Seat Belt Tickets...Specious Law Overturned!

[Koesen]

I agree with seatbelt laws and fining people who break them.

What I don't agree with is the fact that in many countries the police are ordered to collect a certain amount of money in traffic and parking fines in a certain period of time, which makes them focus on fining people until they meet the quota, at the expense of other things.

Enforcing rules to increase public safety = good.
Fining people because you must bring in $10,000 a month = bad.

[Johnny Rockets]

If you wish to "sliding scale" the fines via income, then do it on the value of the vehicle.
But I don't think wealthy people should be fined more, simply because if the keep reoffending, they will be fined more....just more often. That or keep bumping up the fine for reoccuring offences in a 12 month period.

I don't know about the quota thing, I do know that if you are not writing a certain enough tickets then you arn't doing your job if your on traffic patrol. In our city an officer is expected to write ONE a week.

Big fan of red light cameras, because they free up units to respond to 911 calls.
That and they teach the stupid to slow down.

Jrock

[Phatscotty]

If you wish to "sliding scale" the fines via income, then do it on the value of the vehicle.
But I don't think wealthy people should be fined more, simply because if the keep reoffending, they will be fined more....just more often. That or keep bumping up the fine for reoccuring offences in a 12 month period.

I don't know about the quota thing, I do know that if you are not writing a certain enough tickets then you arn't doing your job if your on traffic patrol. In our city an officer is expected to write ONE a week.

Big fan of red light cameras, because they free up units to respond to 911 calls.
That and they teach the stupid to slow down.

Jrock

We should count the insurance aspect too. If you keep reoffending, sure, the tickets price might not be that big a deal, but your insurance will either triple your rate or either drop you, not to mention the state taking away the license for too many tickets.

[keiths31]

I agree with seatbelt laws and fining people who break them.

What I don't agree with is the fact that in many countries the police are ordered to collect a certain amount of money in traffic and parking fines in a certain period of time, which makes them focus on fining people until they meet the quota, at the expense of other things.

Enforcing rules to increase public safety = good.
Fining people because you must bring in $10,000 a month = bad.

What's the difference? You are breaking the law regardless if they have to "bring in $10,000 a month". Maybe the quota is there to ensure that the people hired to enforce the laws are actually enforcing the laws. I see nothing wrong with that. They aren't going to pull you over and fine you if you are not doing anything illegal. Drive within the laws and save money.

[MeDeFe]

Yeah it's a cash grab.
Wanna know why?

Because you humans are fucking morons, and the only way to train you into behaviour that insures the safety of yourselves and others around you is to spank your wallet until your retarded habits are curbed.

Seatbelts, anti cell phone laws, Helmet laws, red light cameras, speed traps, enforcement blitzes...
These all work.
The penalties cause you to make an effort and drive in a safer manner.
And if you can't learn, they fine you into the Stone Age and you won't be able to afford to drive, so its win win for those who respect public safety.

Johnny

That's the thing I've never understood about fines - if the purpose of a fine is to curb or prevent a particular behavior, then the amount of the fine should somehow be equated to the amount of money that a person has. A $200 ticket is a hell of a lot more important to someone who makes minimum wage than it is to someone who makes $200,000 a year.

At the same time I don't think its fair to say that a fine will be a certain % of your income, because then rich people (or rich looking people) would be targeted since the pay off is much more worthwhile.

AFAIK that's the case in Finland, fine's aren't exactly proportional how much money you make, but iirc your income as well as the number of kids under 18 you have factor into how much you have to pay for traffic offenses.

[AAFitz]

The liberals in my area decided that too many children were being hit in school zones(apparently 0 is too many) so they decided to put up traffic cameras and red light cameras around the schools to "protect the children". Then they started putting them up all over the place. But they still weren't making enough money to cover all their lavish socialist spending, so they started to reduce the yellow lights from 4 seconds to about 2 seconds. That got them lots more money. They want to put up more cameras, and probably will.

Fortunately, being liberals, they aren't very bright. They only take pictures of the car, not the driver. And since the burden of proof is on them, all you have to say to get out of the ticket is "prove I was driving the car at that time". Don't lie, just demand they prove their claim. Even though it's easy to get out of the ticket, they fill up the court system with this crap and force you to take time out of your day to come down and challenge the tickets, wasting more time and resources of a country already under strain.

At the same time, being liberals, they typically achieve the exact opposite of what they claim to want to achieve. The locations where the cameras have been installed have become extremely dangerous. People are slamming on their brakes etc to avoid the tickets. This is causing massive pileups and accidents. These locations are actually MORE dangers than they previously were.

