So, quick question...say you're in an accident and are seriously injured because you weren't wearing your seat belt. You say it's okay...you've got insurance. Where do they (the insurance company) get the money to pay for all of your medical bills?

 

Do you think you dont get hurt with a seat belt on???? Insurance should be glad........ I might just die, and they wont be out anything...I just do not think its anyone but my business how I sit in my car.

 

I have been insured my whole life, I have paid or my parents and me combined almost 50,000 dollars cash out of my pocket into premiums, let alone our employers contributions, that have been paid out over the years. So They can still make some money off of me I am sure.

I do not even agree with it being a law let alone the time and money it waste to pull me over just for that....

I'm all for Law Enforcement but using resources who's sole purpose is to find seatbelt violaters in my opinion is a waste. Use this grant money for someting more, maybe better protective equipment, communication devices, or if it's not needed return the money back to the tax payer.

 

Personal safety is a choice. If i choose not to do it then I should suffer the consequence. Again I use my seatbelt everytime but I shouldn't have to pay someone to police you if you choose differently. What's next, will we be forced to wear helments as we drive? (just so you know that was my attempt at sarcasm)

 

It is now a primary offense , in the past it was a secondary offense. Now it is a reason to pull a car over, in the past it was an offense that could only be tickted if you were pulled over for another offense. The arrest has nothing to do with it. I don't like the idea of making it a primary offense when there is little to no imminent threat caused to others by driving without a seat belt. It is big government telling you how to you live your life. I see it the same as Mayor Bloomberg telling people what size soda they can drink. Could results of this law have some positive , sure. But I don't think positives out weigh restricting any liberty or freedoms.

 

I do not even agree with it being a law let alone the time and money it waste to pull me over just for that....

 

Keep in mind it isn't just for the driver. What about the parents that wouldn't belt their children in if it weren't a requirement? Who looks out for them?

Keep in mind it isn't just for the driver. What about the parents that wouldn't belt their children in if it weren't a requirement? Who looks out for them?

 

I always make exceptions for people who can't defend themselves. Also for the tired excuse of insurance costs it is a very simple answer. Insurers can put a clause into the contract if the insured isn't wearing a seat belt they won't pay for any harm caused to anyone not wearing their seat belt. But I always hate trying to prove a point based on something that makes up such a small %.

 

Listen if you are fine with government dictating behavior more and more in every aspect of your life that is your right. I personally don't like it. Unless there is a threat to the public at large I don't see how this is the governments business or a reason to search my car further.

I always make exceptions for people who can't defend themselves. Also for the tired excuse of insurance costs it is a very simple answer. Insurers can put a clause into the contract if the insured isn't wearing a seat belt they won't pay for any harm caused to anyone not wearing their seat belt. But I always hate trying to prove a point based on something that makes up such a small %.

 

Listen if you are fine with government dictating behavior more and more in every aspect of your life that is your right. I personally don't like it. Unless there is a threat to the public at large I don't see how this is the governments business or a reason to search my car further.

 

Technically, anyone in your car is at your mercy, therefore cannot defend themselves.

Here is a hypothetical question that may have already been asked. What if an officer pulls you over for not having a seat belt on when you really do. Then they determined that you commited some other crime instead (Drug possession, DUI, etc.). Do you have an argument that you were pulled over illegally? Or is it treated as a normal traffic stop and anything can happen?

Here is a hypothetical question that may have already been asked. What if an officer pulls you over for not having a seat belt on when you really do. Then they determined that you commited some other crime instead (Drug possession, DUI, etc.). Do you have an argument that you were pulled over illegally? Or is it treated as a normal traffic stop and anything can happen?

Slippery slope that I'm talking about. How do you prove you had it on.

I always make exceptions for people who can't defend themselves. Also for the tired excuse of insurance costs it is a very simple answer. Insurers can put a clause into the contract if the insured isn't wearing a seat belt they won't pay for any harm caused to anyone not wearing their seat belt. But I always hate trying to prove a point based on something that makes up such a small %.

 

Listen if you are fine with government dictating behavior more and more in every aspect of your life that is your right. I personally don't like it. Unless there is a threat to the public at large I don't see how this is the governments business or a reason to search my car further.

 

If someone is not wearing a seat belt and all insurers refuse to pay for non-seat belted drivers who pays for the medical bills. Let's say you have to be flown via helicopter to nearest trauma unit, you spend a week in ICU another week in the hospital and several weeks in Physical Therapy just to be able to walk again. Who's left with that $300,000 bill? You can't pay because you lost your job because you missed so much work after the injury, so who pays? Does the hospital just pass along this loss to the rest of us?

 

OR, when they pull up to a wreck, seeing no seat belt and knowing the financial ramifications would we all be better of to just let the un-seat belted die? Because after all it is their decision not to wear one.

