Massachusetts Seat Belt Law... unconstitutional?

[Jurollo]

So anyhoo, the law essentially gives police the right to invoke a $35 fine to someone for not wearing their seatbelt. Isn't this law unconstitutional? To me it seems a fairly clear case of the state imposing its' will on its' residents. Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[pshreck]

They aren't allowed to pull you over for solely not wearing your seatbelt, so I dont care. It has to be at a roadstop thing, or you have to be dumb enough to admit to not wearing one when pulled over for something else.

[tbach24]

Just wear the seatbelt. Stop complaining, it's ridiculous not to.

Anyways, this belongs in pahlahtix

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
They aren't allowed to pull you over for solely not wearing your seatbelt, so I dont care. It has to be at a roadstop thing, or you have to be dumb enough to admit to not wearing one when pulled over for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about MA, but this is definitely not true in other places.

[pshreck]

What about it? Yeah of course driving laws are not federal so I didnt mean to imply that.

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to be absurdly easy to win in court then, no? Unless they have some picture or something which is unlikely.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

In some places, most definitely.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has to be absurdly easy to win in court then, no? Unless they have some picture or something which is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's very easy to beat almost any traffic charge here, except the bad ones like drunk driving. We have a cell phone ban too, and I've gotten stopped for it once before. I just put the phone down as he came over to the car, and I lied right to his face about using it. He couldn't do jack [censored].

You can do the same thing with the seat belt. Just put it on as you're pulling over, and laugh right in the pig's face.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
He couldn't do jack [censored].

You can do the same thing with the seat belt. Just put it on as you're pulling over, and laugh right in the pig's face.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.

I think the police report would almost be funny.

"I saw a shiny thing near his head, Im pretty sure it was the top part of his seatbelt."

"I get to the car and he is wearing it, but he probably just put it on."

"I go to court and the judge immediately throws it out because I aint got [censored]."

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In WA too. New tag line is "Click it or ticket"

Freakin

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]


In WA too. New tag line is "Click it or ticket"

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that is the tag line in CT, where I live. But you wont get pulled over for solely not having a seatbelt on.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
This has to be absurdly easy to win in court then, no? Unless they have some picture or something which is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. His word against yours. They'll take his 99.9% of the time.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has to be absurdly easy to win in court then, no? Unless they have some picture or something which is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. His word against yours. They'll take his 99.9% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The cops don't even show up to these things 99.9% of the time. They have better things to do then testify in town court about a seat belt violation- like buying donuts.

[pshreck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has to be absurdly easy to win in court then, no? Unless they have some picture or something which is unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. His word against yours. They'll take his 99.9% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, word against word is something that doesnt fly in CT courts or Mass courts, it is pretty easy to get it thrown out if that is all they have. I guess its different where you live.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. The cops don't even show up to these things 99.9% of the time. They have better things to do then testify in town court about a seat belt violation- like buying donuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they don't show up, you win. That works for any ticket though. I'm talking about getting a seat belt tocket thrown out specifically.

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong. The cops don't even show up to these things 99.9% of the time. They have better things to do then testify in town court about a seat belt violation- like buying donuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they don't show up, you win. That works for any ticket though. I'm talking about getting a seat belt tocket thrown out specifically.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Most of the time here they'll just give people a warning, and say to wear it. But you never get pulled over by the same cop here, so you can just never wear it if you don't want to.

I always wear my belt because it's just the smart thing to do. I don't want to go through the windshield if I get in an accident. But I don't think that people should have to wear seat belts if they don't want to.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In WA too. New tag line is "Click it or ticket"

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actually certain that is legal here. I know they used to have to pull you over for something else to give you a seat belt ticket. The state congress gave them a directive to ticket people for seatbelts, but i'm not sure they actually remembered to *give them the power* to do it. I could be wrong though. The campaign is as lame as the signs on the side of the road that give busybodies a # to call to report HOV lane violators.

