Seat Belt "Safety" Check

[tbone]

My son and I were going to the local building supply store today at about 2 P.M. and were caught in a "Seat Belt Safety Check". The police were lined in the street looking for belts before the actual road block. No offense to law enforcement people here, but I believe it is all about revenue before it's about "safety". The king daddy of these roadblocks is getting the DUI bust. The Police Departments have been hurting due to the economy and gas prices like the rest of us. But it doesn't set real well with me, ie. the methods to the end.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

[dmjarosz]

Same goes for red-light cameras...

And one more thing while we're on the subject. Violent crime down in the US so why are we not reducing the police force a bit?

[Taemian]

I'll gladly correct you because you ARE wrong.

My guess is you've never been the person to doorknock at oh-dark-thirty and tell parents that their child was killed in a traffic accident. The kind that would have been survivable if a seatbelt had been worn, instead of throwing around a soft human body inside a hard metal shell of a car.

You've never watched grey matter sprayed /sc***** off a broken windshield and cordoned off with biohazard tape, when a seatbelt would've made the crash into the tree survivable.

You've never told a husband that a wife isn't coming home because she got t-boned by a driver running a red light. Try to tell him that she would have survived the accident that wasn't even her fault had she been wearing a seatbelt, instead of splitting her head on the A-pillar.

And, also unlike me, you've probably never held a dying man's hand as he was trapped in a horrible wreck, watching him come in and out of lucidity, in and out of raging pain, with every second in unimaginable fear in realizing he was dying on some dirty side road. With only a stranger near, no loved ones around, and medical care unable to stabilize him. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, he wouldn't have submarined under the steering column so far that extracation came too late to save him.

Wear a seatbelt.

[Taemian]

Also, if it was about revenue, most officers would use the belt check as a reason to stop you, and look for vehicle infractions which cost alot more than a seatbelt ticket.

[rayjay]

Most people figured out long ago that they should wear their belts. Seatbelt checks actually used to cost my agency more $$$ than they ever brought in for the state. The agency gets no money for writing UTTs. It was more of PR thing. If you believe we can reduce police forces because crime is down, you have a lot to learn. :lol:

[chazman]

i thought it was illegal for anyone to stop or impede the flow of traffic in any direction for any reason. i could be wrong tho. As far as im concerned these are shakedowns and should not be allowed to happen. no offense to any police out there but they have to justify their jobs somehow and they work for us the united states taxpayer. How did it come to this, this is America isn' it. If you want to drive w/o a seatbelt shouldn't you be allowed to we all know the risks after all it is YOUR life your risking NOT THEIRS. who are they to tell you how to live, oh right i forgot the government always knows whats best for its citizens dont they? I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best when the people are afraid of the government there is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people there is liberty!!!!! or something like that.

[tbone]

I'll gladly correct you because you ARE wrong.

My guess is you've never been the person to doorknock at oh-dark-thirty and tell parents that their child was killed in a traffic accident. The kind that would have been survivable if a seatbelt had been worn, instead of throwing around a soft human body inside a hard metal shell of a car.

You've never watched grey matter sprayed /sc***** off a broken windshield and cordoned off with biohazard tape, when a seatbelt would've made the crash into the tree survivable.

You've never told a husband that a wife isn't coming home because she got t-boned by a driver running a red light. Try to tell him that she would have survived the accident that wasn't even her fault had she been wearing a seatbelt, instead of splitting her head on the A-pillar.

And, also unlike me, you've probably never held a dying man's hand as he was trapped in a horrible wreck, watching him come in and out of lucidity, in and out of raging pain, with every second in unimaginable fear in realizing he was dying on some dirty side road. With only a stranger near, no loved ones around, and medical care unable to stabilize him. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, he wouldn't have submarined under the steering column so far that extracation came too late to save him.

Wear a seatbelt.

My point is that it's not really about safety but revenue. I wear a seatbelt and make sure my loved ones wear one too.

[tbone]

Also, if it was about revenue, most officers would use the belt check as a reason to stop you, and look for vehicle infractions which cost alot more than a seatbelt ticket.

Cops use the seat belt infraction all the time to pull you over.

[tbone]

Can you tell that I am not comfortable with illegal stops without reasonable cause? Maybe it's cool in other countries, but not here, IN MY OPINION.

