MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops



Pages: 1
Main Page

"Primary" Seat Belt Enforcement

(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: 57ragus

House narrowly approves seat belt enforcement bill

By Brooke Donald, Associated Press Writer | January 19, 2006

BOSTON --After two rare tie votes in the past five years, House lawmakers narrowly passed a bill Thursday that would allow law enforcement officers to pull over drivers solely because they are not wearing seat belts.

The legislation, approved 76-74, now moves to the Senate, which has passed similar bills twice before. Gov. Mitt Romney has said he supports so-called "primary" seat belt enforcement.

"The majority of people now are wearing seat belts and they are tired of seeing so many people die by not wearing them," said Rep. Cheryl Rivera, D-Springfield, House chairwoman of the joint committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security.

Twenty-two other states have "primary" seat belt laws, but in Massachusetts police can only issue tickets to unbuckled drivers if they have been stopped for another offense.

Supporters of the bill argue it will prevent unnecessary deaths and serious injuries, but opponents worry about privacy issues and fear that giving police more power to stop drivers could lead to racial profiling.

"We should be concerned as a society, as a government, about the misuse of police power," said Rep. Michael Festa, D-Melrose, during a news conference before debate on the bill. But, he added, "I believe that raising it in the context of primary enforcement is entirely misplaced."

Rivera, who had voted "no" on the bill in the past because of racial profiling concerns, said she switched her vote and lobbied for the legislation because now there are better measures in place to identify towns that are racially profiling. She also was concerned about the high car accident fatality rate for minorities.

Rae Tyson, a spokesman at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said there is no evidence that primary seat belt laws have been used to single out members of minority groups.

"All studies that we have done in states that have a primary seat belt law show there has been no evidence of racial profiling accompanying passage of the law," Tyson said.

The number of Massachusetts drivers who buckle up has risen over the past five years, but the state still ranks near the bottom of seat belt usage nationally.

In 2000, 50 percent of state drivers and passengers wore seat belts, compared to 64.8 percent last year, according to NHTSA statistics. Nationally, seat belt use overall was a record 82 percent in 2005.

Safety belts are considered the best tool in avoiding traffic deaths. Tyson estimated that if Massachusetts adopts the proposed seat belt law, it would boost compliance by 11 percent, save 23 lives and prevent 896 serious injuries each year. He also said it would save $205 million in related costs, including on health care, and make Massachusetts eligible for millions of dollars in federal transportation grants.

The House deadlocked on primary seat belt legislation in 2001, with a 76-76 vote, and 2003, with a 73-73 vote.

"Right now people don't feel there is a seat belt law," said State Police Sgt. Ross Panacopoulos. "When you have it as a primary offense the mentality out there changes and people buckle up."

Police issued about 81,000 citations in 2004 for not wearing seat belts, according to figures from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. About 58,000 tickets, which carry a $25 fine, were issued in the first nine months of last year, the only numbers available for 2005.

Opponents to the legislation say it isn't necessary, and note that Massachusetts has the lowest accident fatality rate in the country.

"Where do we draw the line on government intervention in people's lives?" asked Rep. Lewis Evangelidis, R-Holden, during the House debate.

But Festa said wearing a seat belt is already state law, and the privacy issue was debated a decade ago when the secondary offense law was passed.

"The only thing we're doing differently is we're saying we have got to put more teeth in that enforcement," he said.


Posted by: sylvester

how do we start a poll ?... I will NOT stop someone for not wearing a seatbelt UNLESS there was something else about the driver going on.. Decent people have no reason to fear getting pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt by me. I have zero interest in being their mommy or in generating money for the city, state or insurance companies. The annnoying big mouths who swerve all over the road and yack incessantly on their cell phone whle you get stuck at a second red light because they chattted, rather than pay attention, are the ones that irk me.. Do you see as many "possible drunk drivers" as I do, who turn out to be nothing more than a chatterbox on a cell phone.. ? They are the ones that irk me. -I would enforce the Impaired Operation by Cellular Phone law if that were passed as a primary offense under Impeded Operation. I suspect that very few officers will pull people over and give them fines for not wearing a seatbelt... am I wrong ? Let's start a poll.. Do chatterboxes on cell phones annoy you more and pose a greater threat...? I think so.. Pull the expletive over and yack and yack rather than be distracted by your phone call. Te State should at least require that cell phone big mouths be required to use hand free ear pieces. Dummycrats love to play Mommy- they do not support the police UNLESS there is money to be made.. Democrats have no honor.


Posted by: RPD931

I like it!


Posted by: REILEYDOG

Too much big brother -big time.


Posted by: Crvtte65

Quote:
Originally Posted by sylvester
how do we start a poll ?...
There ya go


Posted by: irish937

Crock of shit!!!!!!! I will NEVER issue a citation for it, UNLESS it becomes an "asshole" offense. Got that legislators?! NEVER!! This is a joke and a waste of time. Whether grown adults choose to go through a windshield in an accident is up to them. Read Howie Carr's article in the Herald today. He hits the nail on the head.


Posted by: RedWaterMan

[quote=irish937] Whether grown adults choose to go through a windshield in an accident is up to them. QUOTE]

I was listening to the radio this morning and I heard Barry Finegold on WAAF. He was basically saying that there are going to be cost reductions in other areas. Such as with taxes for medicaid due to the amount of uninsured people that get injured, or having this be another step to creating reductions in car insurance premiums.

However, despite these seemingly logical reasons people continuously refer to this as becoming a huge infringement on their rights. They also say, "let them die" or "survival of the fittest" or the above.

All of this points to the idea of the irrational consumer in the United States . Americans don't want people to tell them what to do or take things away from them, even if those minute sacrifices would be for the better. A good example is SUVs, we know they destroy the environment and further global warming, but we want our rights dammit!

I've also heard the argument that people know people who were in accidents and died while wearing seat belts, which is unfortunate. Or perhaps the fact that they wore a seatbelt has allowed them to live and become an extreme medical and financial burden. However, this is far more rare and people are much more likely to survive with a seatbelt on.