The cure is what kills you.

They think raising taxes to support their socialist spending is what the country needs to stay alive, but will only cripple us more.

So let me get this straight. The liberals, are enforcing the law too strictly. And the conservatives in contrast, want to enable more speeding, and think crime should not be enforced more.

Ok.

I think what is clear here, is that the camera simply needs to be good enough to take a picture of the driver, and the car.

Also, PEOPLE COULD ALWAYS JUST OBEY THE FFING SPEED LIMIT, AND NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT HAVING TO DRIVE WITHIN THE LAW. But then... thats a liberal approach.

The conservatives dont care about the law, they say, eh do what you want.

[jay_a2j]

Here in Minnesota, we are one of 30 states where the law permits people to be pulled over solely for not wearing their seat belt. The ticket is $25, with a $75 fee for the state and $8 for the libraries for a total of $108.00, 178.00 if you want a no same or similar for 1 year and it does not go on your record. the extra $70.00 is an "administrative filing fee".

I think the fine is higher here in NY.

[muy_thaiguy]

The liberals in my area decided that too many children were being hit in school zones(apparently 0 is too many) so they decided to put up traffic cameras and red light cameras around the schools to "protect the children". Then they started putting them up all over the place. But they still weren't making enough money to cover all their lavish socialist spending, so they started to reduce the yellow lights from 4 seconds to about 2 seconds. That got them lots more money. They want to put up more cameras, and probably will.

Fortunately, being liberals, they aren't very bright. They only take pictures of the car, not the driver. And since the burden of proof is on them, all you have to say to get out of the ticket is "prove I was driving the car at that time". Don't lie, just demand they prove their claim. Even though it's easy to get out of the ticket, they fill up the court system with this crap and force you to take time out of your day to come down and challenge the tickets, wasting more time and resources of a country already under strain.

At the same time, being liberals, they typically achieve the exact opposite of what they claim to want to achieve. The locations where the cameras have been installed have become extremely dangerous. People are slamming on their brakes etc to avoid the tickets. This is causing massive pileups and accidents. These locations are actually MORE dangers than they previously were.

The cure is what kills you.

They think raising taxes to support their socialist spending is what the country needs to stay alive, but will only cripple us more.

So let me get this straight. The liberals, are enforcing the law too strictly. And the conservatives in contrast, want to enable more speeding, and think crime should not be enforced more.

Ok.

I think what is clear here, is that the camera simply needs to be good enough to take a picture of the driver, and the car.

Also, PEOPLE COULD ALWAYS JUST OBEY THE FFING SPEED LIMIT, AND NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT HAVING TO DRIVE WITHIN THE LAW. But then... thats a liberal approach.

The conservatives dont care about the law, they say, eh do what you want.

Gee, thanks for that accurate generalization of Conservatives, when you are discussing with a libertarian.

Anyways, I'm tired of idiots complaining about being given tickets for not wearing their seatbelts. I mean, it's not like it was installed into the vehicle just to look pretty. It actually has a purpose. And there have been times where a seatbelt has actually saved me from being seriously hurt.

[jay_a2j]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

[Phatscotty]

This is not about the seat belt ticket. It is about the draconian enforcement of it.

[muy_thaiguy]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

This is not about the seat belt ticket. It is about the draconian enforcement of it.

I'm tired of the anti-government rep you kinds of guys give actual Conservatives. If you are wearing your seat belt, then what need do you have to be concerned for it? The law for wearing seat belts is directed at the idiots who think that not wearing a seatbelt will somehow be advantageous. Those (particularly college aged and high school aged) people usually do not tell their passengers to buckle up, and then if/when they get into a bad wreck, and they bash their heads against the steering, dashboard, window, and the what have you, then it has seriously harmed someone else, not just the driver. Not to mention the possibility of being catapulted through the windshield.

You reactionaries give the sane Conservatives a bad name.

[Phatscotty]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

This is not about the seat belt ticket. It is about the draconian enforcement of it.

I'm tired of the anti-government rep you kinds of guys give actual Conservatives. If you are wearing your seat belt, then what need do you have to be concerned for it? The law for wearing seat belts is directed at the idiots who think that not wearing a seatbelt will somehow be advantageous. Those (particularly college aged and high school aged) people usually do not tell their passengers to buckle up, and then if/when they get into a bad wreck, and they bash their heads against the steering, dashboard, window, and the what have you, then it has seriously harmed someone else, not just the driver. Not to mention the possibility of being catapulted through the windshield.

