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" bill passes

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

Posted by: Gil

Senate passes bill increasing enforcement of seat belt use

BOSTON -- Better buckle up.


That was the message from the Massachusetts Senate as it approved a bill Thursday giving police the ability to pull over drivers and cite them solely for not using seat belts.

Current state law allows police to cite drivers for not buckling up only if they pull them over for some other reason first.

Supporters of the so-called "primary seat belt" bill say it will save dozens of lives and spare hundreds from dire injuries. Opponents argue it will increase the power of the state and erode the civil rights of minority drivers.

Susan Monack of Milton lost her 19-year-old son Gregory when he fell asleep at the wheel of his car and crashed into a tree three years ago after working all day and visiting friends. He was not wearing a seat belt and had just finished his freshman year at Boston College.

"This is wonderful today. This is what we have worked for," said Monack, clutching a photo of her son outside the Senate chambers. "I wish they had it five or 10 years ago, but at least they'll have it now."

The 24-15 vote in the Senate comes after House lawmakers approved the bill in January by a 76-74 vote, the narrowest of margins possible. It followed two deadlocked House votes in 2001 and 2003.

Gov. Mitt Romney has said he supports it.

Sen. Mark Montigny, D-New Bedford, said the bill is about clarifying the existing seat belt law and sparing families the agony of hearing that their child or loved one had been killed or grievously injured because they weren't wearing a seat belt.

"This is about saving lives," Montigny said. "Let's stop the wink, wink, smile, smile and give a very direct instruction to the police."

Others feared an expansion of police powers.

Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, said he supports the use of seat belts but argued the bill could open the door to racial profiling by police.

"The good intention of saving lives impacts some of us more than others," Barrios said. "Some of us know from our life experience that this law will not always make our lives safer."

Sen. Andrea Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, said the bill would lead to more intrusive traffic stops by police.

"We have an obligation under the constitution to protect our citizens from unreasonable interference from the government," he 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. Twenty-two other states have "primary" seat belt laws.

In 2000, 50 percent of Massachusetts drivers and passengers wore seat belts, compared to 64.8 percent last year, according to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistics. Nationally, seat belt use overall was a record 82 percent in 2005.

Critics of the bill proposed an amendment that would have kept the secondary enforcement law but increased fines for not wearing seat belts from $25 to $200 and would have held drivers responsible by fining them for everyone in the car who was not buckled up.

The amendment, which was defeated, also proposed 45-day drivers license suspensions for teens not using seat belts.

Sen. Dianne Wilkerson, D-Boston, said the higher fines and suspensions would be more of an incentive for using safety restraints than a primary seat belt law.

"What will reduce the risk is parents knowing that their children are going to get their licenses suspended for 45 days if found without seat belts," she said.

The bill now heads back to the House and Senate for a final procedural vote before landing on Romney's desk.


Posted by: USMCMP5811

I've said it before and will say it again, This is BS. Seatbelts are a 50/50 thing. Besides, if your number is up, your number is up, no seatbelt or any other reach around make me feel warm and fuzzy law is going to change that. Just my


Posted by: Curious EMT

Maybe I am nieve and buy the whole "seat belts save lives" thing...

... but this bill wont save a single life:

No one is going to buckle up tomorrow that didnt today.


Posted by: Wolfman

Quote:
Critics of the bill proposed an amendment that would have kept the secondary enforcement law but increased fines for not wearing seat belts from $25 to $200 and would have held drivers responsible by fining them for everyone in the car who was not buckled up.

The amendment, which was defeated, also proposed 45-day drivers license suspensions for teens not using seat belts.
Here we go again, the police being the bagmen for insurance companies.
We would have been better off with the $200 secondary fine.


Posted by: FIVE-OH

How many times have we seen this type of situation in relation to everything from speeding to drunk driving...regardless as to whether or not there is a penalty people are still going to drive even if they know that not wearing a seat belt is now just cause for a stop...In addition good call Wolfman


Posted by: SinePari

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gil
Opponents argue it will increase the power of the state and erode the civil rights of minority drivers.

Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, said he supports the use of seat belts but argued the bill could open the door to racial profiling by police.
We've ALREADY been accused of racial profiling. And do seat belts only work for white people?


Posted by: csauce777

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil
Opponents argue it will increase the power of the state and erode the civil rights of minority drivers.

Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, said he supports the use of seat belts but argued the bill could open the door to racial profiling by police.


We've ALREADY been accused of racial profiling. And do seat belts only work for white people?
Of course this is a sneaky ploy by police to increase the number of ways that we can harrass minority drivers. If profiling is as rampant as he would have you believe, guys who do profile dont need a new seatbelt law to do it. Someone tell Barrios to shut up... Is it illegal to profile him for being ignorant??


Posted by: BrianC

Hey.......When this whole seatbelt law was introduced years ago....wasn't the purpose of it to keep insurance and medical costs down? Has anyone noticed their medical or insurance costs down?


Posted by: sempergumby

A seatbelt saved my life. The Marines made us wear the dam things and if you where on post withoutit some ASS like USMCMP5811 would stop us and give me a ticket. After several tickets and my SGT making me dig a tank pit I wore my seatbelt all the time. I'm glad I did or I would be a red smear in NC now. I think this bill will help to make people put on the seatbelt. I also think it opens doors to a lot of bull shit for us in Law Enforcement.
my 2 cents


Posted by: kwflatbed

This is an old can of


Posted by: BrianC

Quote:
Originally Posted by sempergumby
I also think it opens doors to a lot of bull shit for us in Law Enforcement.
my 2 cents
I agree. Senario: You observe a motorist with their seatbelt not on. You can only really tell by the orientation of the shoulder strap. You cannot see thru a door.

You light him up, he pulls over.
As you're preparing yourself for the stop, calling in his tag, he puts his seatbelt on. Easily done, with very little movement.

You approach the car, his belt is on, you site him for not wearing.
He appeals it.

The KEY question his lawyer is going to ask you is......"Was he wearing his seatbelt when you approached the side window of his vehicle, where you could definately see if the seatbelt latch was fastened or not??? Did you physically see him fasten the seatbelt latch AFTER the stop?

Then the're going to get into things like viewing angles, light conditions, etc.
Your testimony will be purely speculation.

And why oh why, would a P.O. want to stop someone that's driveing nice, but not wearing their seatbelt. Especially if your out writing a ticket for it, and a few people go blazing by you over the speed limit while your on the stop?

This is just another law, that will eat up wasted time in the courts, and on the streets.

This is about as rediculous as the smoking laws. How many of you have seen people smoking within 25 feet of an entrance to a building, and cited them for it?

It's going to come to a point eventually, that when you jump in your cruiser, and pull out of the station lot, you'll be able to pull over the first car you see, because he WILL be breaking SOME law.
Imagine that. You can pull your whole shift without going more than 1/2 mile out of the station lot !! But hey, look at the money that will saved when the ole Crown Vic get that pesky "loss of overdrive" problem. Won't need it !! LMAO


Posted by: LA Copper

You guys are looking at this all wrong. Try looking at it from a police officer's stand point. This is great PC to pull over your average dirtbag, the possible drug runner, the gang member, etc.. This is another tool in your arsenal to do good police work.

We've had the primary seatbelt out this way since about 1992 or so. Before that, none of the gangsters would wear the belt so we'd pull them over. Since the law went into effect, everyone now wears seatbelts, including the gangsters. For you guys back there, this would be great since not too many people wear them.

As far as testifying in court, it would be just like any other violation. It's your word against theirs on the seatbelt, just like it is on whether they ran a stop sign or if they were speeding... I've cited lots of folks for this violation and have only been to court once.