I say the law is good, and there are the steps in place to prevent things like racial profiling that would accompany something of this sort (the survey one year from now that evaluates who was ticketed). Also, police officers have the wonderful asset of choice, if they feel that the enforcement of this law impairs their ability to enforce more important laws and protect people from more severe possibility then it is their job to choose to handle the more dire situation.

Personally, I would love to continue working towards improving the reputations of Massachusetts drivers, maybe then it would be less expensive to be one.


Posted by: USMCMP5811

This is B.S. The only reason why this bill was passed is because the federal government has been withholding funds until this lovely state passed a primary seat belt law. Yes, seat belts have saved some lives, but they have also taken some lives. Do you really think that by passing a primary seat belt law will lower our insurance rates? If you do, I have some ocean front property I'd like to sell you in Iowa. It's a case of leading the donkey by daggling the carrot in front of his nose. Some Demorat waves federal funding in front of the state and says, “you do this, and you'll get this, otherwise no mula."

Gee, why is it NH doesn't have seat belt laws and helmet laws? Because they recognize that adults can make a decision on there own and don't need Big Brother all up in their face. This is just the start of the slippery slope folks. You watch, pretty soon we’ll be like China with a federally mandated limit on the number of children we can have.

I personally have been involved in an MVA where I wasn't wearing a seatbelt and went through the windshield. I to this day do not wear a seat belt, Why? Many reasons that I won't get into here. The decision of wearing of a seat belt should be left to the adult, not Big Brother.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by USMCMP5811
This is B.S. The only reason why this bill was passed is because the federal government has been withholding funds until this lovely state passed a primary seat belt law. Yes, seat belts have saved some lives, but they have also taken some lives.

The seat belt would have taken my life if I had been wearing it in the accident that disabled me. The EMT's as it was could not belive that I was alive when they got to me.
All of this happened at 20MPH with an MSP Trooper right behind me as a witness.
I will not wear one and I belive it should be my right to decide.


Posted by: RedWaterMan

No, I don't believe that this will directly affect insurance rates, but it is a step in the right direction.

Congrats on being a survivor without a seatbelt, I said that there were exceptional circumstances. However, do you think that most people (who aren't ex-marines) would probably have died in your situation? I don't particularly know how to confront your point of view, some people are lucky and some aren't, and the same can go for those who wear seatbelts.

I don't think that this will result in America becoming a socialist republic, but I do see it making people in Massachusetts more conscious of their safety. Maybe it shouldn't be a law. . . these are all good points. However, it is a police officer's job to enforce the law that legislators create, and. . .

(see above) "police officers have the wonderful asset of choice, if they feel that the enforcement of this law impairs their ability to enforce more important laws and protect people from more severe possibility then it is their job to choose to handle the more dire situation."


Posted by: kwflatbed

The whole thing is about federal money.
Insurance rates in our state will see no change from it.
It may help with saftey awareness but that is also questionable.

I wonder if this will have any effect on the exceptions to the seat belt law
that is effect now.


Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWaterMan
No, I don't believe that this will directly affect insurance rates, but it is a step in the right direction.
How is it a step in the right dirrection if we're not going to see a savings on our insurance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWaterMan
Congrats on being a survivor without a seatbelt, I said that there were exceptional circumstances. However, do you think that most people (who aren't ex-marines) would probably have died in your situation? I don't particularly know how to confront your point of view, some people are lucky and some aren't, and the same can go for those who wear seatbelts.
Beig an ex-Marine has nothing to do with it. At the time of my accident, I was a 16 year old junior in high school who just so happened to be ridding with a buddy in the front seat when we hit a patch of black ice that sent us through a telephone pole and i ended up waking up on the hood of the car. Yes, some people are lucky and others are not. I've been to and seen many accidents that could have gone either way. I do however , believe that if it's your time to go, no seat belt or any other circumstances are going to change that. It is a matter of opinion and choice. Hey, you wear your seat belt and belive that it is going to save your life, I'm not going to knock that. To each their own I say, but don't try to black mail me into doing something I belive should be a choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWaterMan
I don't think that this will result in America becoming a socialist republic, but I do see it making people in Massachusetts more conscious of their safety. Maybe it shouldn't be a law. . . these are all good points. However, it is a police officer's job to enforce the law that legislators create, and. . .

(see above) "police officers have the wonderful asset of choice, if they feel that the enforcement of this law impairs their ability to enforce more important laws and protect people from more severe possibility then it is their job to choose to handle the more dire situation."
In a way, I agree with you. As far as this causing America to become a socialist republic, I never said that it was going to happen tomorrow, but in 10 - 20 years from now, we can look back when it does happen and see where the start of it was, like AG Riley’s Gun list and these feel good with out the reach around and a kiss gun laws. We've been back doored so many times by this state it's ridiculous. I say put the law up for the people to vote on it and see where it goes. I can almost guarantee that it would be voted against like it did back in 1984 the first time this state tried to force a seat belt law down our throats. When it got repealed b the voters, the legislature back doord us and reinstated it with out the peoples vote. Do we see a pattern here folks, or am I the only one loosing my marbles?



Posted by: kwflatbed

"USMCMP5811" Well said.
We are loosing our rights with every law that is passed that effects our
personal liberties.
Has the smoking ban changed the rates in health insurance??
I don't belive in the helmet law but I wear a helmet that is my choice.
The state has done away with just about all of our freedoms when it
comes to firearms.
The next thing will be that they will tell us what we can drive for a car.


Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwflatbed
"USMCMP5811" Well said.
We are loosing our rights with every law that is passed that effects our
personal liberties.
Has the smoking ban changed the rates in health insurance??
I don't belive in the helmet law but I wear a helmet that is my choice.
The state has done away with just about all of our freedoms when it
comes to firearms.
The next thing will be that they will tell us what we can drive for a car.

