Seat Belt Enforcement Zone!

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, they are searches without warrant or probable cause and thus violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

edit: but I don't need to worry about it much because Oregon and Washington state are among the 15 states in which these types of stops are expressly forbidden in their state constitutions. Hey and guess what? The insurance here is low... that argument doesn't hold water.

Who's searching?

Illegal search and seizure does not apply to items in plain sight. They don't search anything to determine if you are wearing a seatbelt or not.

 

[conjur]

BTW, from another site I found re:the current case in the U.S. Supreme Court re:roadblocks:

A decision in the case is expected by July 2004.

 

[EvilYoda]

hehe, I actually have a list up on my site that's linked to in my away msg, detailing all the enforcement zones around Metroit Detroit, if you want a list to pass on to your friends Quixfire 🙂

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Originally posted by: Vic
No, they are searches without warrant or probable cause and thus violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

edit: but I don't need to worry about it much because Oregon and Washington state are among the 15 states in which these types of stops are expressly forbidden in their state constitutions. Hey and guess what? The insurance here is low... that argument doesn't hold water.

Quite wrong. They can see into your car and know if you're breaking the law BEFORE they pull you over. That hands them probable cause.

Around here they do it on highway onramps. The cops just stand right there in the middle of the road and wave people over to the side as they pass by without belts on. Usually 2 or 3 man teams, one guy doing the waving and one or two guys on the side writing the tickets and ready to chase anyone that doesn't stop. Pretty big fine too, something like $80.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: KraziKid
What's so hard about wearing a seatbelt? They aren't that uncomfortable, and they protect you. It takes less than a second to put it on and off.

Opponents claim seatbelts can be a hazard when trying to flee a burning vehicle or some such assinine rationalization like that.

I would rather be in the car when it starts to catch on fire than laying on the pavement half a block away

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Quixfire
There is a seat belt enforcement zone outside my house right know. Three vehicles were pulled over and three other police officers were waiting to stop some more.

Do you think it's right for police to set-up special zones just to right infractions?

BTW, they did have a sigh next to the officer doing the spotting.

No. This is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than a way of generating revenue for the police department and the local government. If they were serious about enforcing these laws, they would have cameras and police officers on every corner. Of course, I don't think that's right either but doing it the way they do just shows how much they really care about public safety.

Are you an idiot or just pretending?

Police officers and cameras at every corner? This is what they would do if they were serious about enforcing a seatbelt law? This comment is too stupid to even criticize.

You're also saying that because they pull over people without seatbelts, they don't care about public safety? It's just a revenue scam?

Listen up, kid, here is how it works.

In the interest of all drivers, insurance is mandated so that in the event you do get in a crash, the appropriate parties are garaunteed compensation for their injuries/damages. Insurance companies charge a (relatively) small fee based on your driving history and your likeliness to get in a crash, which goes into a pool of money that can be distributed to the people in need of it. The system works because everybody pays a proportional amount and relatively few people ever require more money than they pay in.

When you get in an accident and you are injured, the insurance companies pay the bills (mostly). Medical costs these days can run upwards of several tens of thousands of dollars for relatively minor injuries. It is statistically proven that not wearing a seatbelt increases your chance of an injury during a crash. This means that the insurance company will have to pay out more money, which will lead to them having to raise everybody's rates.

The government owns the roads... it's their property. The government recognizes the need for insurance for the reasons stated above. When the cost to provide insurance gets too high, it ceases to exist. If nobody has insurance, there will be huge bills (both medical and property related) which will go unpaid. This would create a huge problem and would either lead to people going without medical treatment, dying, or the government paying.

Wearing a seatbelt is probably the easiest way to prevent most injuries which occur in automobile crashes, thus it is in the interest of all parties (You and I included), that it is enforced. The easiest way of doing this is selective enforcement, which is exactly what is going on.

So what was your problem again?

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Vic
No, they are searches without warrant or probable cause and thus violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

edit: but I don't need to worry about it much because Oregon and Washington state are among the 15 states in which these types of stops are expressly forbidden in their state constitutions. Hey and guess what? The insurance here is low... that argument doesn't hold water.

