Is seat belt a primary offense?

[hoodlum]

it is unfotunate that in this day and age we need to police common sense.

[Wilbur]

Oklahoma is a primary seat belt law state.  When seat belt laws were first introduced in 1985, it was a secondary offense.  That was changed a few years later to a primary offense.

The maximum fine a law enforcement agency can impose is $20.

Seat belt violations DO go on your driving record, but they do not add points to your driving record for the conviction.

Lets face it folks.  SEAT BELTS SAVE LIVES!  Plain and simple.  About half of Tulsa's fatalities would not be fatalities if the person would have just worn a seat belt (or helmet in the case of a motorcycle).  See it too often.  A perfectly intact passenger compartment on a car in a wreck, but the person gets ejected and killed.  What a waste,

quote: Apparently you do need a babysitter. In the form of Tulsa Police. It is also my business because my tax dollars are being used to pull a dum**ss lawbreaker like you over for something that is totally avoidable. My insurance also goes up when they have to pay someone to scrape your body off the highway, repair the windsheild of the car you flew threw, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Thank you NellieBly!  I'll even take it one further.  Don't want the government telling you what to do?  Fine.  You have an agreement with all of your insurance companies, your employer and the government, that if you get injured/killed in a wreck but you are too stupid not to wear a seat belt, then no insurance company has to pay out benefits.  And, you or your family do not get any state/federal aid because of your injury or death.  Your employer pays out zero in disability/death claims, and absolutely no one morns your injury/death.

Perhaps then the rest of us will say you don't have to wear your seat belt.  But I'm tired of paying a ridiculous amount of money for car insurance because of other dumb people.

Tulsan's, for the most part, do great.  We are generally around the 90% complaint rate, which is very high.  It's that last 10% of the hold outs.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

Patric.... I believe NJ Governor Corzine was injured on a trip to meet with the Rutgers women's basketball team after Don Imus' infamous "nappy headed hos" comment... your comments are on point.

Ah, you are correct.  I cant tell one "civil rights" exploitation event from another these days[)]

[Mike G]

quote:Originally posted by runderwo



It's none of your business whether I wear my seat belt or not.  If my status as an adult in a free country isn't sufficient to drive you to outrage on my own behalf, you ought to at least be outraged that city resources are being wasted on such a textbook example of a victimless crime.

I have never ever before lived in a place where I could be pulled over for not wearing a seat belt, and no harm has come to anyone of it yet.

1.  It's not a free country
2.  The city is wasting resources because you aren't following the law.
3.  If you don't approve of the law, feel free to move.
4.  It's not a victimless crime, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime.

[mrhaskellok]

Again, the problem is not the law, but the citizens of a society passing the law...yes the CITIZENS.  Quit blaming everyone but yourself for letting these people get elected and passing these "stupid" laws (if indeed they are).  I was at the capitol today wandering around...you know how many of "us" were there?  Not many..but there were sure a lot of corporate lobbyists and such.  Point is, if you don't want to have to worry about this issue, spend more time talking to your senator and rep.  IN fact, you could simply transfer your time from this blog to their email inbox.  
Most state reps will tell you it takes only 5 phone calls (unique, not the same person) on any issue to get their attention, 10 to make them look into it, and 15-20 to make the want to write a bill.   Sure these numbers are hypothetical, but albeit they are a real indication as to the amount of work it actually takes to make change happen.  

Before you accuse me of anything, give it a try...everyone call your elected officials and tell them you want Oklahoma to get rid of it's Seatbelt law.  

Then log back on here and gripe about them not doing anything.  []  After all, now you have earned it.  []

Sid

I started off a little harsher than I intended, please ignore the emotion.

[tulsa_fan]

It is my business if you aren't wearing your seatbelt.  I had a friend who spend 90 days in jail for vehicular manslaughter.  He was driving, yes, too fast, home with his 14 year old son who was having an asthma attack.  He was speeding because the inhaler was out and his son needed it immediately.  He was within a mile of his home, a country road.  A truck was traveling the other way and because of fog, was not seen.  He hit the truck head on.  It was a terrible accident, and he was at fault for the speeding, but the driver of the truck was NOT wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the truck and killed.  Had he had a seat belt on, his injuries would have been minor.  

