Change In Seatbelt Laws

[Freedomless]

When the seatbelt laws were inacted in the 80's, it was stated that the law would never be used or changed to pull people over for not wearing their seatbelt. Kansas and Missouri are advertising warnings on TV, that if you do not buckle up, you will be ticketed.

If you take the time to read any of the founding fathers information on the Constitution, you will see that no law was ever to be passed to protect us from ourselves. Could it be that they are testing us to see if they can get away with pulling of men and women for not wearing a seatbelt?

This law is definitely unconstitutional, but another way of providing income for the states.

[RickA]

Freedomless. Here in the mid atlantic region(the Virginia's, Maryland and of course, DC, specifically) there are radio advetisements from the national transportation safety board proclaiming their click it or ticket program.
I was in West Virginia this weekend and found the local law enforcement implementing check points just for that.

When the seatbelt laws were inacted in the 80's, it was stated that the law would never be used or changed to pull people over for not wearing their seatbelt. Kansas and Missouri are advertising warnings on TV, that if you do not buckle up, you will be ticketed.

Same thing here in Virginia.

[iamfreeru2]

Just another way to control the masses. This is one reason I do not vote and have not for the last 13 years. We supposedly elect our servants into office. Our servants do not listen to the people and pass statutes that are no law, yet requiring the very people that put them into office to obey. There is something very wrong with this picture. Well they can ticket me all they want and it will not make me put a seat belt on.

[Logan]

I am thoroughly convinced that the Insurance Companies are responsible for the increase in Seatbelt Enforcement. The local Chief of Police in my case admitted that they receive Federal Funding when they meet quota requirements for seatbelt infraction.

This is the Statute that I was detained, arrested and convicted of. Enjoy.

RS 32 §295.1. Safety belt use; tags indicating exemption
A.(1) Each driver of a passenger car, van, or truck having a gross weight of ten thousand pounds or less, commonly referred to as a pickup truck, in this state shall have a safety belt properly fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to those cars, vans, or pickups manufactured prior to January 1, 1981.

(2) A person operating or riding in an autocycle shall wear seatbelts while in forward motion.

B. Except as otherwise provided by law, each front seat occupant of a passenger car, van, or truck having a gross weight of ten thousand pounds or less, commonly referred to as a pickup truck, in this state shall have a safety belt properly fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion, if a belt for his seating space has been provided by the manufacturer.

C. This Section shall not apply to a motor vehicle operated by a rural letter carrier of the United States Postal Service while performing his or her duties as a rural letter carrier, to a farm vehicle being operated within five miles of the place of its principal use, or to a motor vehicle being operated by a newspaper delivery person while he or she is engaged in the distribution of regularly published newspapers.

D.(1) This Section shall not apply to an occupant of a passenger car or operator with a physically or mentally disabling condition whose physical or mental disability would prevent appropriate restraint in the safety belt; however, the condition shall be duly certified by a physician who shall state the nature of the handicap, as well as the reason such restraint is inappropriate.

(2)(a) On the application of any mentally or physically disabled individual whose impairment is permanent and prevents use of a seat belt, the commissioner shall issue a special tag for the benefit of the applicant which indicates such condition. The fee for the tag shall be five dollars. In lieu of issuance of the special tag, the commissioner shall indicate on the face of the applicant's driver's license, as provided in R.S. 32:403.2 and 410, that the applicant is not required to use a seat belt.

(b) Each application shall be accompanied by a physician's statement certifying that the applicant is permanently disabled and that such disability prevents the applicant's use of a seat belt.

(3)(a) On application of any mentally or physically disabled individual whose impairment prevents use of a seat belt, but is not permanent, the commissioner shall issue a special temporary tag for the benefit of the applicant which indicates such condition. The fee for the temporary tag shall be five dollars.

(b) Each application for a temporary tag shall be accompanied by a physician's statement certifying that the applicant is temporarily disabled and certifying a period of time for which the disability will prevent the applicant's use of a seat belt.

(c) Any individual who has been issued a temporary tag under the provisions of this Section and who desires to extend the time period for which the tag is valid shall provide to the office of motor vehicles a physician's statement certifying that the applicant continues to have a disability which prevents the applicant's use of a seat belt and certifying a period of time for which the tag should be renewed. Failure to provide recertification statements shall result in the suspension of such privilege.

(4) No individual to whom a tag has been issued shall do any of the following:

(a) Display or permit the display of the tag on any motor vehicle in which he is not a passenger.

(b) Refuse to return or surrender the tag when required.