Exactly Harry, Just so your on notice, you can only buy a red and yellow polk-a-dotted Yugo from here on out, and only drive it on Sundays between the hours of 0100-0500. the rest of the time you are only allowed to ride a moped with training wheels, full leather outfit, full seat belts with full faced helmet on days with temps exceeding 100 degrees.


If the rest of you think this is so far fetched, talk to me in 20-30 years from now and we'll see.



Oh, and Harry, the said moped can only be of type and model that his emminance Hear Riley the Dictator King so desires. He will be publishing a list shortly of approved mopeds and Yugos.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Yes and this will be the standard issue for all police departments LOL


Posted by: Wolfman

Anyone who doesn't think this is all about the money has their head deeply rooted in the sand.

The State gets more funds, through federal handouts as well as ticket revenue.

The insurance companies keep their rates the same.

The citizen gets porked.

Sound familiar?


Posted by: Irish Wampanoag

Seatbelt Law, If it becomes law I will use it as a tool but I am not going to actively look for violators. I think it works well the way it is currently. However its a great tool to ID a passenger as a primary stop.


Posted by: LA Copper

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own personal opinion about this subject as is evidenced by what I've read so far. But, as far as being police officers, you should all be able to use this law to your advantage.

We have had this law in effect out here in California since around 1992 and it's worked great. No one ever complains about it and probably 98% of the people wear them.

The best thing for you guys is that it's great Probable Cause to pull over some dirtbag. It's been my experience that they don't like obeying the law and wearing the seatbelt wouldn't be "cool" to them. That just opens the door to you guys for a legal stop and then you can take it from there.

This is a discretionary thing. You don't have to cite if you don't want to. And as far as the folks yaking on the cellphone and driving all over the road, when they actually hit another car, who do you think is gonna be driving that other car? Usually the innocent decent citizen who chose not to wear their seatbelt.

Just my opinion also.


Posted by: Sniper

I'm with Irish........ All this gives me is a TOOL to use to FIO, etc........


Posted by: chief801

LA hit the nail on the head. No one said you have to cite for the infraction. Personally, I like it. Much less paperwork and time involved booking an accident that doesn't turn out to be a fatal!

What I find ironic is the number of cops who worry about "government" and "big brother". Just who do you think you work for? WE ARE BIG BROTHER! We are all so quick to enforce rules against the rest of society, but when a rule is passed that might impact our behavior....whooa! MY RIGHTS, I HAVE RIGHTS! (Haven't we all heard those words before?) Just some food for thought...


Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief801
LA hit the nail on the head. No one said you have to cite for the infraction. Personally, I like it. Much less paperwork and time involved booking an accident that doesn't turn out to be a fatal!

Chief, while I tend to agree with you 99% of the time, this one I can't. If the wreck is seriouse enough that it could have been a fatal MVA that the seat belt was the "saving" factor (and yes the sarcastic emphasis is on saving) 10 to 1 odds are that the victim of the wreck is in prety bad shape. so I have to raise the B.S. flag on the less paper work therory. Yes, every one likes less paper work, but it's going to happen whether or not there is a primary seat belt law. Yes there is the thing called officer descresion where an officer can choose to write the cite or not write the cite, but how many supervisors are going to demand seeing cites written? Don't tell me that this doesn't happen because we all know that it does, maybe not in some departments but it does happen.



Quote:
Originally Posted by chief801
What I find ironic is the number of cops who worry about "government" and "big brother". Just who do you think you work for? WE ARE BIG BROTHER! We are all so quick to enforce rules against the rest of society, but when a rule is passed that might impact our behavior....whooa! MY RIGHTS, I HAVE RIGHTS! (Haven't we all heard those words before?) Just some food for thought...


Chief, since when has working in public safety stripped us workers of our rights? What? because someone works for a police dept, now they are mearly puppets on a string to do their higher ups bidding? How is it that when a cop, or a dispatcher, or fire fighter, or for that mater a member of the armed services starts to disagree with what the government is doing and worring about "Big Brother" Ironic and wrong? Yes we are held to a higher standered, but WE HAVE RIGHTS! Ya we hear the lemmies cry that all the time, but since when has our rights been stripped away? Chief, we are not Big Brother or Judge Dredd for that matter, but if the pattern continues, that is what we'll become. Hell we all might as well start saluting with a straight arm extended. It is all quite simple, it's these Bolshivic assclowns in office that are black mailing us little guys in order to push their agenda. This is all about money and who makes out in the end and I can damn sure tell you, it isn't us. From what you said above, maybe we all should start straight arm saluting you and say, "zeek hail" when we see you.


Posted by: REILEYDOG

The argument that a primary seat belt law will be good PC to pull someone over just exemplifies the big brother argument. You can find PC to stop any vehicle w/o this law if you look harder enough. Some of us don't seem to realize that we work for big brother, and enforcing silly laws like this angers the public that we need on our side when enforcing laws that are important and actually affect peoples lives (assaults, thefts, murders and other petty crimes like that (sarcasm)). This law is about money for the state and the insurance companies, and we will never see any of it. (Well, aside from some possible seatbelt enforcement details, but how much would that detail suck?)


Posted by: NorwichAlum

I find it interesting that at this time the poll shows that twice the number of people are pro-seatbelt law than against. Yet the majority of the posts are against.

Personally am in favor of the law. A few months from now, this will all be blown over and it will just be another ch 90 violation on the books. As others said, it's a tool you don't need to use it. There are ch 90 violations that are alot more B.S. than this. We call pull people over if any part of the wording on a license plate is obstructed. Do we use it? Sure we do. Not often, but it's a tool on your toolbelt.

If an adult doesn't want to wear their seatbelt, good for them, hopefully I won't be the one holding their head together after they get ejected from the car. But, teen driver's are another story. I'd much rather stop a kid and tell him to put on his seatbelt than have to see a makeshift shrine on the side of the road. We all know many teens have no idea of the responsibiltity they are taking on when they pile into a car.

Sure there will be a few 90/13 enforcers out there. But I don't believe that Massaschusetts will become a police state anytime soon. If we do, maybe we'll get a raise!