[tripdad]

i live in indiana. the law says you must use a seatbelt when you are in the front seat of a car, but not in a truck. i have an SUV, which i can plate as a car or a truck. when plated as a car, they can pull me over and ticket me if they see me without a seatbelt on. when plated as a truck, they cannot give me any seatbelt ticket at all.

also, helmets are not required when riding on a motorcycle here. makes a ton of sense, eh?

seatbelt laws have nothing to do with "public safety", and everything to do with the insurance lobby's enormous power due to generously donating to political campaigns.

cheers!

[nokona13]

You all just need to move to california where they don't bother giving traffic violations unless you're drunk...

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
I always wear my belt because it's just the smart thing to do. I don't want to go through the windshield if I get in an accident. But I don't think that people should have to wear seat belts if they don't want to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this Darwinism?

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In WA too. New tag line is "Click it or ticket"

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actually certain that is legal here. I know they used to have to pull you over for something else to give you a seat belt ticket. The state congress gave them a directive to ticket people for seatbelts, but i'm not sure they actually remembered to *give them the power* to do it. I could be wrong though. The campaign is as lame as the signs on the side of the road that give busybodies a # to call to report HOV lane violators.

[/ QUOTE ]

It definitely is something they can pull you over for now. Happened about 18-24 months ago, when it was made a primary moving violation.

And "click it or ticket" goes along with "a safer state at .08", and "drive hammered, get nailed". and there was one other one they had...

Also, I found this interesting

Driver errors resulting in Fatalities. It doesn't specify if these are independent events or they could be combined (like being drowsy, drunk, and overcorrecting while passing illegally and speeding)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C0DEB466-707A-4CC9-8C03-2C19BED1E875/0/DrivererrorsandBehaviors.gif

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

In WA too. New tag line is "Click it or ticket"

Freakin

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not actually certain that is legal here. I know they used to have to pull you over for something else to give you a seat belt ticket. The state congress gave them a directive to ticket people for seatbelts, but i'm not sure they actually remembered to *give them the power* to do it. I could be wrong though. The campaign is as lame as the signs on the side of the road that give busybodies a # to call to report HOV lane violators.

[/ QUOTE ]

It definitely is something they can pull you over for now. Happened about 18-24 months ago, when it was made a primary moving violation.

And "click it or ticket" goes along with "a safer state at .08", and "drive hammered, get nailed". and there was one other one they had...

Also, I found this interesting

Driver errors resulting in Fatalities. It doesn't specify if these are independent events or they could be combined (like being drowsy, drunk, and overcorrecting while passing illegally and speeding)
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/C0DEB466-707A-4CC9-8C03-2C19BED1E875/0/DrivererrorsandBehaviors.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The law is deifnitely intended to save insurance companies $$ /images/graemlins/smile.gif. Thanks for the info on the reclassification to a major moving violation.

[Talk2BigSteve]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't allowed to pull you over for solely not wearing your seatbelt, so I dont care. It has to be at a roadstop thing, or you have to be dumb enough to admit to not wearing one when pulled over for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about MA, but this is definitely not true in other places.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Mississippi it is a Secondary offense, meaning you have to be pulled over for a Primary offense before the seatbelt voilation can take place.

I just tell the Pig that I had to undo my seatbelt to get my Driver's License and Insurance Card works everytime!

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They aren't allowed to pull you over for solely not wearing your seatbelt, so I dont care. It has to be at a roadstop thing, or you have to be dumb enough to admit to not wearing one when pulled over for something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about MA, but this is definitely not true in other places.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Mississippi it is a Secondary offense, meaning you have to be pulled over for a Primary offense before the seatbelt voilation can take place.

I just tell the Pig that I had to undo my seatbelt to get my Driver's License and Insurance Card works everytime!

Big Steve /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That worked for me once about five years ago.

[poker-penguin]

How the hell is the state making a perfectly sensible law unconstitutional?

Seriously, where TF in the consitution do you get the right to be an idiot who creates work and expense for other people?

[jon593]

since they started click it or ticket here they can pull you over soley for not wearing a seatbelt.....

but what can i say MA is the gayest state in the country.