Who's searching?

Illegal search and seizure does not apply to items in plain sight. They don't search anything to determine if you are wearing a seatbelt or not.

If you have to stop me and look inside my car, you are searching me.

 

[TechnoKid]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: KraziKid
What's so hard about wearing a seatbelt? They aren't that uncomfortable, and they protect you. It takes less than a second to put it on and off.

Opponents claim seatbelts can be a hazard when trying to flee a burning vehicle or some such assinine rationalization like that.

Seat belts used to be hazards when they were just a lap belt. When cars didn't have a front crumple zone (long long time ago), the impact would get sent straight into the passanger's abdominal area, where the lap belt would cut and dig into the body, causing internal organ damage. Now with shoudler/lap belts, and front crumple zones, the injuries are minimized.

It only takes a second to put them on or take them off, so why not?

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Quixfire
There is a seat belt enforcement zone outside my house right know. Three vehicles were pulled over and three other police officers were waiting to stop some more.

Do you think it's right for police to set-up special zones just to right infractions?

BTW, they did have a sigh next to the officer doing the spotting.

No. This is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than a way of generating revenue for the police department and the local government. If they were serious about enforcing these laws, they would have cameras and police officers on every corner. Of course, I don't think that's right either but doing it the way they do just shows how much they really care about public safety.

blah blah blah

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

Did I say something contrary to that? I'm not understanding...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Quixfire
There is a seat belt enforcement zone outside my house right know. Three vehicles were pulled over and three other police officers were waiting to stop some more.

Do you think it's right for police to set-up special zones just to right infractions?

BTW, they did have a sigh next to the officer doing the spotting.

No. This is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than a way of generating revenue for the police department and the local government. If they were serious about enforcing these laws, they would have cameras and police officers on every corner. Of course, I don't think that's right either but doing it the way they do just shows how much they really care about public safety.

blah blah blah

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

Did I say something contrary to that? I'm not understanding...

I'm sorry, was I incorrect in my assumtion that you supported seatbelt laws and their random enforcement?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Amused

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

What about the costs to the government when police, fire, and EMT have to respond to an accident because the driver wasn't belted and is unconscious or was thrown from the vehicle instead of being able to get out of the car on their own, uninjured?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

What about the costs to the government when police, fire, and EMT have to respond to an accident because the driver wasn't belted and is unconscious or was thrown from the vehicle instead of being able to get out of the car on their own, uninjured?

Bill the victim. That's what national park rangers have started to do with mountain climbers who get lost or stuck and require rescue.

There ARE ways to encourage seatbelt use (or any other responsibility) WITHOUT limiting individual liberty by creating nanny-state laws.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: MacBaine
Who's searching?

Illegal search and seizure does not apply to items in plain sight. They don't search anything to determine if you are wearing a seatbelt or not.

Is the officer(s) detaining people without probable cause (or their express consent) with the intention of discovering a crime or infraction? Then that is an illegal search.

In plain sight means exactly that. If an officer could look into a moving vehicle and see that the driver wasn't wearing their seat belt, then that would be in plain sight. If the officer has to stop the vehicle in order to see, then that is a search.

Your argument is like saying that the drugs were in plain sight just because they were on top of the dresser in a back bedroom instead of in one of the drawers. Either way, the officer had to enter the house in order to see it, and that makes it a search (edit: which would only be legal if the occupant gave express consent to entry).

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Vic
No, they are searches without warrant or probable cause and thus violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

edit: but I don't need to worry about it much because Oregon and Washington state are among the 15 states in which these types of stops are expressly forbidden in their state constitutions. Hey and guess what? The insurance here is low... that argument doesn't hold water.

Who's searching?

Illegal search and seizure does not apply to items in plain sight. They don't search anything to determine if you are wearing a seatbelt or not.

If you have to stop me and look inside my car, you are searching me.

If you are driving down the street with a bag of pot on your windshield, you'll get pulled over and searched, perfectly legal.

If you are driving down the street with a bag of pot in your trunk, and you are pulled over for absolutely no reason and searched, and they found it, THAT is illegal search and seizure.