Posted by: j809

Most PDs already have seatbelt policies in effect and if you get in a crash you might no be covered unless you wore a belt. I say great law, another tool in our belt. I stop lots of cars and I rarely see anyone not wearing a seatbelt anymore. During my Click it or Ticket shifts, I get every other BS offense but see no seatbelts violations. I work mids, so I can't tell who is wearing a seatbelt or not, I find PC for other stuff to stop the car. Remember ,you don't have to issue a cite for it, it's your discretion.


Posted by: Macop

If ya don't like it fine, quit whining and don't stop cars for it if it passes. I will, and I will do what I always do, USE DISCRETION. You don't write for every speeding violation or every stop sign violation. I'm sure the majority of us use common sence and fairness, I like to think I do. So whats the diference if you stop the car and give a warning, educate the public, throw a little community policing in and send the person away with a positive attitude about cops because you were informative and diplomatic, and if ya find something bigger, drugs, suspended license or whatever then thats fine too. If the person is gonna talk themselves in to a ticket when your main goal was just to stop and advise them, thats thier problem. Cite em based on QK, in-house, attitude just as you would any other stop.


Posted by: Macop

Chief you are RIGHT!!!

Who cares what its about, it probably is about money , nothless when YOU or I or any other cop is on the road that is not your motivation, your motivation is what you think is right. I doubt any of us are motivation by the financial aspect, I know I'm not. Just do what you think is right and never mind why the state passed it, just make the best of it, try to turn a negative into a positive. Like I said above.

"if you stop the car and give a warning, educate the public, throw a little community policing in and send the person away with a positive attitude about cops because you were informative and diplomatic, and if ya find something bigger, drugs, suspended license or whatever then thats fine too."


Posted by: chief801

USMCMP - "Zeek Heil" Wont' be necessary, but a hearty "Hail to the Chief" will suffice.

The part about less paperwork...well, I know of several wrecks over the years that resulted in fatals, that when you looked at the car, there was minimal damage. If belted in place, the knucklehead wouldn't have been ratttled around like a pinball resulting in a broken neck. Would have been a simple accident report. Because of the death, you have to call our recon and the whole nine yards. An incredible waste of time and resources that could have been avoided by use of the belt. We all know someone who "would have died if they had their belt on". That number is miniscule compared to the number who have died because they didn't have it on. We all have opinions...so wave that B.S. flag and wave it high!


Posted by: Wolfman

Chief, I gotta disagree with the whole "We Are Big Brother" concept.

When someone becomes a cop first and a citizen second, then they ARE Big Brother, and if that occurs, we all tread on very dangerous ground. Bear this in mind. Someday you will NOT be a cop anymore,and you will have to lie in the bed you have made.

That government is best which governs least. Maybe in order to reduce crashes people should only be allowed the use of motor vehicles for essential traveling with proper travel permits. This would reduce the volume of traffic on the roads and reduce injury and death. Nonessential travel would be mandated by statistically safer and more environmentally-friendly and economical public conveyance. You could pull someone over at any time and ask for their travel papers. We're just trying to save lives, after all.

You want more people to buckle up, let the insurance companies deny or prorate claims if it is shown that a restraint was not used. This does not require police involvement.


Posted by: KozmoKramer

"Zeig Heil" boys... And NO I am not a clandestine Nazi.. Just for the record...


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief801
USMCMP - "Zeek Heil" Wont' be necessary, but a hearty "Hail to the Chief" will suffice.

The part about less paperwork...well, I know of several wrecks over the years that resulted in fatals, that when you looked at the car, there was minimal damage. If belted in place, the knucklehead wouldn't have been ratttled around like a pinball resulting in a broken neck. Would have been a simple accident report. Because of the death, you have to call our recon and the whole nine yards. An incredible waste of time and resources that could have been avoided by use of the belt. We all know someone who "would have died if they had their belt on". That number is miniscule compared to the number who have died because they didn't have it on. We all have opinions...so wave that B.S. flag and wave it high!
Chief I am one of the miniscule numbers and for what it is worth my miniscule number
counts.
I have had one serious accident in my years of driving and the seat belt would have been my death.
God forbid I get stopped for not wearing a seat belt and if ticketed I will be like the rest and plead my case with the evidence in court. Just another stupid case to clutter the court system.


Posted by: j809

Hey if you appeal a ticket now, you have to pay $20 for a hearing before a judge. The ticket is $25 and no surcharge.


Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:
Originally Posted by chief801
USMCMP - "Zeek Heil" Wont' be necessary, but a hearty "Hail to the Chief" will suffice. !


Quote:
Originally Posted by chief801
The part about less paperwork...well, I know of several wrecks over the years that resulted in fatals, that when you looked at the car, there was minimal damage. If belted in place, the knucklehead wouldn't have been ratttled around like a pinball resulting in a broken neck. Would have been a simple accident report. Because of the death, you have to call our recon and the whole nine yards. An incredible waste of time and resources that could have been avoided by use of the belt. We all know someone who "would have died if they had their belt on". That number is miniscule compared to the number who have died because they didn't have it on. We all have opinions...so wave that B.S. flag and wave it high!
Chief,

Yes we both have seen them, I've also seen the wrecks where there was minimal damage to the car, yet the seat belt killed the individual. Blunt force trama by the seat belt caused internal bleeding that resulted in the death of the individial. otherwise there wasn't a mark on them and they would have walked away. How would a seat belt prevent a broken neck? A seat belt doesn't restrain the head and neck. Are you somehow saying that not only we should have a madatory seat belt law, but up it a bit by say, full NASCAR 5 point harness, helmit and a HANS device? Remember, Dale Earnhardt died of a broken neck, or a Basil Skull Fracture as they call it and he was wearing a seat belt. That seat belt did nothing to stop his head from lurching forward violently so as to snap his neck at the base of his skull. Now, I know I'm exagerating a little here due to Dale hitting the wall at over 190 MPH, but I think it gets my poit across.