[tbone]

I'll gladly correct you because you ARE wrong.

My guess is you've never been the person to doorknock at oh-dark-thirty and tell parents that their child was killed in a traffic accident. The kind that would have been survivable if a seatbelt had been worn, instead of throwing around a soft human body inside a hard metal shell of a car.

You've never watched grey matter sprayed /sc***** off a broken windshield and cordoned off with biohazard tape, when a seatbelt would've made the crash into the tree survivable.

You've never told a husband that a wife isn't coming home because she got t-boned by a driver running a red light. Try to tell him that she would have survived the accident that wasn't even her fault had she been wearing a seatbelt, instead of splitting her head on the A-pillar.

And, also unlike me, you've probably never held a dying man's hand as he was trapped in a horrible wreck, watching him come in and out of lucidity, in and out of raging pain, with every second in unimaginable fear in realizing he was dying on some dirty side road. With only a stranger near, no loved ones around, and medical care unable to stabilize him. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, he wouldn't have submarined under the steering column so far that extracation came too late to save him.

Wear a seatbelt.

And by the way, my nephew was killed in a car accident, so I am sensitive to the whole dead scene.

Your "guess" is wrong.

[Taemian]

i thought it was illegal for anyone to stop or impede the flow of traffic in any direction for any reason. i could be wrong tho. As far as im concerned these are shakedowns and should not be allowed to happen. no offense to any police out there but they have to justify their jobs somehow and they work for us the united states taxpayer. How did it come to this, this is America isn' it. If you want to drive w/o a seatbelt shouldn't you be allowed to we all know the risks after all it is YOUR life your risking NOT THEIRS. who are they to tell you how to live, oh right i forgot the government always knows whats best for its citizens dont they? I believe Thomas Jefferson said it best when the people are afraid of the government there is tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people there is liberty!!!!! or something like that.

So I guess you should be able to drive at any speed, anywhere you want at any time, so long as it's your choice, according to your logic, right? Not a real valid train of thought my friend.

Speeding is also a crime, so is driving on the wrong side of the road or crossing a doulbe yellow line, but firetrucks and ambulances do it all the time. They are engaged in their job description, as are police officers "impeding the flow of traffic". This is what you bring to the discussion?

[tbone]

So I guess you should be able to drive at any speed, anywhere you want at any time, so long as it's your choice, according to your logic, right? Not a real valid train of thought my friend.

Speeding is also a crime, so is driving on the wrong side of the road or crossing a doulbe yellow line, but firetrucks and ambulances do it all the time. They are engaged in their job description, as are police officers "impeding the flow of traffic". This is what you bring to the discussion?

Where and when did I say that? Did I say that driving eratically is some kind of right?

I simply say that illegal stops are just that. If you like them in Canada, more power to you and your socialism.:beatnik:

[Taemian]

And by the way, my nephew was killed in a car accident, so I am sensitive to the whole dead scene.

Your "guess" is wrong.

Then your original post makes absolutely no sense if he wasn't wearing a seabelt. Even if he was, your original post still makes precious little more sense.

Also, knowing someone who died like that is different than actually going through watching the event happen in real time, real life. Just like video games don't make someone a battle-hardened vet, and tough guy Internet posts don't make someone actually tough.

If you did witness his death firsthand, then you re-read my first post. My guess is you weren't the one to be the first to tell his family.

[Taemian]

Where and when did I say that? Did I say that driving eratically is some kind of right?

I simply say that illegal stops are just that. If you like them in Canada, more power to you and your socialism.:beatnik:

Umm, you didn't say that. Chazman did....that's why I quoted HIM, not you.

Maybe slow down and read my posts, then think, then respond. Wearing a seatbelt while driving is a law. Getting pulled over for not wearing one is enforcing the law. (That means they are not illegal stops.)

[tbone]

Where and when did I say that? Did I say that driving eratically is some kind of right?

I simply say that illegal stops are just that. If you like them in Canada, more power to you and your socialism.:beatnik:

Or should I say Communism?:confused:

[Bigdogjim]

I can tell I think the road checks are a wast. If any one with half a brain see traffic slowing down they will buckle up if they are not already.

I have seen it happen more than once.

[Taemian]

My point is that it's not really about safety but revenue. I wear a seatbelt and make sure my loved ones wear one too.