If you read up on criminal law, illegal search and seizure does not apply to items in plain sight during the course of an officer's (or other law enforcement agent's) regular duties.

Another example... say an officer comes to your house to take a report from you for whatever reason. While there, if he sees a bag of coke sitting on your table, you can bet you'll be arrested and it will be within legal bounds. On the other hand, if he comes in, then goes and opens a cabinet and finds a bag of coke, that would be an illegal search.

 

[Jeff7181]

They're going to great lengths to enforce that in my area too becuase 7 people died here last summer that probably wouldn't have if they were wearing their seatbelt, and this is a fairly small town.
I don't see what the big deal is about wearing a seatbelt anyway... it's just natural for me... I feel odd driving if I can't feel the seatbelt across me. Maybe cause in driver's ed. the instructor wouldn't give us the key until we were all buckled in... or maybe from my short dirt track racing "career" where I wouldn't leave the pit area unless I couldn't move in my seat.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Quixfire
There is a seat belt enforcement zone outside my house right know. Three vehicles were pulled over and three other police officers were waiting to stop some more.

Do you think it's right for police to set-up special zones just to right infractions?

BTW, they did have a sigh next to the officer doing the spotting.

No. This is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than a way of generating revenue for the police department and the local government. If they were serious about enforcing these laws, they would have cameras and police officers on every corner. Of course, I don't think that's right either but doing it the way they do just shows how much they really care about public safety.

blah blah blah

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

Did I say something contrary to that? I'm not understanding...

I'm sorry, was I incorrect in my assumtion that you supported seatbelt laws and their random enforcement?

You are saying 'Random enforcement' like they are pulling you over not knowing if you are wearing a seatbelt or not. They see you driving along without a seatbelt on (which is a stoppable offence in most states), and they stop and ticket you. Doesn't seem too random to me.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
Quite wrong. They can see into your car and know if you're breaking the law BEFORE they pull you over. That hands them probable cause.

Around here they do it on highway onramps. The cops just stand right there in the middle of the road and wave people over to the side as they pass by without belts on. Usually 2 or 3 man teams, one guy doing the waving and one or two guys on the side writing the tickets and ready to chase anyone that doesn't stop. Pretty big fine too, something like $80.

That's a unique method they have and not the subject of this discussion. We are talking about roadblocks, in which ALL drivers are stopped (detained) for seatbelt inspection. Not cases in which officers only stop those people who they visibly see not wearing their seatbelt.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Flyermax2k3

Originally posted by: Quixfire
There is a seat belt enforcement zone outside my house right know. Three vehicles were pulled over and three other police officers were waiting to stop some more.

Do you think it's right for police to set-up special zones just to right infractions?

BTW, they did have a sigh next to the officer doing the spotting.

No. This is absolutely wrong. It's nothing more than a way of generating revenue for the police department and the local government. If they were serious about enforcing these laws, they would have cameras and police officers on every corner. Of course, I don't think that's right either but doing it the way they do just shows how much they really care about public safety.

blah blah blah

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

Did I say something contrary to that? I'm not understanding...

I'm sorry, was I incorrect in my assumtion that you supported seatbelt laws and their random enforcement?

You are saying 'Random enforcement' like they are pulling you over not knowing if you are wearing a seatbelt or not. They see you driving along without a seatbelt on (which is a stoppable offence in most states), and they stop and ticket you. Doesn't seem too random to me.

Actually, no. The majority of seatbelt tickets are given one of two ways:

A. You are pulled over for another offense
B. You are stopped at a "seatbelt enforcement roadblock" much like the DUI checkpoints

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

What about the costs to the government when police, fire, and EMT have to respond to an accident because the driver wasn't belted and is unconscious or was thrown from the vehicle instead of being able to get out of the car on their own, uninjured?

Bill the victim. That's what national park rangers have started to do with mountain climbers who get lost or stuck and require rescue.

There ARE ways to encourage seatbelt use (or any other responsibility) WITHOUT limiting individual liberty by creating nanny-state laws.

I still don't understand how making you wear a seatbelt so you don't get killed or kill other people is taking away your liberties...