I don't believe the number of " someone would have died if they had their seat belt on" is so "miniscule" as you say it is. I believe that the #'s of individuals who would have been killed if they were wearing a seat belt isn't tracked like those who did have a seat belt on, hence forth the B.S. flag. Once again, a differance of opinion. I also hold the opinion that, If the knuckle head behind the wheel hadn't been playing Grand Theft Auto or out on the date with John Barley Corn in some of these fatal/seriouse injury wrecks, we(ie public safty which includes PD, FD, EMS etc as a whole) wouldn't be waisting our time out there. But, these knuckle heads provide us with job security.

here's your "Hail to the Chief" for you (while strieght arm saluting out of shear fun) Chief.
Da dut da dah da dah dah da dah dah da dah da!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: irish937

Having more laws on the books is a very weak argument. More tools? We have plenty. The easy answer in this state is to make more laws. Perfect example, Former Rep. Knnutilla introduces a bill to make snow removal from your vehicle a law. Fine, but it's redundant. We already have impeded operation. How much "valuable time" time was wasted on that beauty?? The true problem is rarely addressed. Which is that we receive absolutely no support with the laws we have. How many ridiculous case law decisions are there to limit our enforcement of the law? Too many to count. Cases, which in other states (quoting the illustrious Pat Rogers) would be "good all day long." No one is asking for Nazi Germany (easy, it's only a metaphor), only support. Proactive officers go out and make good pinches, only to have them tossed by judges. Many cases will never reach the courtroom floor because the DA's Office see them as trivial or a waste of time. Some are, but not all. We deal with this as a part of the job and most accept it. It never changes and only seems to get worse. This has nothing to with anything, but money. If you think otherwise, you are living in a fantasy world. Sorry, off the soapbox now.


Posted by: Macop

Chief, I gotta disagree with the whole "We Are Big Brother" concept.

When someone becomes a cop first and a citizen second, then they ARE Big Brother, and if that occurs, we all tread on very dangerous ground. Bear this in mind. Someday you will NOT be a cop anymore,and you will have to lie in the bed you have made.


Lets not get all dramatic, I thought we were talking about seatbelts


Posted by: Delta784

IMO, anyone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is a complete moron, but I also believe in the inalienable right of people to be morons, provided they don't hurt anyone else.


Posted by: j809

Driving is a priviledge and not a right. You must submit to the rules and regulations and all laws if you want to continue operating a motor vehicle.


Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:
Originally Posted by j809
Driving is a priviledge and not a right. You must submit to the rules and regulations and all laws if you want to continue operating a motor vehicle.
My point exactly. Airplanes need to file flight plans, are subject to excruciating scrutiny, if you want to get on a commercial flight you are run through a security screening process. Other licensed trades are subject to retesting and maintenance of certification...So why don't we just require motorists to file travel plans, which need to be reviewed for necessity and impact on critical traffic flow, let's just stop everyone at the state line and check their permits for interstate travel, ranadom stops to check for the presence and validity of driver licenses, annual retesting, vehicle content inspections to stem the flow of contraband on public highways...

Those who have the narrow view that it's just another tool, or one law, or it's only about seatbelts are missing the big picture. Climb out of your little box for a minute and take a look around. This is clearly the financial interests of government (federal funding) and industry (insurance companies) being placed over the freedom and voice of the populace. Some may remember a few years back the proposal for a primary seatbelt law was brought to the people of Massachusetts for a vote, and it was VOTED DOWN. A majority of the voters did not want this, yet the insurance companies and politicians have once again decided that they know what is better for us all and have dismissed the voice of the majority. This is NOT what happens in a democracy, and makes a mockery of our most basic fundamental right as an American, the right to vote and have the will of the people be honored.

As the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step, the slide down that slippery slope begins with one small loss of traction.


Posted by: RPD931

"Click it or Ticket", I believe in it. Motor Vehicle accidents are now the #2 killer of Police Officers. I always wear mine. Recently I heard about a Natick Police Officer that hit some black ice and flipped his cruiser off the road. A large branch then fell and ripped through the roof right through the radio console. If he didn't have his seatbelt on he would have been slumped over the console and most likely killed by that branch. Granted, there are certain circumstances where "If I had might seatbelt on I would have been killed...". But I have to go with the #'s on this based on what I have seen.

4 girls in a car that flips twice all wearing seatbelts, all walk away with minor scratches.

2 guys in a car that rolls once, no seatbelts, both tossed, both dead.

1 lady rolls her car, no seatbelt, gets trapped on the floor between the back of the drivers seat and the back seat == severe injuries.

2 teens, no seatbelts, rolls car in to wooded area. Driver makes it ok in back seat, his friend gets seriously injured afer being trapped between the car and a tree.

Mother not wearing seatbelt, with 2 kids in car seats (thankfully) clips a telephone pole, flips the car and it slides some 50 feet == Single Mother has 2 broken legs and a broken pelvis.

2 women, both wearing seatbelts, in a ford focus wagon get t-boned by a Dodge Durango at 50 mph, the vehicle is slammed some 30 feet off the road into some trees == minor leg injury.

We can all share stories about this crap. I cannot believe that people are just as safe without a seatbelt than the would be with it. Sorry, no belts? you get a gig.


Posted by: no$.10

kwflatbed"...The next thing will be that they will tell us what we can drive for a car. "

I agree.

Actually, I was thinking the next thing will be butter. Everyone knows butter is fat, and fat is bad for you. Butter is thus bad for everyone because it drives the cost of healthcare up. (Obesity being the real issue). So, wouldn't it be better for the economy if we just outlawed butter? (like smoking, same reasoning here) Obese people eat more butter, call in sick to work more, and take up too much room on airplanes. So let's work on this obesity thing, and start by banning butter. Bacon is next. Save us from ourselves.