Not to mention, the seatbelt does help prevent serious injuries. Some of us can speak from first hand experience about that!


Posted by: dcs2244

Too right, LA. Wear the seatbelt or be dead. I'm really not for or against the "primary seatbelt' law. I'm for the crash-and-not-wearing-Mr. Seatbelt-insurance-company-not-liable-for-your-eff-up law. Pay out of your pocket...for medical expenses, repair your car, damage to others, surrender your home to pay, etc. Bet everyone would be wearing Mr. Seatbelt in that scenario. (Oh, and for damage to others: their insurance company would be required to pay out to them...but could take everything you own in recompense, including selling you and your family into indentured service to pay the bill ).

Refuse to wear your seatbelt now, bitch!


Posted by: 94c

I thought this bill got shot down?


Posted by: Mongo

I never wear those foolish things they chaffe my boobies.


Posted by: andy0921

I always wear the belt, Why wouldnt you? My brother is 22 and his girlfriend who he was very close too was lost in a tragic car accident, she died and so did another person in the car. but the person who was wearing the belt came out with serious injuries but is walking around today and attending college. Out here we stop people all the time for not wearing the belt, like LA said its great PC to stop a "shady" looking person. Gangsters out here who dont where the belt think there "bad ass" or tough so I stop them see if I can come up any drugs and if not a written warning is issued.


Posted by: SOT

It's simple, there are a lot of dumb fcukers driving in MA. I see them every day.
I wish they would do something about the illegals driving around with no insurance and with international drivers licenses. Hell one day in Pittsfield the state would do well towards funding healthcare with all the fines for illegals driving around.


Posted by: jasonbr

The state should ticket, fine, and surcharge people for being obese too, they eat up plenty of healthcare overhead! (LOL, that pun wasn't intended.... i noticed it after!) Smoking too! So what the hell?! I bet more people die from smoking cigarettes than not wearing their seatbelt!

On a side note: I know before when the seat belt law was secondary that it was the only moving violation that you wouldn't get a surcharge for. Is it a surchargabe offense now that it is a primary? I bet it is....


Posted by: USMCMP5811

Quote:
Originally Posted by sempergumby
A seatbelt saved my life. The Marines made us wear the dam things and if you where on post withoutit some ASS like USMCMP5811 would stop us and give me a ticket. After several tickets and my SGT making me dig a tank pit I wore my seatbelt all the time. I'm glad I did or I would be a red smear in NC now. I think this bill will help to make people put on the seatbelt. I also think it opens doors to a lot of bull shit for us in Law Enforcement.
my 2 cents

Gunny, Now did I ever cite you for this?? In fact I've only cited one person for that to go along with about another dozen violations and you know the story behind it. Now for my earlier argument, look into Skip's case Wrentham Road a few years back.....


Now go back to 7th Crime you ASS....


Posted by: kwflatbed

Not to rehash the seatbelt debate from another thread but look in my photos at the truck pictures, especialy the one showing the inside of the cab and the bent steering wheel, if I had the belt on I would have been DOA.


Posted by: oldman

When "we" voted in the Dukakis term (a referundum) to get rid of the seat belt law, the insurance companies were quick to come back with a request for a rate increase with the "expected" increase in serious injuries.

When the law was passed, the insurance companies "studied" how much the savings would be for everyone wearing seatbelts. The savings never came!

In the middle was, as Jerry Williams used to call it, creeping seatbelt-itis. First is was the infants; then it was the children; then it was our future (teenagers) now it is everyone AGAIN!

I will not be surpirsed to see a new "surcharge" on our insurance bills for being cited for not wearing a seat belt. After all, right now you can obey the law, obey registry textbooks and stilll get a surcharge for actions which are not illegal but surchargeable.

Taken one more step (not an imposible thought these days in Insuranceville) they will not pay any claim for someone who was "proven" not to be wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Look at your accident report forms folks... was the driver wearing a seat belt????