Well that I'm glad to hear. Stay safe.

[tbone]

Umm, you didn't say that. Chazman did....that's why I quoted HIM, not you.

Maybe slow down and read my posts, then think, then respond. Wearing a seatbelt while driving is a law. Getting pulled over for not wearing one is enforcing the law. (That means they are not illegal stops.)
Wearing a seat belt or not used to be illegal for a cop to have cause to pull you over in this state. I will have to look into it further. Still not right.

[Bigdogjim]

Same goes for red-light cameras...

And one more thing while we're on the subject. Violent crime down in the US so why are we not reducing the police force a bit?

Here in Pa & NJ for a fact they do not issue points for a red light ticket via cameras they only want the money. Fact!

IF you check the yellow light with a stop watch you will see first hand it is quicker than a light with no camera. Tell me again that not a money trap?

[Taemian]

I can tell I think the road checks are a wast. If any one with half a brain see traffic slowing down they will buckle up if they are not already.

I have seen it happen more than once.

Then one of two things was happening.

1) Your agency was giving a "warning" type of stop, encouraging the use of seatbelts to all who were even remotely aware of their surroundings, and ticketing the clueless morons who deserved to be ticketed for being "absent while driving".

2) They had a mandate from the higher-ups to do this.

Any squad worth it's salt would just sit on an onramp with a bit of a curve and shoot fish in a barrel if they really wanted to catch you. I don't believe there is no area with a minimum 50 yard L.O.S.

[Taemian]

Wearing a seat belt or not used to be illegal for a cop to have cause to pull you over in this state. I will have to look into it further. Still not right.

Keep me posted.

[Bigdogjim]

Then one of two things was happening.

1) Your agency was giving a "warning" type of stop, encouraging the use of seatbelts to all who were even remotely aware of their surroundings, and ticketing the clueless morons who deserved to be ticketed for being "absent while driving".
No when I arrive in say Atlantic City, NJ the Police are on foot with their car parked in the middle of the street checking seatbelts, kinda hard no to see.
2) They had a mandate from the higher-ups to do this.

Any squad worth it's salt would just sit on an onramp with a bit of a curve and shoot fish in a barrel if they really wanted to catch you. I don't believe there is no area with a minimum 50 yard L.O.S.
In all my travles I have never ever saw that trype of setup to check for seatbelts, traffic is way to heavy in this area to try that, backed up traffic is is a sure sign of poliice in the area. (accident, breakdown etc.)

[tbone]

Umm, you didn't say that. Chazman did....that's why I quoted HIM, not you.

Maybe slow down and read my posts, then think, then respond. Wearing a seatbelt while driving is a law. Getting pulled over for not wearing one is enforcing the law. (That means they are not illegal stops.)

You were responding to Chazman but I was responding to your response to Chazman. Hence the confusion......

Look, I'm all about safety, but I truly believe that the authorities are looking for ways to pad their checking accounts and it makes me angry. I also think that illegal stops are morally wrong in a free and open society like the United States. There are other ways to arrest the offenders than to stop the law abiding citizens for no valid reason. You want to spout horror stories of dead people, go right ahead. But it doesn't make it right, IN MY OPINION.

And the liberals scream bloody murder if a cop in Arizona asks for ID from an illegal? You can't have it both ways!

[Taemian]

Here in Pa & NJ for a fact they do not issue points for a red light ticket via cameras they only want the money. Fact!

IF you check the yellow light with a stop watch you will see first hand it is quicker than a light with no camera. Tell me again that not a money trap?

Red light cams were ruled illegal for awhile here, too. (Couldn't prove who was actually driving it) Then the province ruled that unless your car was stolen, then YOU were expressly responsible for it's use, whether you were driving it or not. Your option of suing whomever you lent it to if it wasn't you driving it.

I dispute your facts about yellow lights unless you can show proof. Our cameras and lights are calibrated, same as radar guns. Yes they both go out of calibration, but our cameras are calibrated regularly unlike most radar units. Since Lidar is showing up more and more, calibration is less of an issue even there.

The numbers are in, and intersections here with red light cameras show fewer accidents than before they got them. Seems fine to me.

