PO'd at police

[Sigarms]

I have a LEO distant relative in one of the Southern States.....they have the seatbelt law and LEO's love it cuz he says it gives them an excuse to pull over anybody...."Oh, I thought you didn't have your seatbelt on....Sorry ....Goodday"......

And I would inform that LEO that I'm surprised they passed their eye exam (in a VERY nice tone mind you).

 

[mmurphy]

Hookedonhp, I hope when you said doing your business, it wasnt in front yard!!!:laughing:
I do think a little bit over done by cop on insurance. But thanks for reminding me, I have about the last 2 years worth sitting on shelf that has not been put in to vehicles.
Seat belt law was never truly to protect you for there concern. It is only a simple reason to pull you over. I wear mine and smile and wave at them why most will just give you dirty looks when they go by. I was told since I have law enforcement in my family, that a big percentage of cops after 10 years of service see people as scums. Reason being they do not get called to church gatherings instead to all sorts of other problems.
I guess if that is all they can get you on, smile and be happy.

 

[kidr]

Here in GB, there are databases of all vehicles insurance, tax and MoT (roadworthiness testing). The police set up cameras reading every number plate (called ANPR) and checking each against the databases as well as checks that the owner / likely driver is not wanted. They then stop any offenders up the road - and cars are siezed and crushed after 7 days if not reclaimed. Of course the criminals just find a car similar to theirs and make duplicate registration plates (cloning).

Interesting thinking on seatbelts. I think in US you used to use just airbags and seatbelts became a secondary security measure - hence why I guess some may forget them. Here, seatbelts came first (1965 or 1966 I think) - and airbags are secondary - which is why some European cars will say airbag SRS - secondary restraint system.

Here you can get medical exemption for seatbelts, but you can also get religeous exemptions for the motorcycle crash helmet laws. Should it be freedom of choice (helmets and seatbelts)? My view is that no-one has the right to deprive someone else of a limited hospital place.

J

Then it's ok with you if law makers tell you what to eat and drink, and what sports or other activities you can do, as long as it's in the name of saving hospital space?

 

[Tig]

When I get a ticket I always verify that I in fact broke the rule as written. Then I pay the fine. It's that simple. I might feel a bit sheepish about being the focus of law enforcement but I don't see anything to be angry about. I'd just hate to think that I might be delaying him from responding to a more important issue.

 

[3BPercherons]

I'm against seatbelt and helmet laws. I'm getting on in years and there are too few organ donors as it is.

Chuck

Here in KY, not wearing a seatbelt is a primary offense (they can pull you over just for that) in order to (paraphrasing here) protect the citizens of the commonwealth from death or injury in the event of an accident.

Yet, we have no law that mandates helmets for motorcyclists.

 

[dave1949]

Seat belt law was never truly to protect you for there concern. It is only a simple reason to pull you over. I wear mine and smile and wave at them why most will just give you dirty looks when they go by. I was told since I have law enforcement in my family, that a big percentage of cops after 10 years of service see people as scums. Reason being they do not get called to church gatherings instead to all sorts of other problems.
I guess if that is all they can get you on, smile and be happy.

The tried and true reason for pulling anyone over in these parts is 'suspected vehicle defect'.

I guess from a traffic cop's perspective, you wouldn't see too many bodies smeared across the road until seatbelt citation anger just doesn't make a dent.

Dave.

 

[sld]

I think it's OK to eliminate seat belt laws, but if you are injured while not wearing a seat belt, then no insurance should cover you injuries. Why should society pay for the extra risk that you are taking? The more insurance we have the more laws will be passed to control you.. Or you could get the higher cost insurance that would cover you if you are not wearing a seat belt. The free market system can work, but most people do not want to pay the cost. They want others to pay the cost.

Well, I do agree mostly with your thinking. But what bothers me is where do you draw the line?

Should everyone in a vehicle suit up like a football player? It would definitely cut down on injuries and the cost to society.

How about making it illegal to use tobacco? Fast food? Alcohol? All of these things would probably benefit society as a whole. So where is that line drawn? Personally, I think seat belts crossed that line.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I'm against seatbelt and helmet laws. I'm getting on in years and there are too few organ donors as it is.
Chuck

Im against them too, but I advocate wearing them. There are just too many laws. Should be a law against it.
larry

 

[Kays Supply]

A point missed so far. In Illinois the law is " you must have proof of insurance in the vehicle". The law was broken plane and simple.

 

[SPYDERLK]

A point missed so far. In Illinois the law is " you must have proof of insurance in the vehicle". The law was broken plane and simple.

bigdeal.