(5)(a) If a tag is lost, destroyed, or mutilated, the individual to whom the card was issued may obtain a duplicate by doing all of the following:

(i) Furnish suitable proof of the loss, destruction, or mutilation to the secretary.

(ii) Complete an application as required by this Section for the issuance of an original tag.

(iii) Pay a fee of five dollars for reissuance.

(b) Any individual who loses a tag and, after obtaining a duplicate, finds the original, shall immediately surrender the original tag to the commissioner or to any field office of the office of motor vehicles and shall not display the original tag on any vehicle.

(6) Any individual who is not impaired as provided in this Section and who willfully and falsely represents himself as having the conditions to obtain a special tag authorized by this Section shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both, and on subsequent offenses, shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

(7) Any individual who utilizes a tag authorized by this Section which was not legally issued to him and who is not transporting the individual to whom the tag was issued shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars or shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty days, or both, and on second and subsequent offenses, shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than sixty days, or both.

(8) Any individual to whom a tag is issued under the provisions of this Section and who allows his tag to be used by an individual not entitled to the use of such tag shall have his tag suspended for six months and shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than two hundred fifty dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than thirty days for the first offense, or both. On the second and subsequent offenses, said suspension shall be for one year, and the individual shall be fined not less than two hundred fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, in addition to suspension of said privileges, or shall be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

(9) Any physician who willfully and falsely certifies that an individual is impaired in order to allow that person to obtain the special tag authorized in this Section shall be fined one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned for not more than ninety days, or both.

(10) The commissioner shall promulgate rules and regulations in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act for the implementation of the provisions of this Section. The commissioner shall determine the design, color, and placement of the tag issued under the provisions of this Section, provided that such design, color, and placement is easily discernable to law enforcement officers as designating individuals who are exempted from seat belt usage and provided that the tag includes a photograph of the person entitled to the tag.

E. In any action to recover damages arising out of the ownership, common maintenance, or operation of a motor vehicle, failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this Section shall not be considered evidence of comparative negligence. Failure to wear a safety belt in violation of this Section shall not be admitted to mitigate damages.

F. Probable cause for violation of this Section shall be based solely upon a law enforcement officer's clear and unobstructed view of a person not restrained as required by this Section. A law enforcement officer may not search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of a violation of this Section.

G.(1) Any person who violates this Section subsequent to August 31, 1995, and prior to November 1, 1995, shall be given a warning ticket only. Subsequent to October 31, 1995, any person who violates this Section shall be subject to the following penalties:

(a) Upon conviction of a first offense, the fine shall be twenty-five dollars which shall include all costs of court.

(b) Upon conviction of a second offense, the fine shall be fifty dollars which shall include all costs of court.

(c) Upon conviction of a third offense and any subsequent offense, the fine shall be fifty dollars plus all costs of court. (and costs of court can be expensive!)

(2) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no other cost or fee shall be assessed against any person for a violation of this Section.

H. The Department of Public Safety and Corrections shall initiate an educational program designed to encourage compliance with the safety belt usage requirements of this Section.

I. Repealed by Acts 1997, No. 383, §1 and Acts 1997, No. 511, §1.

Acts 1985, No. 377, §1, eff. July 1, 1986; Acts 1986, No. 53, §1; Acts 1988, No. 759, §1, eff. Aug. 1, 1988; Acts 1992, No. 1084, §1; Acts 1995, No. 643, §1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995; Acts 1997, No. 383, §1; Acts 1997, No. 511, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1085, §1; Acts 1997, No. 1261, §1; Acts 1999, No. 926, §1; Acts 1999, No. 1344, §1; Acts 2001, No. 603, §1.

BTW, this statute has a clearly stated penalty clause, but "speeding" statutes do not. Hmm, any thoughts?

Logan

[chuckhs12]

DC would most definitely apply since that is well within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. All this other stuff would most likely be based off of jurisdiction and are you within thier jurisdiction?

I think the first thing to do with any of these so called laws that people complain about falls into what is your status and the jurisdiction that you are under!

There is lots of information out there on how to remove yourself from the Federal Government Municipal Jurisdiction. The States fall under thier jurisdiction if it is the corporate part that is commonly known as "State of ??????(Slaves)"

Personally I wear a seat belt because I choose to and not because of any law. It has also set a good example for my kids. For 90+% of the accidents that you could get into, it will be helpful to them. I don't encourage them to wear seatbelts because of some so called law, but because I think it is a good idea.

[Logan]

Personally I wear a seat belt because I choose to and not because of any law. It has also set a good example for my kids. For 90+% of the accidents that you could get into, it will be helpful to them. I don't encourage them to wear seatbelts because of some so called law, but because I think it is a good idea.