Posted by: Wolfman

(I might start to digress in this one)

Quote:
Originally Posted by RPD931
We can all share stories about this crap. I cannot believe that people are just as safe without a seatbelt than the would be with it. Sorry, no belts? you get a gig.
I'm not disagreeing that seatbelts are a safety measure that should be used. My family wears them at all times, and our car does not go into motion unless and until all are strapped in. Adults are responsible for the safety of the children in their vehicles and as such, I fully support a primary child seatbelt law.

My issue is that we do not need a law dictating such use for adults, especially after such a law was voted down by the citizens. It is not the job of our Government to protect us from ourselves. This legislation is crafted for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the financial interests of the insurers and the financial flow of funding into the state under the auspices of "public safety".

If the protection of the motorists were truly the reason for this, then why not mandate that motor vehicles have an interlock that would prevent the vehicle from starting or exceeding 25 MPH unless the seatbelts were fastened? I mean, you can't get out of park unless you press your brake, it's not a very difficult concept to incorporate a seatbelt interlock. Then there would be no need for such a law, and if people elected not to wear their belts their vehicle would be limited to a lower and inherently safer speed. I mean, the new cars all have data recorders now - what practical use is that to Joe Motorist? The money you would save by taking those out could be used for the seatbelt interlock.

You speed, you get a ticket. You blow a red light, you get a ticket. You drive without proper licensing or registration, you get cited. You fail to signal a turn, make unsafe lane changes, have a broken windshield, have bald tires, gig gig gig. What do all of these have in common? They pose a risk not only to you, but to other travelers on the road. These laws protect YOU from someone ELSE. This makes sense. If an adult chooses not to wear a seatbelt and gets himself killed, that is the price they pay for their foolishness.


Posted by: j809

Quote:
You speed, you get a ticket. You blow a red light, you get a ticket. You drive without proper licensing or registration, you get cited. You fail to signal a turn, make unsafe lane changes, have a broken windshield, have bald tires, gig gig gig. What do all of these have in common? They pose a risk not only to you, but to other travelers on the road. These laws protect YOU from someone ELSE. This makes sense. If an adult chooses not to wear a seatbelt and gets himself killed, that is the price they pay for their foolishness.
But what about the guy that didn't wear his seatbelt, got ejected from his vehicle and landed on my daisies on my front lawn.


Posted by: Wolfman

Free fertilizer.


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
Originally Posted by j809
But what about the guy that didn't wear his seatbelt, got ejected from his vehicle and landed on my daisies on my front lawn.
Pick him up and throw him back in the road.


Posted by: RedWaterMan

What about actually using the legislators how they are meant to be used? Write your Congressman, or maybe organize people in your area and elect someone who will overturn the laws that the people dislike. Find who voted against your viewpoint, target the system, use it the way it was meant to be used.

Excuse my idealism, but there are plenty of checks and balances that exist in the United States government to help combat laws that displease the people and jeopardize their rights. Everyone can rest assured that our lawmakers will never run away with our rights, it's called democracy for a reason.


Posted by: irish937

I do appreciate your zeal and positive attitude. You are, however, very idealistic. Our job needs a steady flow of positive candidates to keep us from drowning in the cynicism. As stated on this board before........This was repealed by the voters!! Now, because of money, the legislators want to reinstate it. Who cares about what one adult in a vehicle does as long it does not jeopordize the safety of others on the road? You want to write a $25 gig. Have a blast. "Oh, it's not a surchargable offense." Who cares, you're not a tax collector, you're a police officer and write citations to deter other infractions, NOT collect revenue. What a deterrent it is to write that V for the seatbelt!!! It seems we separate ourselves further and further from the populous the more strict enforcement we do. All the dramatics aside...how much is enough??


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedWaterMan
What about actually using the legislators how they are meant to be used? Write your Congressman, or maybe organize people in your area and elect someone who will overturn the laws that the people dislike. Find who voted against your viewpoint, target the system, use it the way it was meant to be used.

Excuse my idealism, but there are plenty of checks and balances that exist in the United States government to help combat laws that displease the people and jeopardize their rights. Everyone can rest assured that our lawmakers will never run away with our rights, it's called democracy for a reason.

This was done when the question was put on the ballot and voted on,and look at the end result.
The asswipes sitting up on the hill do what they want not what the people want.


Posted by: Macop

How bout you all stop sobbing about it, what happens happens and all the whinning in the world won't change it.


Posted by: VSP Troop

I would never stop someone for just not wearing a seat belt. If people don't want to wear them.. great... i'm not the one that has to clean up body debris in the road.


Posted by: chief801

I love BIG BROTHER! Bring on GPS, cameras in public spaces, micro chips embedded under our scalps...sounds like a perfect society! Let me see your papers...I love the sound of that! Of course I'm kidding folks. When I said "We are big brother", I guess I should have been a bit more clear with my point. We play a significant role in furthering big brother's agenda, like it or not. Our job as "agents of big brother" is to enforce the rules that get sent our way, like them or not. Regardless of what statutes are passed - do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because some law was written. Follow that path and you will never go wrong.


Posted by: LA Copper

I'm just curious...
For all the folks that said they wouldn't stop a car because of a seatbelt violation: Would you also allow a motorcycle go by with the rider not wearing a helmet? If so, what do you tell the motorist next to you when they ask why you didn't "stop that guy?"


Posted by: 94c

to all you state reps....if you're so concerned about racial profiling then tell them black guys to buckle up....


Posted by: Portable81

In my five years of full time EMS work, and part time police work, I've yet to see someone who was involved in a crash, and was wearing a seatbelt, die in the accident. That alone makes me buckle up.


Posted by: Macop

to all you state reps....if you're so concerned about racial profiling then tell them black guys to buckle up....

Not sure what that meant but its an asshole remark.

Did not mean to sound like a prick when I made the stop sobbing comment, but the fact is that we are cops and its not up to us to enforce the laws we like and the ones we don't. Just do your job, if you don't like it, well not to sound like a prick but I am willing to go out on a limb and say there are plenty of eager young pups who would love to slide into your job and would be happy as a little piglets in shit to do it. But thats just a guess.