JimD


Posted by: NFAfan

This whole seatbelt thing went from a friendly suggestion to an overt threat now to a prosecutable offense in a matter of a few years.
Its all about money, nothing more, nothing less. Insurance companies don't like paying out claims and the nanny state loves having yet another offense on the books which they can use to rob people of their money.

Want to cut down accidents? Mandate driver training!!!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by oldman
When "we" voted in the Dukakis term (a referundum) to get rid of the seat belt law, the insurance companies were quick to come back with a request for a rate increase with the "expected" increase in serious injuries.

When the law was passed, the insurance companies "studied" how much the savings would be for everyone wearing seatbelts. The savings never came!

In the middle was, as Jerry Williams used to call it, creeping seatbelt-itis. First is was the infants; then it was the children; then it was our future (teenagers) now it is everyone AGAIN!

I will not be surpirsed to see a new "surcharge" on our insurance bills for being cited for not wearing a seat belt. After all, right now you can obey the law, obey registry textbooks and stilll get a surcharge for actions which are not illegal but surchargeable.

Taken one more step (not an imposible thought these days in Insuranceville) they will not pay any claim for someone who was "proven" not to be wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Look at your accident report forms folks... was the driver wearing a seat belt????

JimD



Posted by: frapmpd24

Quote:
Originally Posted by NFAfan
Want to cut down accidents? Mandate driver training!!!!
One step further, Mandate common sense!!! People get behind the wheel and loose the little (if any) they had.

Quote:
Sen. Jarrett Barrios, D-Cambridge, said he supports the use of seat belts but argued the bill could open the door to racial profiling by police.

"The good intention of saving lives impacts some of us more than others," Barrios said. "Some of us know from our life experience that this law will not always make our lives safer."
Asking the Senator from Cambridge about his opinion on more control by the government is like asking a Blood or Crip if he supports gun control! Come on, did they think they would get an answer that supports the seat belt law? You might think to those elitist liberals in Cambridge believe that a law mandating buckling up is the beginning of the unraveling of the bill of rights. Please...

Quote:
Sen. Andrea Nuciforo Jr., D-Pittsfield, said the bill would lead to more intrusive traffic stops by police.

"We have an obligation under the constitution to protect our citizens from unreasonable interference from the government," he said.
I am going out in a limb here, but look at the towns he represents. I am betting not many of them have traffic divisions unreasonably interfering with the few thousand people in town.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/afn0.htm


Posted by: BSRanch

When we got the primary Seat Belt law in Ca. it reduced the amount of deaths in Car accidents, Now I am not going to say how many people were reduced to not being able to walk or the loss of a limb, but they were alive to go on with their lives, when they otherwise would have died. Also the Seat Belt Law got us into some cars that we otherwise would not have, that was not racial profiling it was seatbelt profiling, we were profiling those that were not wearing safety belts!! Look at it as a good thing. Ca. also didn't make it mandatory for emergancy Vehicles, buses, and the like to have them so nothing changed there. it was a department order that made us have to start wearing the safty belt.


Posted by: ferus fidelitas

the real pain in the asses are the incessant loud mouths who chat on cell phones while driving. California just passed a bill that allows police to stop these ignorant and inconsiderate big mouths and give them $20 citations if they see them blathering into cell phones without a hands free ear piece while driving. Makes sense to me. These chatter boxes ara big source of road rage - they miss the green light when it changes, go too slow, weave in traffic, etc.. because they are too shallow to simply pull over and talk on the phone or to buy a hands free device.. We need that law in this state.
These cell phone loud mouths are a pain in the ass.


Posted by: djgj200

Quote:
Originally Posted by ferus fidelitas
blathering into cell phones without a hands free ear piece while driving.
they're illegal to use while driving in MA.


Posted by: kwflatbed

Quote:
Originally Posted by djgj200
they're illegal to use while driving in MA.

Daddy's little boy knows all of the laws cause Daddy says so.




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