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
They're going to great lengths to enforce that in my area too becuase 7 people died here last summer that probably wouldn't have if they were wearing their seatbelt, and this is a fairly small town.
I don't see what the big deal is about wearing a seatbelt anyway... it's just natural for me... I feel odd driving if I can't feel the seatbelt across me. Maybe cause in driver's ed. the instructor wouldn't give us the key until we were all buckled in... or maybe from my short dirt track racing "career" where I wouldn't leave the pit area unless I couldn't move in my seat.

The big deal is not the common sense wearing of seatbelts. The big deal is an intrusive law designed to protect us from ourselves.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Aharami
i believe if u dont wear your seatbelt u deserve to get a ticket. it really does save lives and people dont learn a lesson until they have to pay some kinda money

Seat belt laws only save the lives of people too stupid to be worth saving. If you're not smart enough to buckle up because you want to be safe then you don't really deserve to be saved.

I'll grant that it's a good idea on the basis of lower insurance rates.

ZV

 

[Jeff7181]

On a somewhat unrelated topic... it disgusts me when people get upset about what the police do and how it MAY violate their rights. We grant the police a certain authority to keep the public safe. That's what they're there for. Then people get their shorts in a knot when the police enforce a law that they're breaking. How bout if you just don't break the law if you're not prepared to pay the price?
What's the problem with wearing a seatbelt anyway? Just put the damn thing on and drive away, it takes 3 seconds. I can't believe people are making the argument "it's my life." Fine, if you want to die then do everyone else a favor and kill yourself now so your car doesn't smash into mine after you get throw out through the windshield in an accident.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
They're going to great lengths to enforce that in my area too becuase 7 people died here last summer that probably wouldn't have if they were wearing their seatbelt, and this is a fairly small town.
I don't see what the big deal is about wearing a seatbelt anyway... it's just natural for me... I feel odd driving if I can't feel the seatbelt across me. Maybe cause in driver's ed. the instructor wouldn't give us the key until we were all buckled in... or maybe from my short dirt track racing "career" where I wouldn't leave the pit area unless I couldn't move in my seat.

I always wear my seatbelt as well, feel strange without it, and would not drive if anyone in my car refused to wear one (and I'd kick them out if they insisted on it).

And as with all issues of this type, seatbelts are not the issue. That is a red herring. Our 4th Amendment rights are the issue.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Amused

That would be true, if not for a very simple fact: Dangerous or risky drivers are charged more than safer, less risky drivers. So, no, we do NOT all pay for risky drivers.

The private sector, unlike socialist government programs, has learned how to charge MORE for high risk clients.

Hell, if you like, start an insurance company that refuses to pay out to a policy holder if that person is found to have not been wearing their seatbelt. But do NOT use government force to make people belt up for their, or YOUR own good.

What about the costs to the government when police, fire, and EMT have to respond to an accident because the driver wasn't belted and is unconscious or was thrown from the vehicle instead of being able to get out of the car on their own, uninjured?

Bill the victim. That's what national park rangers have started to do with mountain climbers who get lost or stuck and require rescue.

There ARE ways to encourage seatbelt use (or any other responsibility) WITHOUT limiting individual liberty by creating nanny-state laws.

I still don't understand how making you wear a seatbelt so you don't get killed or kill other people is taking away your liberties...

I wear my seatbelt, not because of any law, but because I CHOOSE to out of common sense.

I am against the law because it is worthless and intrusive. I do NOT need nor want the government FORCING me to take care of myself. I do NOT want to live in a nanny-state nor did the people who founded this country.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
On a somewhat unrelated topic... it disgusts me when people get upset about what the police do and how it MAY violate their rights. We grant the police a certain authority to keep the public safe. That's what they're there for. Then people get their shorts in a knot when the police enforce a law that they're breaking. How bout if you just don't break the law if you're not prepared to pay the price?
What's the problem with wearing a seatbelt anyway? Just put the damn thing on and drive away, it takes 3 seconds. I can't believe people are making the argument "it's my life." Fine, if you want to die then do everyone else a favor and kill yourself now so your car doesn't smash into mine after you get throw out through the windshield in an accident.

You would have done well in the Soviet Union, comrade...