[Bigdogjim]

Well for afact when they put red light cameras on Route 1 in northeast Phila. 6 lanes heavy traffic all day accident are up at the few choosen lights. Local News Station have all done a clip on the "short" yellow lights,

I my self have timmed them with a stopwatch.

Come to Phila. and be happy to show you.

[Taemian]

You were responding to Chazman but I was responding to your response to Chazman. Hence the confusion......

Look, I'm all about safety, but I truly believe that the authorities are looking for ways to pad their checking accounts and it makes me angry. I also think that illegal stops are morally wrong in a free and open society like the United States. There are other ways to arrest the offenders than to stop the law abiding citizens for no valid reason. You want to spout horror stories of dead people, go right ahead. But it doesn't make it right, IN MY OPINION.

And the liberals scream bloody murder if a cop in Arizona asks for ID from an illegal? You can't have it both ways!

No confusion, you didn't have to respond for someone else.

You still haven"t shown that pulling someone over for not wearing a seatbelt is illegal.

Your opinion is trumped by every law in your country, not just the ones you agree with. That's democracy in practice.

I have no problem with anyone being asked for ID. Got nothing to hide? Show it. I've never asked for it both ways, you're confusing me (again?) with someone else.

[tbone]

Red light cams were ruled illegal for awhile here, too. (Couldn't prove who was actually driving it) Then the province ruled that unless your car was stolen, then YOU were expressly responsible for it's use, whether you were driving it or not. Your option of suing whomever you lent it to if it wasn't you driving it.

I dispute your facts about yellow lights unless you can show proof. Our cameras and lights are calibrated, same as radar guns. Yes they both go out of calibration, but our cameras are calibrated regularly unlike most radar units. Since Lidar is showing up more and more, calibration is less of an issue even there.

The numbers are in, and intersections here with red light cameras show fewer accidents than before they got them. Seems fine to me.

They have shown more accidents here due to rear end collisions, and marked improvements in cities' bottom lines. Go figure!

[tbone]

No confusion, you didn't have to respond for someone else.

You still haven"t shown that pulling someone over for not wearing a seatbelt is illegal.

Your opinion is trumped by every law in your country, not just the ones you agree with. That's democracy in practice.

I have no problem with anyone being asked for ID. Got nothing to hide? Show it. I've never asked for it both ways, you're confusing me (again?) with someone else.

I was responding to YOUR comments, no matter who they were directed towards, because they were flawed.

I don't have to show proof that pulling someone over for a seatbelt infraction is wrong, because I know it is WRONG on basic human rights scale. There is no helmet law in most states, including this one. Go figure.

Democracy in Canada is being told what to do, what to say, how to act, what you can make and when you will die from the day you were born. Wallow in your complacency.:sleepy:

[freakstatus]

Democracy in Canada is being told what to do, what to say, how to act, what you can make and when you will die from the day you were born. Wallow in your complacency.:sleepy:

How would you know? This point discredits pretty much anything you have to say. Sorry.:(

[Bradley G]

It's not about the money:stupid:

[CBT]

Even tho I get waved thru 99.99% of every road block I've ever rolled up on, I don't agree with them unless there is a mad man on the loose or an Amber Alert in the area. Seat belt checks? Who cares? I don't care if Sailor Timmy doesn't put on his seat belt and slams his Z-28 into a bridge and gets the top on his head shaved off on his way out the windshield. Then his Z-28 is bought from the insurance company for a whopping 10 dollars by the Command DAPA, and they set it on one of the elevators so we can all see it when we walk onboard and leave the ship each day. Yes, that actually happened. No sympathy here.

[Ms. Denmark]

What I think is that wearing a seatbelt is sensible and the safe thing to do. What I don't think is sensible is to have police set up check points to see if people are buckled up. If someone decides to take that risk and losses their life, it was their decision. Their loved ones will have to be informed and live with the knowledge that they died needlessly, that's true. (But the same goes for lots of other personal choices that put people at risk. Like holding the hand of the man who continued to smoke and now is dying of lung cancer. I don't think he got a ticket for his poor decision.) And so we feel for that guy dying alone on the side of the road.....but he has only himself to blame. I don't see how this is anyone else's problem. We have enough Big Brother. Most of us manage to live our lives without someone checking up on our daily decisions. I agree it is a revenue issue first and foremost and it really annoys me!