 

As far as searching your car, a police officer still has to either have your permission, probable cause (Example K9 hits on drugs) or a warrant to search your car. Your not going to get a cavity search if you get pulled over of not wearing your seat belt.

 

Look, I understand the Tea-Party/Libertarian position that you are taking and agree with you on many things. I am for less government as well. But I am not for making the near impossible job of Law Enforcement even harder.

Here is a hypothetical question that may have already been asked. What if an officer pulls you over for not having a seat belt on when you really do. Then they determined that you commited some other crime instead (Drug possession, DUI, etc.). Do you have an argument that you were pulled over illegally? Or is it treated as a normal traffic stop and anything can happen?

If they could not see your seat belt then they would have Probable Cause to make a traffic stop, then if they come across evidence of any other crime they are required to act to enforce the law.

If they could not see your seat belt then they would have Probable Cause to make a traffic stop, then if they come across evidence of any other crime they are required to act to enforce the law.

 

I just don't understand how you don't have a problem with this.

I just don't understand how you don't have a problem with this.

Maybe I don't understand what your asking right here...are you saying that if your stopped for a seat belt violation that they should not be able to check for anything else. Or that you should never be stopped for a seat belt violation to begin with?

 

I guess the fundamental difference is that I have a better appreciation for local law enforcement than you seem to. I'm against my basic liberties being stunted and or taken away, I just don't see being pulled over for a traffic violation as a violation of my right to privacy.

 

I know a ton of officers and none of them are out looking for random cars to stop and harass. If they were looking for a reason to stop every car on the highway there is an easier way than looking for seat belt violations, all they have to do is pull a car over for exceeding the speed limit. They could pull everyone of us over for speeding everyday and probably several times a day. But contrary to your thinking the police allow nearly ever car on the road to speed to some extent. A officer recently told me that he won't even look at a car on the highway doing less than 10 MPH over, said he wouldn't get anything else done if he tried to stop every car that was speeding. Seat belt law is the same way, yes they can stop you for it but except during heightened enforcement (as mentioned here) they don't drive around looking for it.

So, quick question...say you're in an accident and are seriously injured because you weren't wearing your seat belt. You say it's okay...you've got insurance. Where do they (the insurance company) get the money to pay for all of your medical bills?

 

The insurance company would raise "the seatbelt defense" and likely assess a portion of fault to the injured individual for failure to wear a seatbelt.

 

Don't worry about the insurance companies, they're doing just fine...

Maybe I don't understand what your asking right here...are you saying that if your stopped for a seat belt violation that they should not be able to check for anything else. Or that you should never be stopped for a seat belt violation to begin with?

 

I guess the fundamental difference is that I have a better appreciation for local law enforcement than you seem to. I'm against my basic liberties being stunted and or taken away, I just don't see being pulled over for a traffic violation as a violation of my right to privacy.

 

I know a ton of officers and none of them are out looking for random cars to stop and harass. If they were looking for a reason to stop every car on the highway there is an easier way than looking for seat belt violations, all they have to do is pull a car over for exceeding the speed limit. They could pull everyone of us over for speeding everyday and probably several times a day. But contrary to your thinking the police allow nearly ever car on the road to speed to some extent. A officer recently told me that he won't even look at a car on the highway doing less than 10 MPH over, said he wouldn't get anything else done if he tried to stop every car that was speeding. Seat belt law is the same way, yes they can stop you for it but except during heightened enforcement (as mentioned here) they don't drive around looking for it.

 

You mean there not looking to just pull over random cars until the government issues grant money to pull over anybody who looks like they don't have their seat belt on. Even if we disagree on if this is good or bad. Can we not agree with how far in debt this country is, that we could find better things to spend this money on?

You mean there not looking to just pull over random cars until the government issues grant money to pull over anybody who looks like they don't have their seat belt on. Even if we disagree on if this is good or bad. Can we not agree with how far in debt this country is, that we could find better things to spend this money on?

Yes we can agree on that. I understand what your talking about and your concerns too. Even when working a grant though still not random cars just the ones breaking the law, best course of action is to get the law changed or get it back to not being a primary reason for a traffic stop.

Kentucky State Police: Post 3 News Release

 

Date of News Release: 05/25/2013

 

(Bowling Green, KY) -- On May 24th 2013 Trooper Raymond Chambers stopped Jacob Gossett (18) of Glasgow for failure to wear a seat belt. While speaking with Mr. Gossett, suspected marijuana was located in plain view inside the vehicle. Other illegal narcotics were also located during the traffic stop.

 

Mr. Gossett was charged with the following: Failure To Wear Seat Belt, Failure of Owner To Maintain Insurance, Poss. of Cont Sub 1st degree( Drug Unspecified), Drug Paraphernalia, Poss. of Cont Sub 3rd degree, Traff. in Marijuana (8oz