Primary seat belt law goes into effect today
Act 308 of 2009, which changes the state's seat belt law from a secondary to a primary offense, goes into effect today. The change means that law enforcement officers can stop and ticket you specifically for not wearing a belt ($25 fine). The bill passed the Senate 29-6 and the House 60-31 after a debate on whether the change intrudes on personal liberties or otherwise invites racial profiling. The new law makes the state eligible to receive $9.5 million in federal funds. In order the remain eligible, the law has to go into effect by today.
Why it's not decidedly not smart to use a fake seat belt
After an Australian man was fined over 30 times for not wearing a seat belt, he rigged up his car to make it look like he was wearing a seat belt to passing police officers, instead of, you know, just actually wearing the thing. Pretty ingenious, I suppose, until he was involved in a head-on collision.
Arkansas becomes the 29th state to have a primary seat belt law. New Hampshire (live free or die) is the only state without a primary or secondary seat belt law, although it does have a primary seat belt law for minors. A few statistics:
• Of the 525 people who died on Arkansas roads in 2007, 65% were not buckled up.
• 61 people died in Ark in 2007 after being ejected during a rollover and weren't buckled up.
• According to studies, this new law will save $104 million in economic costs annually.
Why it's not decidedly not smart to use a fake seat belt
After an Australian man was fined over 30 times for not wearing a seat belt, he rigged up his car to make it look like he was wearing a seat belt to passing police officers, instead of, you know, just actually wearing the thing. Pretty ingenious, I suppose, until he was involved in a head-on collision.Arkansas becomes the 29th state to have a primary seat belt law. New Hampshire (live free or die) is the only state without a primary or secondary seat belt law, although it does have a primary seat belt law for minors. A few statistics:
• Of the 525 people who died on Arkansas roads in 2007, 65% were not buckled up.
• 61 people died in Ark in 2007 after being ejected during a rollover and weren't buckled up.
• According to studies, this new law will save $104 million in economic costs annually.
posted by Steve Harrelson @ 6/30/2009 07:13:00 AM | Permalink |
11 Comments:
"Mr Segedin's car had an expired warrant, was full of rust, and an autopsy blood test showed he had taken methamphetamine and cannabis."
Sounds like the seatbelt was only part of the equation here. This dude was a ticking time bomb.
The legislative debate on the original seat belt law passed by the Arkansas General Assembly promised that not wearing a seat belt would never, ever become a primary traffic stop excuse. Nice to know that the sworn word of Arkansas legislators only is good for 18 years.
"• Of the 525 people who died on Arkansas roads in 2007, 65% were not buckled up.
• 61 people died in Ark in 2007 after being ejected during a rollover and weren't buckled up."
How many that "weren't buckled up" were on motorcycles? Statistics can be made to say anything.
I have no problem with this law for minors. The government must do what it can to ensure the safety of those who are not mature enough to think for themselves. What we do not need is a nanny state for mature adults, nor do we need to remove an officer's requirement to articulate probable cause for a stop. With the new law, all the officer must say is that they were unable to SEE a person wearing a seat belt.
This is shameful.
Mr. Lowry couldn't be more correct! Thanks for supporting the nanny state.
"The legislative debate on the original seat belt law passed by the Arkansas General Assembly promised that not wearing a seat belt would never, ever become a primary traffic stop excuse. Nice to know that the sworn word of Arkansas legislators only is good for 18 years."
Why change the law now?
"The new law makes the state eligible to receive $9.5 million in federal funds. In order the remain eligible, the law has to go into effect by today."
"The legislative debate on the original seat belt law passed by the Arkansas General Assembly promised that not wearing a seat belt would never, ever become a primary traffic stop excuse. Nice to know that the sworn word of Arkansas legislators only is good for 18 years."
Why change the law now?
"The new law makes the state eligible to receive $9.5 million in federal funds. In order the remain eligible, the law has to go into effect by today."
The legislative debate 18 years ago was a partial fix for a problem. Since that time, evidence has become overwhelming that wearing seatbelts saves lives and reduces injury.
The action of the last session which raised the seatbelt law to a primary offense was just common sense, even without considering the federal funding at risk without this change. We should applaud the legislature for having the fortitude to make this change in the face of the shallow argument that forced wearing of a seatbelt is an infringement of personal liberties.
Our state, like every other state, is burdened by spiraling health care costs. Unless we all want to start paying 20% or more of our income towards feeding that monster, we must make aggressive efforts toward preventing some of these very expensive catastrophic injuries and diseases.
Mandating the wearing of seatbelts is one reasonable option. Mandating the end of smoking in the workplace and in restaurants was another reasonable option. One was passed during a Democratic administration, and one during a Republican administration.
When both parties can agree on mandating prevention for the public good, that is a win-win arrangement.
Pass a primary eating fatty food in the car law.
Ban alcohol. (never mind we tried that)
Mandate sun screen usage when outside of the home.
Ban fireworks.
Ban all kitchen knives.
Your argument is flawed Mr. Anonymous.
When then if all those arguments fail, Mr. Lowry, I'll use one that I'm sure you live by every day: Choose Life.
Mr. Anonymous,
You have made an excellent attempt to cloud the issue by inserting abortion into this. I will choose to fall into your trap in this instance.
Regardless of age, the government should provide what protection it can against murder. Murder is an instance of one individual acting to harm another.
What we have been discussing is adults choosing to possibly harm themselves. It is not the government's purview to protect adults from themselves.
Since the water is already muddy, let me ask you a question. Should the government outlaw sodomy?
I say no.
Joshua
Thank you for making the effort and spreading this information with all of us. It was indeed very useful and informative while being straight forward and to the point.
Are you ready to increase your sales? Now Promote products and service upgrades to your existing customers in an effective manner with snooozy.com
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home