to understand. It is NOT a roadblock or a checkpoint.

The previous poster who pointed out - Why stop there? was spot on. In for a penny, in for a pound. Check those driver's licenses too - all occupants.

It is not now, nor has it ever been required that a passenger in a car show the police his driver's license.

 

[Te Anau]

Its wrong as hell.They shouldnt be allowed to do it.Click it or ticket---this isnt America,its 1939 Germany!

 

[FrankDrebin]

Its wrong as hell.They shouldnt be allowed to do it.Click it or ticket---this isnt America,its 1939 Germany!

You mean the part about all the Jews, homeless, AIDS patients, homosexuals and gypsies being arrested and sent to prison? Or were you talking about something else?

 

[IZinterrogator]

stevelyn, don't forget this one...

The legislative body introduces a bill to cap what an insurance company can charge as a premium. The insurance lobby whines and cries about losing profits and demands the legislature enact laws that will mitigate their profit loss in lowered insurance premiums. The easiest way to do this is to create a situation that statistically reduces the $$ amount paid out on claims. Hence, we get seatbelt laws for cars and helmet laws for motorcyclists. It's a win-win situation. The .gov gets another source of revenue and a legal reason to go on a fishing trip and the insurance companies in return get to statistically pay out less in injury claims from MVAs.

If it is a moving violation, the insurance companies can jack up your rates. Win-win, indeed.

 

[Trip20]

So are we arguing about whether or not the government has the right to make you wear your seatbelt?

Or are we arguing about whether or not it's a good idea to wear the seatbelt?

If it's the former - apparently they do. :barf:

If it's the latter - I defer to Mike Irwin's comment:

I'm a big fan of people getting into accidents while not wearing seatbelts.

Thins the herd and improves the gene pool.

 

[Dave Haven]

The only time I don't necessarily wear a seat belt is between my mailbox at the end of my driveway and my garage. Other than that, I fasten my seat belt before I even start the engine.
I also always wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or bicycle, or skiing.

I don't need some stupid law to tell me to wear it... Other than those written by Sir Isaac Newton.

 

[jefnvk]

They're absoultely NOT stopping you and checking for seatbelt use. That would be unconstitutional. They have probable cause that you are in violation before they even THINK about stopping you, THEN they stop you. That's not a roadblock.

Just like there are no roadblocks on New Years Eve to take Breathalyzers?

Cost prohibitive and unreasonable. Racecar crash survivability has a lot to do with things other than just roll bars and fire suits. I've seen very FEW crashes on public roads that resulted in a fatality that could have been prevented with a roll bar or fire suit.

Most of the crashes I see that resulted in Fatalities result because the car was ripped apart. A rollcage would have prevented that much more than sheet metal or plastic would. What about the example above, where a guy hit his head on the window at 10MPH and died of brain swelling? He probably would have been saved by a helmet. A lady at our church was killed by whiplash breaking her neck. A Head and Neck Restraint device would have helped her tremendously. I can't come up with an example for the usefulness of a fire suit, but I am sure many cars catch on fire when hit, and this would prevent burns.

Over 40,000 people are killed on the road in car crashes every year. I don't know how many were not wearing belts and could have been saved if they were, but I do know the number is significant, as is the number who were saved by belt use. There are "only" something like 10,000 homicides by firearms every year, including accidental ones. The relatively few accidental deaths by firearms without locks can't come close to comparing reasonably to the number of "non-seatbelt" deaths in crashes.

Who decides when enough people are being hurt by something, that it should become illegal. What if that number is set at 20,000 a year? How about 200 a year? Does that make the law anymore right, if more people are being saved?

 

[Justin]

Aint no sense arguing about it. You dont want to wear your belt, fine with me.

Just because I oppose the state's enforcing something at the point of a gun does not mean that I of necessity oppose that thing they are enforcing.

 

[jburtonpdx]

The only real complaint I would have about this is that I hate wasting time in the car. I would prefer to be at home with the wife and kids having fun, or at work earning money.

Things like this slow traffic and are a general pain in the backside. If all they are doing is verifying seatbelts then post the location so the traffic congestion can be avoided if a person decides they have better things to do then be "educated" by a State Trooper regarding a natural selection issue.

 

[9mmsnoopy]

i knew there was a crackdown going on about seat belts, but roadblocks? i havent heard about that. in texas, its illegal, atleast for now. if the cops are saying the checkpoints are for seatbelt enforcement,they are lying thru thier teeth, its to catch drunks or maybe someone smoking a joint. anyone approaching a checkpoint not wearing a seatbelt simply has to put it on before they get to it. dont cops have anything better to do? isnt there some real crime going on?

 

[9mmsnoopy]

oh yea, how about a checkpoint to find illegal aliens? oh no, they wont do that! but harasss American citizens about a seat belt? well sure, thats ok.

 

[FrankDrebin]

Just like there are no roadblocks on New Years Eve to take Breathalyzers?

I think I already explained the difference. More than once. You want me to do it again or can you scroll back? Alcohol checkpoints are NOT to "take breathalyzers". They don't stop every car, or every 10th car, or whatever, and make them take a breathalyzer. That's not how they work.

Who decides when enough people are being hurt by something

Me. I'm the guy they call "they". The NHTSA and DOT call me up and say "Is it time yet"? I consult my actuarial charts and determine if enough people or animals have been hurt by cars without seatbelts or airbags and send out a press release that explains how and why the new mandatory safety equipment will be foisted upon you.

oh yea, how about a checkpoint to find illegal aliens? oh no, they wont do that! but harasss American citizens about a seat belt? well sure, thats ok.