Because of the person my friend was, he never fought any of it, took full responsibility for the speeding and left his family to serve his punishment.  It has always bothered me because had the other driver been wearing his seatbelt this never would have ended this way.

[cannon_fodder]

Mike G - just because it is a crime does NOT mean it is victimless.  That is painfully obvious (adult consensual prostitution, marrying two men is illegal, anal sex is illegal, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal in Tulsa, tons of stupid things that have no victim).
- - -

quote:In fact, no harm could possibly come to anyone, except to myself and to my insurance company, which is a private matter.

I am in favor of seat belt laws.  The simple reason I am in favor of them (and helmet laws) is because I have to pay for your excessive injuries in the case of an accident.  

With no seat belt, a 15-20mph collision can cause serious damage, break bones, head trauma, lacerations and other things one would not expect from such a slow collision.  With a seat belt some bruising, perhaps some back pain or whip lash.  On a motor cycle with a helmet getting knocked off your bike at 05-10mph will give you some bad road rash, maybe a broken wrist, and plenty of aches and pains - no helmet and permanent disability or death is a real possibility.  

If I was involved in the accident there is a good chance I will end up paying for your injury ("fault" is not as clear cut as one might like).  Instead of the $5,000 for a missed week of work and a broken collar bone, I will pay $250,000 for permanent disability or whatever other injuries you sustain because you refused to spend 2 seconds to buckle a seat belt.

The courts have denied the "failure to mitigate damages" argument and I can not argue that you are partially at fault for failing to wear your belt.  If you could waive the excess liability or I could raise such a defense, I wouldn't care what you wanted to do.  But as it stands, your negligent accident has a great chance of costing me tons of money - or passing the buck off to society is some other way.

There is yet another argument along similar lines that I am ambivalent or even slightly hostile towards:  injuries from car accidents cost the United States economy Billions each year.  Mandatory seat belt laws save the economy Billions each year.  It is better for the country as a whole to enforce simple safety measures and that bennefit outweighs the mild intervention into your personal life - especially considering you are utilizing public infrastructure.

Slightly hostile because public infrastructure is a mandatory part of life in America and such logic could be a panacea to justify government intervention.  But in this instance, I don't mind the outcome.
- - -

Why don't you bother to wear your seatbelt anyway?  Remembering that "because I don't have to" or "because they try to make me" is not really a reason.  

[sauerkraut]

Yes in Oklahoma it's a primary offense. In my home state of Ohio it's still a secondary offense. Seatbelt laws and helmet laws are wrong and show an example of a nanny gov't. This is part of the slipery slope to more laws from bans on cell phones in cars to laws on smoking in cars and smoking in homes and soon laws about what we eat and fast food. I do not wear a seatbelt I see myself as a Mavrick. I don't like them and I feel in a free nation we should have that right. Safety has nothing to do with seatbelt laws...It's a money grabbing thing. I don't smoke but laws against smoking still scare me..[xx(]

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Mike G - just because it is a crime does NOT mean it is victimless.  That is painfully obvious (adult consensual prostitution, marrying two men is illegal, anal sex is illegal, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal in Tulsa, tons of stupid things that have no victim).
- - -

quote:In fact, no harm could possibly come to anyone, except to myself and to my insurance company, which is a private matter.

I am in favor of seat belt laws.  The simple reason I am in favor of them (and helmet laws) is because I have to pay for your excessive injuries in the case of an accident.  

With no seat belt, a 15-20mph collision can cause serious damage, break bones, head trauma, lacerations and other things one would not expect from such a slow collision.  With a seat belt some bruising, perhaps some back pain or whip lash.  On a motor cycle with a helmet getting knocked off your bike at 05-10mph will give you some bad road rash, maybe a broken wrist, and plenty of aches and pains - no helmet and permanent disability or death is a real possibility.  

If I was involved in the accident there is a good chance I will end up paying for your injury ("fault" is not as clear cut as one might like).  Instead of the $5,000 for a missed week of work and a broken collar bone, I will pay $250,000 for permanent disability or whatever other injuries you sustain because you refused to spend 2 seconds to buckle a seat belt.