[rayjay]

Lets see. uhm, the police don't make the laws they only enforce them. See your elected official if you don't like seatbelt laws. With seatbelt checks the word comes down from on high when to do these, usually from the state traffic safety program. How do I know this? I used be in charge of administering it for my agency. Buckle Up NY, its usually advertised so if you get caught, you lose, shame on you. Next time pay attention.

Stopping a vehicle for a violation of the V&T Law is not illegal, at least in NYS. Not wearing a seat belt is a violation, so yes, you can be stopped. I would be surprised if its different in other states, provences.

If you don't like laws and want to do whatever you feel like, move to Afganistan. They don't seem to have any laws there. Then again there isn't much there worth anything there either.

Red light cameras, hmmm, started with a noble idea that turned into a revenue maker for the government.

I've said it before in other threads, these are hard fiscal times for all governments. Traffic tickets are revenue generating. Not for the police, but for the local & state government. Beware of this fact.
Believe me if I had been paid by how many UTTs I issued, no one would have ever have been cut break and I'd be a wealthy man. Seems to me I read stories on here all the time about folks getting cut a break. There may come a day when it doesn't happen anymore, like it did with DWI.

[CBT]

Stopping a vehicle for a violation of the V&T Law is not illegal, at least in NYS. Not wearing a seat belt is a violation, so yes, you can be stopped. I would be surprised if its different in other states, provences.

Believe me if I had been paid by how many UTTs I issued, no one would have ever have been cut break and I'd be a wealthy man.

What you said makes sense, but what do V&T and UTT mean? Not all of us were policemens :beer:

[Bigdogjim]

If you don't like laws and want to do whatever you feel like, move to Afganistan. They don't seem to have any laws there. Then again there isn't much there worth anything there either.


Ray it not that we don't like or dis-like the seatbelt law. It is the fact that roadchecks are set up to check for usage and other items(DL, Reg. Insurance)
We object to traffic be slowed to craw and causing a rick for a major rear end accident due to an in attative driver.

Better idea? Go to Mall parking lots and check to see if kids are secure in the minivans, check movie houses on the weekends after late night shows for infractions.

[Bigdogjim]

Even tho I get waved thru 99.99% of every road block I've ever rolled up on, I don't agree with them unless there is a mad man on the loose or an Amber Alert in the area.(Good move!)Seat belt checks? Who cares? I don't care if Sailor Timmy doesn't put on his seat belt and slams his Z-28 into a bridge and gets the top on his head shaved off on his way out the windshield.[Problem is this drives evryone insurance rate so your paying for little Timmy stupid mistake] Then his Z-28 is bought from the insurance company for a whopping 10 dollars by the Command DAPA, and they set it on one of the elevators so we can all see it when we walk onboard and leave the ship each day. Yes, that actually happened. No sympathy here.

Otherwise I agree with you:)
PS: Command DAPA?--We are all not in the Navy or work for the Navy:)

[CBT]

Otherwise I agree with you:)

What's worse is when they survive but are FUBAR'd and require medical care forever. Who pays for that? Us. So in that sense, I support the mandatory seatbelt laws. What ever saves me money in the long run, but don't road block me for it. When I joined the military it was mandatory, if you wrecked and died and they could prove you weren't wearing a belt, they said no survivor benefits for your family. I wore one anyway, no biggie.

[LeoVampire]

I do not know if they still do it but when I lived in Massachusetts and performed the yearly inspections one of the things the owner had to do was connect all the seat-belts and we disconnected them to make sure they worked as part of the safety check.

We jacked the car up and checked the front end parts, checked for exhaust leaks, you had to toot the horn and turn on the wipers emergency flashers and all lights had to work turn signals every thing even the emergency brake before the emissions test was even performed on the car.

So I see no problem with a quick safety check being done on seat belts but it should be done during an inspection not out on the open road.

[duhtroll]

Checkpoints are about revenue. If they weren't they would be in school zones or hospital zones instead of hiding behind curves, groves of trees or highway onramps.

Using the same logic there should be checkpoints for all such laws, like jaywalking, littering, public intoxication, etc.. But there isn't as much money to be made there.

That said, I wear a seat belt and my family does because I value them.

THAT said, I don't think people should be forced to wear them.

THAT said, insurance costs go up for everyone because some people do not wear them.

Choose your poison.