Posted by: Wolfman

Not sure about the profiling remark either. Maybe some 'splaining would be in order. Anyhow...

Quote:
...but the fact is that we are cops and its not up to us to enforce the laws we like and the ones we don't. Just do your job, if you don't like it, well not to sound like a prick but I am willing to go out on a limb and say there are plenty of eager young pups who would love to slide into your job and would be happy as a little piglets in shit to do it. But thats just a guess.
Rep. Swan in Springfield is floating legislation to make it illegal for police officers to use any profanity in front of the public. I shit you not.

Now my question to you is, if this law were to pass, would you enforce it should you hear your partner or other cop use profane language? Would you type out that complaint and testify at the hearings?

It IS up to you to enforce the laws...but you can decide whether to make the stop, write the ticket, give a warning. You are not an automaton. So far, the factor of discretion still weighs in your decision making process - but after seeing how the lawmakers have completely circumvented the voters desire NOT to have a primary seatbelt law, it doesn't seem like much of a stretch to relieve the police of their discretionary powers, either.


Posted by: Macop

Now embarking on a whole new ground and the two don't even compare no matter how much of a twist you put on it. And no we are no automation, however I am saying that you shouldnt refuse to enforce a law simply cause you don't like it. Again I see your analogy to the wrting up another cop but you know as well as I do the two are two entirely different topics and just are not the same.


Posted by: mtc

I know in at least two crashes, I'd have more than kissed the windshield had I not been belted. I always buckle up.
That said, as I tool around town, I see lots and lots of people unbuckled. Primarily, the people I see unbuckled are of 'minority' decent.

So, is enforcing the seatbelt law a double edged sword to profiling? I think it opens up many a liability.
The Brockton Enterprise ran an article a few months ago, about seatbelts, and minorities in the city are predominant in being the ones not buckling up.
'Nuther profiling paperwork fill out a form nightmare.


Posted by: irish937

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop
to all you state reps....if you're so concerned about racial profiling then tell them black guys to buckle up....

Not sure what that meant but its an asshole remark.

Did not mean to sound like a prick when I made the stop sobbing comment, but the fact is that we are cops and its not up to us to enforce the laws we like and the ones we don't. Just do your job, if you don't like it, well not to sound like a prick but I am willing to go out on a limb and say there are plenty of eager young pups who would love to slide into your job and would be happy as a little piglets in shit to do it. But thats just a guess.
It ABSOLUTELY is up to us which laws we choose to enforce. Discretion is your biggest tool, not more laws. I'm glad life for you is in black and white. For the rest of us it usually works in various shades of gray. Last time I checked there are only a few laws that I have no discretion.


Posted by: mikey742

Rep. Swan in Springfield is floating legislation to make it illegal for police officers to use any profanity in front of the public. I shit you not.

Wolfman that is beautiful!


Posted by: Macop

Listen smart ass I didnt say it was black and white, actually I am not gonna say any more. Maybe you will go back and just read my previous posts, obviously you did not read them before. But since you are obviously too lazy to do so here is what I posted

Macop wrote:

"I will do what I always do, USE DISCRETION. You don't write for every speeding violation or every stop sign violation. I'm sure the majority of us use common sence and fairness, I like to think I do. So whats the diference if you stop the car and give a warning, educate the public, throw a little community policing in and send the person away with a positive attitude about cops because you were informative and diplomatic, and if ya find something bigger, drugs, suspended license or whatever then thats fine too. If the person is gonna talk themselves in to a ticket when your main goal was just to stop and advise them, thats thier problem. Cite em based on QK, in-house, attitude just as you would any other stop."

"YOU or I or any other cop is on the road that is not your motivation, your motivation is what you think is right. I doubt any of us are motivation by the financial aspect, I know I'm not. Just do what you think is right and never mind why the state passed it, just make the best of it, try to turn a negative into a positive"


Posted by: Wolfman

Macop, don't think that people don't see where you're coming from, there are just other aspects to this issue aside from buckling up. Take a deep breath, open your mind, and read on:

You need to ask yourself, are you a cop first or a citizen first?

As a cop, never mind why the state passed it , just do your job. That's fine, that's what you get paid for and if that's the way you roll, good for you. We need cops that are willing to enforce laws that they may not personally agree with that exist to protect us from those that would do us harm. But is the primary seatbelt one of these laws? Is an "antiprofanity" law one of these laws?

As a citizen, you should be alarmed that the state passed it, in clear defiance of the wishes of the populace and in clear capitulation to the interests of finance and industry. You should speculate and fear where this is heading, becasue all of us probably have at least 30 to 60 years left to walk this earth, and will you be walking the road you choose for yourself or the road that the politicians and industries decide is best for you?

Look at the Big Picture.


Posted by: Macop

Thats crap, I'm a citizen and I agree with it. Take a deep breath and open my mind, my mind open enough. You look yourself I already understand. Here is a solution, if ya don't like it well find another job, and don't drive, there your problem is solved or you can move to Canada.

The horse is dead and my stick is broken, bye


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop
Thats crap, I'm a citizen and I agree with it. Take a deep breath and open my mind, my mind open enough. You look yourself I already understand. Here is a solution, if ya don't like it well find another job, and don't drive, there your problem is solved or you can move to Canada.

The horse is dead and my stick is broken, bye

Thats crap is right,I'm a citizen and I disagree with it.
That is why we voted it down to begin with.
I don't need to find a new job I have a good one I'm retired.
Like I said for the $20.00 see you in court
Only the piss-asses move to Canada


Posted by: Wolfman

I'm not sure you understand, and if you do you're having a heck of a time conveying it.

How can you say you're a citizen and you agree with it? It's plain and simple, you place the cop thing ahead of your, my and everyone else's rights as US citizens. That worries me. Being a police officer is still just a job, being a priest is a calling. Understand the difference. I understand that you feel that seatbelts are essential for preserving people's heatlh and safety, and I don't argue that issue; in fact I support it fully. The argument that "seatbelts could kill me" is thin at best; the benefits far outweigh the risks and an adult person with any common sense should be able to decide if they are going to wear their seatbelt or not...without some fat cat fleshpresser in Boston mandating it.