The courts have denied the "failure to mitigate damages" argument and I can not argue that you are partially at fault for failing to wear your belt.  If you could waive the excess liability or I could raise such a defense, I wouldn't care what you wanted to do.  But as it stands, your negligent accident has a great chance of costing me tons of money - or passing the buck off to society is some other way.

There is yet another argument along similar lines that I am ambivalent or even slightly hostile towards:  injuries from car accidents cost the United States economy Billions each year.  Mandatory seat belt laws save the economy Billions each year.  It is better for the country as a whole to enforce simple safety measures and that bennefit outweighs the mild intervention into your personal life - especially considering you are utilizing public infrastructure.

Slightly hostile because public infrastructure is a mandatory part of life in America and such logic could be a panacea to justify government intervention.  But in this instance, I don't mind the outcome.
- - -

Why don't you bother to wear your seatbelt anyway?  Remembering that "because I don't have to" or "because they try to make me" is not really a reason.  

That's foolish thinking. By your standard smoking should be banned because anyone who smokes costs others money. Fast food should be banned because we all pay for it when people overeat. Rock climbing and dangerous sports should be banned because if you have a accident or fall we all pay the costs. What about banning illegal aliens? Each illegal alien costs taxpayers $22,000 and they gov't does nothing about that.

[cannon_fodder]

If you are referring to my primary argument, that logic does not apply.  Smoking, fast food, nor rock climbing directly costs me money regardless of the consequence.  It is extremely unlikely that those actions will require me to pay $100,000 or more to the individual choosing to do them.  And likewise, those actions are primary actions and have no 2 second safety fix.

Likewise, those activities do not utilize public infrastructure.  Tax payers did not pay for the McDonalds, the cigarette, nor the rock climbing gear and thus have much less say what happens at those locations.

If someone was rock climbing at a public park that required wearing a climbing helmet and held other climbers personally liable for persons that choose not to use the safety device... then it would be analogous.  But such is not the case.

IF you are referring to the secondary argument, referencing the good for public at large... I stipulated I am hostile towards it because

quote:such logic could be a panacea to justify government intervention.

So which one were you talking about and did my explanation cover it?

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Slightly hostile because public infrastructure is a mandatory part of life in America and such logic could be a panacea to justify government intervention.  But in this instance, I don't mind the outcome.

I should register the fact that I am a supporter and religious user of seat belts -- and used them by choice long before anyone in government decided  I wasnt smart enough to make that choice.  It's just a shame that something that should be a "positive" like seat belt use became so intertwined with such invasiveness and corruption.


Timely side note:

Seatbelt Violation Checkpoint
http://www.fox23.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=6d4eb874-ecda-4acf-bd20-a02bcc6b5dbc
         
(TULSA, Okla.) March 11 - It's a bad spot in Tulsa, along South Lewis where the sound of crunching metal is not uncommon.  That's why Tulsa police were there handing out tickets.
The focus was seat belt violations.  In a one-hour period, police wrote 48 tickets.  To them, it's a lot of lives saved.

Violators were pushed into a parking lot full of officers before they had a chance to even think about what they did wrong.
Officers plan to do the checkpoints at least twice a month.  A ticket will cost you 20 dollars.
Officers say the checkpoints are also part of Chief Ron Palmer's plan to reduce crime by 15 percent.

Hmm, attaching a numerical goal for enforcement efforts.  Doesnt that have a name?

[tim huntzinger]

I got ticketed once for that, big deal.  Fascist police state violating the 14th Amendment.

However, which is it TPD: to save lives or to reduce crime?

I think dividing the force into tactical and non-tactical (read 'traffic cops') would make sense.  Do not need a frigging BA to pull folk over and ticket them.

[cannon_fodder]

quote: Fourteenth Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What part of that was violated?

[tim huntzinger]

I dunno.  I just like to be flexible with the 14th . . .[]  If I am driving down the road minding my own bidness and want to play with my health by not wearing a seatbelt you mean to tell me that society has a vested interest in my safety?

[EDIT] Besides, if this were about 'safety' then TPD would immediately ban their ossifers from talking on their wireless phones when driving.  Studies show distracted drivers are dangerous drivers, and yet one can barely pass a cop who is not yakking on the phone.