What do you REALLY have against Mexicans? Why don't you convince all the people in your neighborhood to stop hiring them. If you don't leave a bowl of milk out for a cat, you won't have a heard of cats on your porch every night.
I think the police even harrass illegal Mexican immigrants during Clickit or Ticket. Not just Americans.

 

[9mmsnoopy]

"What do you REALLY have against Mexicans? Why don't you convince all the people in your neighborhood to stop hiring them. If you don't leave a bowl of milk out for a cat, you won't have a heard of cats on your porch every night."



this from the guy who earlier posted that the nazis were rounding up AIDS patients in 1939.


i do my part, i dont hire mexicans to mow my yard,wash my car,etc... now, you go do yours inspector drebin. maybe you can help your fellow police squader OJ find the "real killers"

 

[Smurfslayer]

oops

Ok Frank, I misunderstood you...

In the Culpepper Star Exponent this past week, their PD **DID in fact say** that they were conducting mandatory stop check points for the click it or ticket campaign, they are not - I repeat - not only observing violations and pulling people over. So are the VSP, I wrote and got the public affairs guy.

Of course, they insist this is constitutional, but they could not explain under what ruling after I sent a copy of the Virginia supreme court case to them.

I confirmed with the 'STar reporter that they were in fact conducting check points SOLELY for the purpose of seat belt checking. Most of the press releases of the various agencies are just copies of the NHTSA propaganda with a couple of words changed, but the use of check points for this is uncalled for, and plainly wrong. Drunks, druggies, stoners, yeah, ok.

Seat belts? No.

Does that explain why we're just a little bent out of shape?
Or is it just ... reasonable?

I think that it's reasonable to mount a video cam and follow police cars around until you witness a serious enough violation, then take it to the magistrate and swear out a citizen warrant for the offending officer to appear... but that's just me. If they've got nothing to hide, they shouldn't mind being summoned to the magistrate's office.

 

[Powderman]

Its unconstitutional. You don't harm any other person, other than yourself, if you don't wear a seatbelt. Cop's that pull people over for this don't deserve my respect, infact, they are disgusting individuals for going along with laws that have no place in a truely free society.

Of course. I respect your firm stand on individual rights. Of course, you are also ensuring that I can exercise my rights, too.

You are saying that I have the right:

To see what happens when a car going 40 mph stops, but your body is going forward at the same rate of speed.

To have to stand around and look at the lower half of your body while your upper half is under an overturned car.

To run toward a wreck, seeing blood on a window, and when I get closer to see a child seat still in place.

Of course, I also have the right:

To hold your hand and lie to you, tell you that you will be OK while I see the paramedics working on the body parts that are crushed and mangled, because you were ejected from the wreck.

Oh, yeah, almost forgot--I have the right to contact your wife at 0300 to tell her that the next time she sees you will be on a slab at the coroner's office.

Do yourself a favor. Wear the stupid seat belt.

 

[gc70]

I and the members of my immediate family wear seatbelts because it is the smart thing to do. I could give a rodent's rear less if nobody else on the planet wears seatbelts.

I don't worry about the 'cost to society' (of which I bear a share) when people not using seatbelts get hurt. I also don't worry whether my neighbors are allowing mold, mildew, fungus, and bacteria to grow in their bathrooms, or wonder what is in the large McDonalds sacks my neighbors lug into their houses.

And I am squarely against these 'Click It or Ticket' checks. This is a perfect example of the slippery slope argument. First, it was a mandate to install seatbelts in vehicles, but all of the advocates swore that their use would always be optional. Then seatbelt use became mandatory, but the advocates swore that it would always be a secondary law. Now, seatbelt laws are becoming primary laws. And for good measure, let's have mass stops to enforce the law. So just count me as sick of being lied to.

 

[FrankDrebin]

this from the guy who earlier posted that the nazis were rounding up AIDS patients in 1939.

No, it was from the guy who was trying to show how silly it was to equate 1939 Nazi Germany with today's USA because the cops are focusing on seatbelt violations for a month.

In the Culpepper Star Exponent this past week, their PD **DID in fact say** that they were conducting mandatory stop check points for the click it or ticket campaign, they are not - I repeat - not only observing violations and pulling people over. So are the VSP, I wrote and got the public affairs guy.

Got a link to that one? If they're doing it that way, theyr'e doing it wrong, and are jeapordizing the federal grant money they get for the program, which is probably admistered through the county. There are very specific guidelines spelled out in the grant that establish when the enforcement is to take place, and how it is to be carried out. If they're actually doing it that way, and the guy who talked to the press didn't just get it wrong for the press release, they're doing it wrong. You should find out who administers the grant and tell them.

To run toward a wreck, seeing blood on a window, and when I get closer to see a child seat still in place.

That reminds me....You all seem to agree that you have an obligation to secure your kid in the proper safety restraints, but the cops have no business enforcing the law when YOU refuse to wear your belt. Do YOU have the right to posthumously take money away from ME to feed and clothe your orphaned kid for the rest of his juvenile life because you buckled him in, but not you? Do me a favor; if you're going to let yourself be killed when you could have avoided it, don't leave any loose ends for me to pay for for the next 18 years.

 

[Wraith]

I don't like being told what to do, ESPECIALLY by the state.

If I want to risk my own harm, so be it.

No one has the right to tell me to buckle up... and then FINE ME if I don't. Friends who are concerned about saftey, relatives who suggest you buckle up... even brothers who give you a hard time for driving without "clicking"... I don't care. But when a police officer tries to fine me for driving unbuckled... that's crossing the line. All this business is a disgusting reflection on our society and the governments assumed role.

:barf: :barf: :barf:

BTW... I always wear a seatbelt.