[stabn]

[ QUOTE ]
since they started click it or ticket here they can pull you over soley for not wearing a seatbelt.....

but what can i say MA is the gayest state in the country.

[/ QUOTE ]

Our states are very similar.

[Jurollo]

[ QUOTE ]
How the hell is the state making a perfectly sensible law unconstitutional?

Seriously, where TF in the consitution do you get the right to be an idiot who creates work and expense for other people?

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't the act itself I disagree with, however, it is fining people for not doing something that the state deems neccessary to do. This would be along the lines of the state wanting to drudge up money so they make smoking cigarettes a fineable offense, anyone caught smoking butts gets fined $30. The seatbelt law is essentially a 'sin tax'. However, unlike other sin taxes the only person being harmed by it is yourself.
~Justin

[moondogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How the hell is the state making a perfectly sensible law unconstitutional?

Seriously, where TF in the consitution do you get the right to be an idiot who creates work and expense for other people?

[/ QUOTE ]
It isn't the act itself I disagree with, however, it is fining people for not doing something that the state deems neccessary to do. This would be along the lines of the state wanting to drudge up money so they make smoking cigarettes a fineable offense, anyone caught smoking butts gets fined $30. The seatbelt law is essentially a 'sin tax'. However, unlike other sin taxes the only person being harmed by it is yourself.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should my taxes pay to scrap your [censored] corpse off of the highway?

[Gin 'n Tonic]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but your rear seat passenger can do a fine job of decapitating those in the front seats if they are unrestrained.

Seat belt wearing for all persons travelling in cars has been the law in the UK for years now - what's the problem?

[Keats13]

Unless insurance companies are allowed to refuse to pay medical expenses for people too stupid to put their seatbelt on, I have no problem with seatbelt laws.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say these idiots are going to rack up a lot more, on average, in medical claims filed with insurance companies than people wearing seatbelts. The insurance companies are going to collect enough in rates to make a profit one way or another. Seems fair to me people should pay a higher premium if they get caught driving without a seatbelt.

[kerssens]

Its $101 in Washington.

[Bob Moss]

[ QUOTE ]
So anyhoo, the law essentially gives police the right to invoke a $35 fine to someone for not wearing their seatbelt. Isn't this law unconstitutional? To me it seems a fairly clear case of the state imposing its' will on its' residents. Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that it is a dumb law, what does this have to do with the constitution?

Bob

[krazyace5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but your rear seat passenger can do a fine job of decapitating those in the front seats if they are unrestrained.


[/ QUOTE ]


So true, my cousins fiancee was killed cause the guy behind her didn't wear her seatbelt, what woulda been minor injuries instead resulted in death because he flew into her seat crushing her into the dash causing internal injuries.

[Jurollo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anyhoo, the law essentially gives police the right to invoke a $35 fine to someone for not wearing their seatbelt. Isn't this law unconstitutional? To me it seems a fairly clear case of the state imposing its' will on its' residents. Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that it is a dumb law, what does this have to do with the constitution?

Bob

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was simply that it is the state imposes its will on its' citizens? Isn't that unconstitutional? Anyhoo I wear my seat belt generally, was just thinking about this the other day.
~Justin

[Freakin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So anyhoo, the law essentially gives police the right to invoke a $35 fine to someone for not wearing their seatbelt. Isn't this law unconstitutional? To me it seems a fairly clear case of the state imposing its' will on its' residents. Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree that it is a dumb law, what does this have to do with the constitution?

Bob

[/ QUOTE ]
My point was simply that it is the state imposes its will on its' citizens? Isn't that unconstitutional? Anyhoo I wear my seat belt generally, was just thinking about this the other day.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever heard of speed limits? So what if you're capable of driving at 75mph on the freeway perfectly in control of your vehicle. The state still makes you stay under a limit for your own safety, and the wellfare of others. What if you get in a head on, fly though your windshield, go through the other guys winshield and impale the passenger? How about the cleanup for the guy who has to scrub your skin & blood off the pavement? Your personal liberty to be a tiny bit more comfortable and feel free by not wearing your seatbelt is rather insignificant.