What I would like to hear you address is the erosion of the people's right to decide their fate by vote - how you justify the fact that in spite of a public referendum, that went on a ballot and was voted upon and rejected by a majority, the state lawmakers have gone ahead and enacted this legislation anyhow.

Today seatbelts - what's next? Smoking? There are already smoking bans all over the place. Smoking is unhealthy, I don't partake, but what business is it of mine if someone else wants to light up? Food? Look at the lardasses who surround us every day. See where this leads?


Posted by: Jimbeam

Seat belt laws for adults suck! It's not going to hurt anyone if I don't wear my belt. Incidently, I do were my belt but that's by my choice.... er... at least I thought it was???????


Posted by: RPD931

Quote:
It's not going to hurt anyone if I don't wear my belt.
If you fly through the windshield and slam into my car, you might cause me to crash.


Posted by: Wolfman

And if a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass a-hoppin'.


Posted by: CJIS

If seat-belts save lives and cause less injuries, is it safe to say Insurance agencies dish out less, thus keeping rates lower and saving me money?


Posted by: Delta784

Quote:
Originally Posted by npd_323
If seat-belts save lives and cause less injuries, is it safe to say Insurance agencies dish out less, thus keeping rates lower and saving me money?
You actually think insurance companies are ever going to lower their rates, across the board????


Posted by: CJIS

Quote:
Originally Posted by Delta784
You actually think insurance companies are ever going to lower their rates, across the board????
NO!... I realize rates will always increase but hopefully with less money companies have to dish out for claims, it would help rates gradually go up in smaller increments rather than larger ones.


Posted by: Buford T

And flagmen will save the utilities money over detail officers, which they will pass on to consumers. Wishful thinking......


Posted by: 94c

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop
to all you state reps....if you're so concerned about racial profiling then tell them black guys to buckle up....

Not sure what that meant but its an asshole remark.

Did not mean to sound like a prick when I made the stop sobbing comment, but the fact is that we are cops and its not up to us to enforce the laws we like and the ones we don't. Just do your job, if you don't like it, well not to sound like a prick but I am willing to go out on a limb and say there are plenty of eager young pups who would love to slide into your job and would be happy as a little piglets in shit to do it. But thats just a guess.
Here goes. everytime the issue comes up, liberal democrats like Antonio Cabral go against the bill by blaming the police for using the law to racially profile. Well if he is so concerned with racially profiling them maybe he should spend some liberal democratic dollars on teaching minorities to buckle up. SINCE IT IS THE LAW THEN WHY SHOULD MINORITIES HIDE BEHIND RACIAL PROFILING FOR THEIR REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. YOU STUPID KNUCKLEHEAD. AND FIND OUT WHAT REP. CABRAL HAS PROPOSED.

YOU ARE THE ASSHOLE.


Posted by: KindaConfused

In all this ranting on this thread, has anyone actually read the law? There is a section saying :

"A police officer may not search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of a violation of this section."

It will be interesting to see how the courts interpret that.


Posted by: Wolfman

It's superfluous, and a waste of ink.

A police officer cannot seach a car solely for speeding, having a plate light out, or having bald tires either but it isn't necessary to throw that text in the speeding or equipment laws. Actually, I really can't think of ANY civil motor vehicle infraction which allows for a search of the vehicle (absent something which resutls in a tow, in which case an inventory would trigger - which is not a search per se - since you're not looking for anyhting, just at things).

Another example of "feel good" cry-wolf appeasement for the "profiling" crowd.

What a sham.


Posted by: dcs2244

plain view, such as marijuana roach on the floor, gun on the seat, (odor of mari...)etc...I wrote a long response to the issues raised on this thread, but the site went on a "4"...I will post same again when I have time...


Posted by: Macop

Stop whinning and do your job. No one says YOU have to issue a citation, a freindly warning will suffice unless the circumstances change. I have never pulled over a shitbag that was wearing a seatbelt, hence a way to get into the car if the person is unsavory, if not then you made a positive community contact and are doing your job.

Here goes. everytime the issue comes up, liberal democrats like Antonio Cabral go against the bill by blaming the police for using the law to racially profile. Well if he is so concerned with racially profiling them maybe he should spend some liberal democratic dollars on teaching minorities to buckle up. SINCE IT IS THE LAW THEN WHY SHOULD MINORITIES HIDE BEHIND RACIAL PROFILING FOR THEIR REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. YOU STUPID KNUCKLEHEAD. AND FIND OUT WHAT REP. CABRAL HAS PROPOSED.

YOU ARE THE ASSHOLE.

Better than being a closet racist.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macop
Stop whinning and do your job. No one says YOU have to issue a citation, a freindly warning will suffice unless the circumstances change. I have never pulled over a shitbag that was wearing a seatbelt, hence a way to get into the car if the person is unsavory, if not then you made a positive community contact and are doing your job.

Here goes. everytime the issue comes up, liberal democrats like Antonio Cabral go against the bill by blaming the police for using the law to racially profile. Well if he is so concerned with racially profiling them maybe he should spend some liberal democratic dollars on teaching minorities to buckle up. SINCE IT IS THE LAW THEN WHY SHOULD MINORITIES HIDE BEHIND RACIAL PROFILING FOR THEIR REFUSING TO OBEY THE LAW. YOU STUPID KNUCKLEHEAD. AND FIND OUT WHAT REP. CABRAL HAS PROPOSED.

YOU ARE THE ASSHOLE.

Better than being a closet racist.

Last post was 02-01-2006 why are you bringing it back up ??????????


Posted by: PearlOnyx

All political arguments aside, it's another good reason for PC for a stop, especially for those traffic guys. As long as your department does not require you to write for it, use it as a tool to talk to someone, see what they are all about. If you don't find anything good, send them on their way.


Posted by: Macop

Well said.




ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)



vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108