You reactionaries give the sane Conservatives a bad name.

did you read the story that this thread is about? The department takes $15,000 out of the community, and the response is "oh well, you should wear your seat belt" well yeah duh, but not matter what, you aren't gonna get 100% compliance. It's a bull shit law with a bullshit fee.

[muy_thaiguy]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

This is not about the seat belt ticket. It is about the draconian enforcement of it.

I'm tired of the anti-government rep you kinds of guys give actual Conservatives. If you are wearing your seat belt, then what need do you have to be concerned for it? The law for wearing seat belts is directed at the idiots who think that not wearing a seatbelt will somehow be advantageous. Those (particularly college aged and high school aged) people usually do not tell their passengers to buckle up, and then if/when they get into a bad wreck, and they bash their heads against the steering, dashboard, window, and the what have you, then it has seriously harmed someone else, not just the driver. Not to mention the possibility of being catapulted through the windshield.

You reactionaries give the sane Conservatives a bad name.

did you read the story that this thread is about?

Partly. But it is yours and jay's, and other's reactions to some of the littlest things, like having a law about wearing seat belts. One would think it was common sense, but nope. Way too many people do not wear them. Frankly, a fine is better than being horribly injured or killed because someone was too stupid to do something so obvious.

[Phatscotty]

you are projecting, and I'm tellin ya you are missing the point. I adressed your statement about injury and death at the bottom of the first post in the thread, if you could please stop reading "some" of the post or "some" of the article....

If you are so in love with the seat belt law, then why did the state have to lean so heavy on the promise that a seatbelt ticket won't be a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense????

This is a law they said they wouldn't pass. Of course, at least 1 person takes offense to that. call it what you want

[muy_thaiguy]

you are projecting, and I'm tellin ya you are missing the point. I adressed your statement about injury and death at the bottom of the first post in the thread, if you could please stop reading "some" of the post or "some" of the article....

If you are so in love with the seat belt law, then why did the state have to lean so heavy on the promise that a seatbelt ticket won't be a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense????

This is a law they said they wouldn't pass. Of course, at least 1 person takes offense to that. call it what you want

Wyoming already has a seatbelt law because too many idiots kept dying because they did not buckle up. Some still do, but not the numbers that were dying before (this goes for the I-80 and I-25).

[Phatscotty]

you are projecting, and I'm tellin ya you are missing the point. I adressed your statement about injury and death at the bottom of the first post in the thread, if you could please stop reading "some" of the post or "some" of the article....

If you are so in love with the seat belt law, then why did the state have to lean so heavy on the promise that a seatbelt ticket won't be a primary offense to get it passed as a secondary offense????

This is a law they said they wouldn't pass. Of course, at least 1 person takes offense to that. call it what you want

Wyoming already has a seatbelt law because too many idiots kept dying because they did not buckle up. Some still do, but not the numbers that were dying before (this goes for the I-80 and I-25).

how many people died in wyoming because they werent wearing their seatbelt?

[PLAYER57832]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

When you have your own personal, privately funded ambulance and rescue service.. you might have an argument.

You don't. You rely upon tax payer funded people to grab your rear out. So it DOES HARM OTHER PEOPLE!

And if that isn't good enough, try looking up the mortality rate for emergency responders to today's highways. If you can get up and walk away, no one has to RISK THEIR LIFE TO SAVE YOURS.

[SultanOfSurreal]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

oh boooooo hoooooo your precious right to become a pile of crushed up guts and bone on the side of a fucking freeway is being impinged upon, WHERE ARE THE PATRIOTS TO FIGHT THIS INJUSTICE

look, driving is not a right, it's a privilege, and the government has the power to regulate roadways -- and the usage of cars -- as they see fit. same as they regulate air traffic, and sea traffic in US waters. fuckin' deal with it you goddamn baby.

[thegreekdog]

Why don't you just vote for someone who will vow to decrease the fines associated with such things?

As an aside, good luck finding such a person. Politicians tend to want more money in their coffers, not less.

[jay_a2j]

Partly. But it is yours and jay's, and other's reactions to some of the littlest things, like having a law about wearing seat belts. One would think it was common sense, but nope. Way too many people do not wear them. Frankly, a fine is better than being horribly injured or killed because someone was too stupid to do something so obvious.