And no, I don't think it's very realistic to impale somebody with your un-buckled-in body.

Freakin

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
My point was simply that it is the state imposes its will on its' citizens? Isn't that unconstitutional? Anyhoo I wear my seat belt generally, was just thinking about this the other day.
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]

The Constitution is not only about protecting YOUR rights ... that would be impossible. The Constitution is about balancing the competing rights of the individual, other members of society, local, state, and Federal government(s).

Your actions do not exist in a vacume, there is always a larger picture. It is very rare that one can correctly determine unconstitutionality on its face. More common is that the real answer comes from consideration of many other aspects of the problem.

There are well researched and grounded reasons for requiring motorists to wear seatbelts ... its not just because insurance companies lobbied for it. (Not to mention, if insurance co.'s save money, we all save money.) This type of law seeks to serve the good of society while imposing a "cost" of a minimal invasion into one's privacy rights (those being your choice to go without seatbelt).

Yes, the insurance companies "save" money because of these laws, but these laws also save lives AND money for the rest of us.

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A cop can actually pull you over because he claims to have 'saw' you without a seatbelt on?

[/ QUOTE ]

They can in NY, and they do.

[/ QUOTE ]
in nj they can as well

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
So anyhoo, the law essentially gives police the right to invoke a $35 fine to someone for not wearing their seatbelt. Isn't this law unconstitutional? To me it seems a fairly clear case of the state imposing its' will on its' residents. Is there any evidence that states by wearing a seat belt you are less likely to injure other drivers in an accident that I don't know about?
~Justin

[/ QUOTE ]
if you find out anything, investigate motorcycle helmets as well

[YourFoxyGrandma]

There's nothing in the Constitution that says the state can't tell you what to do. Also, there's nothing about seatbelts. Also, it doesn't matter, because you should wear your seatbelt all the time anyway.

[poker-penguin]

[ QUOTE ]

My point was simply that it is the state imposes its will on its' citizens? Isn't that unconstitutional?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um NO.

The whole point of a constitution is to spell out exactly how, when, and why the government can and can't impose its will on citizens.

Seriously, I really wonder how many Americans even know what the constituion says (apart from the 2nd amendment).

[TStoneMBD]

[ QUOTE ]
i live in indiana. the law says you must use a seatbelt when you are in the front seat of a car, but not in a truck. i have an SUV, which i can plate as a car or a truck. when plated as a car, they can pull me over and ticket me if they see me without a seatbelt on. when plated as a truck, they cannot give me any seatbelt ticket at all.

also, helmets are not required when riding on a motorcycle here. makes a ton of sense, eh?

seatbelt laws have nothing to do with "public safety", and everything to do with the insurance lobby's enormous power due to generously donating to political campaigns.

cheers!

[/ QUOTE ]


precisely. its insurance that imposes these laws. nothing more.

you should be happy about these laws though. enforcing seat belt laws cause insurance rates to drop. $35 is miniscule in comparison.

[KingDan]

I've talked to a cop about in Jersey... you can't get pulled over for someone in the backseat not wearing a seltbelt. Don't think you'd get ticketed either.

[sloth469]

Except it is usually the volunteer emts or firefighters doing the scraping. How does that raise your taxes? Not to mention if there is tax money being spent, the scrapee is also a tax payer. If he's paying the money he has a right to the service.

[Felix_Nietsche]

The US Constitution primary spells out the power and limitations of the FEDERAL Govt. In theory, the 10th amendment gives the states ALMOST carte blanc power to anything thing not limited to the federal govt in the constitution. In practice, activist judges have been ignoring the 10th amendment for years.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

You not wearing your seatbelt doesn't significantly affect my safety, with the marginal exception that maybe it helps you stay in better control of your vehicle in some situations where you'd otherwise slide or move around in your seat. However, my insurance premiums sure as hell are higher because of the collective idiocy of people not wearing their seatbelts and their extra medical expenses.