Good post Chuck, I applaud your ability to govern yourself and make that choice. You are right, of course, concerning jurisdiction and with a little confidence and some procedural study, these statutory restrictions can be overcome but the New World Order Multijurisdictional Police Task Force will attempt to make your business dealings with them as uncomfortable as possible, regardless of any of your constitutional or jurisdiction knowledge.

When I was arrested, I was left in a single holding cell for 3 1/2 hours alone, while all the cops went to lunch. The light was turned out and the thermostat must have been set at 60 degrees. I might have been comfortable if the guys had given me a blanket, allowed me to use the bathroom before they left, let me keep my boots on, or at least put me in a cell without a solid concrete ledge to sit on. I am glad that I did not catch a cold!

But with more statutory regs written every year, we will all soon be criminals of something, right?

Our local Advocate Newspaper reported that local law enforcement generated $1,050,000 last year in Traffic Citation collections and has projected that same revenue for this year.

I am going to get a bumper sticker that says, "THE ONLY TERRORISTS I KNOW WEAR GUNS AND BADGES, Copwatch.com", what do ya think, is this too obvious, like painting a bullseye on my truck?

[iamfreeru2]

Originally Posted by chuckhs12

DC would most definitely apply since that is well within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. All this other stuff would most likely be based off of jurisdiction and are you within thier jurisdiction?

I think the first thing to do with any of these so called laws that people complain about falls into what is your status and the jurisdiction that you are under!

There is lots of information out there on how to remove yourself from the Federal Government Municipal Jurisdiction. The States fall under thier jurisdiction if it is the corporate part that is commonly known as "State of ??????(Slaves)"

Personally I wear a seat belt because I choose to and not because of any law. It has also set a good example for my kids. For 90+% of the accidents that you could get into, it will be helpful to them. I don't encourage them to wear seatbelts because of some so called law, but because I think it is a good idea.

Since I have no children that ride with me in my car it matters not whether they are belted or not. My wife and I are the ones in the car and she chooses to wear hers and I do not. I have never seen any statistics that wearing seatbelts save lives. In fact I have heard just the opposite. The laws that are on the books are there for one purpose only and that is control. In fact I was involved in an accident that if I were wearing a seatbelt I probably would have been killed. This is the main reason I do not wear one.

Our servant goverment does not have authority to pass so-called laws that take away our freedoms. It is due to people's ignorance and the reliance on someone else to tell them what the laws are that our country is in dyer straights. We have corrupt people making our laws, because people have been too brainwashed in believeing that the liars that are in office are there to protect and serve us. I am so glad this world is not my home.

[Freedomless]

After being in an accident, (not automobile related) I injured my back, ribs and legs. I have internal damage and pain in my back and ribcage area. I can not wear a seatbelt. With the present seatbelt law, people like me, who can not wear a seatbelt, (ever thought of people who have problems with small confined spaces) we lose our right to choose. Now do I file sue the corporation every time I am pulled over for not wearing my seatbelt.

Twenty years ago, after talking to several attorneys about the law, I found that none of them were in favor of the law. Through research for my college paper, I also found that this law was lobbied for by the automobile lobbiest as a way to increase (large increase) the price of the automobile.

It is all a fiat money game.

[juststartingout]

Originally Posted by iamfreeru2

[b] I have never seen any statistics that wearing seatbelts save lives. In fact I have heard just the opposite. b]

I have an aquaintance whose hubby is a firefighter. and my hubby has a friend who is a cop (so is his wife). All three of them say they see more injuries from wearing a seatbelt than not wearing one. Go figure.

What I can't stand are the car seat laws. They're trying to pass the 9 years or 80lb law here. I'm none too happy about that. And do you know who's pushing the bill? AAA of MN and Iowa. There was another lobbyist group but I can't remember who it was.

[chuckhs12]

I appreciate the comments that have been posted and do agree that there is times people will get hurt with seatbelts. In a lot of cases, it is due to the position they were in when the accident happens. The seatbelt law states that you must wear them, but they do not give the proper way.

again, I do not push the wearing of the seatbelt off on any one, unless they choose to. The main reason I encourage my kids to wear them, is that I had my youngest almost go through the windshield because he decided to not wear a seatbelt and I had to stop quickly. Luckily I was able to catch him before he hit the windshield.

If you get into any kind of an accident, any type of restraint device would possibly injure you. especially neck injuries in the case of a seatbelt.

whethter you choose to wear one or not is up to you. I am just giving my take on it.

Peace be with you.