It starts as "little things" then they take a little more and a little more until you live in total bondage. BTW people have died wearing their seat belts. 2 cases I'm aware of: Drivers arm was broken and could not unbuckle the seat belt to get out of the vehicle which was leaking gas and it exploded killing the man. A man was wearing his seat belt and got into an accident, it was odd that he was thrown though the windshield and found himself lying in the road until he looked down and realized the lower half of his body was still in the car. He was essentially cut in 2 by the seat belt. He died too. But hey I still wear mine but there should be no law requiring it.

Drinking kills many people too, look what happened when they outlawed it. Pass laws that PREVENT accidents fine (texting ect.) but if a person want to take his chances by not wearing a seat belt what is it to you?

[jay_a2j]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

When you have your own personal, privately funded ambulance and rescue service.. you might have an argument.

You don't. You rely upon tax payer funded people to grab your rear out. So it DOES HARM OTHER PEOPLE!

And if that isn't good enough, try looking up the mortality rate for emergency responders to today's highways. If you can get up and walk away, no one has to RISK THEIR LIFE TO SAVE YOURS.

So I guess we should not treat people who have drug overdoses unless they have their own "privately funded ambulance and rescue service"? Same goes for anyone? You logic is baffling to say the least. Are you implying that someone who doesn't wear their seat belt DOESN'T pay taxes to FUND emergency services?

[PLAYER57832]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

When you have your own personal, privately funded ambulance and rescue service.. you might have an argument.

You don't. You rely upon tax payer funded people to grab your rear out. So it DOES HARM OTHER PEOPLE!

And if that isn't good enough, try looking up the mortality rate for emergency responders to today's highways. If you can get up and walk away, no one has to RISK THEIR LIFE TO SAVE YOURS.

So I guess we should not treat people who have drug overdoses unless they have their own "privately funded ambulance and rescue service"? Same goes for anyone? You logic is baffling to say the least. Are you implying that someone who doesn't wear their seat belt DOESN'T pay taxes to FUND emergency services?

No, but they should suffer penalties for taking drugs in ways not consistant with either a doctor's order or over-the-counter instructions. And, gee... they DO!

And no, people not wearing seatbelts are not the primary funders of emergency services. Besides, having an emergency service available when you need it doesn't give you the right to ignore basic precautions to prevent having to use it.

[Phatscotty]

It's the government intruding in our lives that makes it annoying. I wear my seat belt, always have. I just don't like LAWS that require it. It's my car, my seat belt, my life. I do not need the government forcing me to do anything! Remember the old saying, "If it doesn't harm anyone else, live and let live?" You give them an inch, they WILL take a mile. LIBERTY!!!!!!!

When you have your own personal, privately funded ambulance and rescue service.. you might have an argument.

You don't. You rely upon tax payer funded people to grab your rear out. So it DOES HARM OTHER PEOPLE!

And if that isn't good enough, try looking up the mortality rate for emergency responders to today's highways. If you can get up and walk away, no one has to RISK THEIR LIFE TO SAVE YOURS.

So I guess we should not treat people who have drug overdoses unless they have their own "privately funded ambulance and rescue service"? Same goes for anyone? You logic is baffling to say the least. Are you implying that someone who doesn't wear their seat belt DOESN'T pay taxes to FUND emergency services?

No, but they should suffer penalties for taking drugs in ways not consistant with either a doctor's order or over-the-counter instructions. And, gee... they DO!

And no, people not wearing seatbelts are not the primary funders of emergency services. Besides, having an emergency service available when you need it doesn't give you the right to ignore basic precautions to prevent having to use it.

I do not know what state you guys are from, but here, when an ambulance takes you to the hospital that charges start between 5-8 thousand dollars, whether you are wearing your seatlbelt or not.

[PLAYER57832]

I do not know what state you guys are from, but here, when an ambulance takes you to the hospital that charges start between 5-8 thousand dollars, whether you are wearing your seatlbelt or not.

Ambulances are usually private, but the Paramedics, police and firefighters who often have to respond to every accident are not. Ambulances usually cost $500-800, but longer transports, heavy needs for various support and supplies can boos that to thousands, yes. Air transport can all boost that to a couple hundred thousand.

In many areas, the firefighters and sometimes even the police and paramedics or EMTs are volunteers.

[Kegler]

to me it's more of a state police signpost. Read the bills being passed by the senate.
If they keep citizens focused on changing the system, they keep citizens IN the system, thus maintaining the control they have had for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years. They just slipped the patriots act extension through a jobs bill without the main media even noticing.