Day two of our "click it- or ticket" campaign, i normally don't write tickets during it.

But, if you are dumb enough to not pay attention to the big flashing signs that say CLICK IT OR TICKET and you get cited, maybe you should guess that they will likely be watching for seatbelts on that stretch of road the next day as well. If he hadn't told me he got cited yesterday for the same thing, he would have just gotten a warning today too

Protecting us unwashed masses from ourselves. And we actually pay taxes for such nonsense. I wonder how much training is required to generate revenue from people who don't wear, or forget to wear a seatbelt.

Well at least it keeps all the rest of us safe from those dangerous criminals who won't wear a seatbelt. (Though I've never figured out exactly how that works.)

How mugh do you think medical expenses from injuries do to not wearing a seatbelt cost Taxpayers as well as affect your insurance premiums?


P.S, you're welcome. And yes. It was overtime for me

Come on snubbie. Think how thrilling it must be to hold such power in the palm of your hand?

To a white guy?

To a working stiff?

Was he Dimocrap?

Meaner.

Aren't seat belts unconstitutional?

Way to gitem.....

Actually out of 17 stops in 6 hours he was the only one who I cited, you pretty much have to talk your way into a ticket with me.

Think of all the medical expenses that are caused from WEARING seat belts.

As much as I agree seat belts save lives I view wearing one as a First Ammendment type of issue. If I don't want to why should gooberment have the right to make me. Fuggem

Mo Knee

So you decide on whether to give a ticket not on the circumstances or the seriousness of the offense, but on how the "perp" talks to you.

This rationalization is the most slippery slope of all and its logical conclusion is socialism.

Not intended to pick on you gitem, but there it is.

I've been using seat belts since I was 16. I found it a bigger PITA while taxing in planes (as a flight engineer) than any time in a car/truck.

Thirty-one miles on a two lane blacktop today...three State Troopers, a Deputy, two city cops. Only saw one driver who had been pulled over.

He did a great job of that, didn't he? Poor guy was suffering from Diarrhea of the Mouth [DSM V]

Taxpayer's expense?
Most likely less than falls from ladders. Certainly less than drunk drivers, reckless drivers. Likely less than sports injuries or injuries mowing or gardening in your lawn. Maybe less than food poisoning from restaurants and sunburns. In fact of all the "injuries" resulting in taxpayers picking up the tab, I'd guess seatbelt non-compliance to be way down the list.
I started driving in 1976 and have always worn a seatbelt and believe everyone should...if they choose to.
I believe seatbelt laws to be more .gov intrusion into our lives and little more than a means to generate revenue with no due process of law.
I cannot imagine serious law enforcement officers would feel they are doing important work by writing seatbelt tickets.

Texas plates, huh?

laffin'

I figure it's a drop in the bucket compared to the toll of tobacco use in the United States. To insinuate that seatbelt laws serve any purpose other than to generate revenue for the municipalities that issue the citations for not wearing a seatbelt is laffable'.

No sch!t...!

Nope, no one from Texas knows where US371 is nor where it goes.

In agreement here.

Depends. I have my own criteria for different offenses. Take speeding unless you're on a residential street, i won't stop you for less than ten over, and won't write you for less than 15 over. While i have seen the Stats, and studies. I don't agree with forced seatbelt use. And being that we are a secondary offense state( meaning we can't stop based on the no seatbelt), i generally don't worry about seatbelts often. But this guy was almost bragging that he got a ticket yesterday for no seatbelt on the same road.

It's not important work to me it's 6 hours of overtime for the next 3 days

Thank you for the response.

It is all about public safety and giving officers more opportunities to demonstrate dominance over civilians.

That is what our lying azz lawmakers in Arkansas promised us when they were trying to sell the idea of a seat belt law. Less than a year before it was changed to a primary offense. All about income. miles

Ours has been a secondary offense for as long as I can remember.

Hell, aside from Dui arrests, and Narcotics arrests incidental to stops. This was the first traffic ticket i've written in 8 months.

Besides the obvious advantage a person has when wearing a seatbelt from a personal safety standpoint, keeping 150-250 pound humans from becoming projectiles in a sudden change of speed or direction seems to be without many downsides. Perhaps the law should only be enforced when there is more than one soul aboard?

All I ever here is "he would have been dead if he hadn't been wearing a seatbelt" Last I checked dead guys don't cost much in medical expenses.

But, I must thank you so very much for protecting morons who are to stupid to protect themselves from themselves. I mean what would we do without all those imbeciles ? ... Prosper? yeah right...

Yep, too much money sitting there to let it fly through the windshield. No difference between a cattleman keeping his cattle fenced and the police out checking to make sure the "fence" doesn't have any breaks in it.

First they write seatbelt laws and the next thing you know they'll be telling business owners that they can't allow smoking on their property.

Oh wait, never mind.

Nothing but government control. We used to be a land of the free.

For the record, I can't stand cigarette smoke, but I think the market should dictate what businesses thrive and what ones fail.

I remember the time I got cited for not wearing a seatbelt, when I was actually wearing a seatbelt, couldn't figure out what the hell I was being stopped for, and when he approached me and said "I stopped you for not wearing your seatbelt". Me, "your kidding right?"
Of course I had my belt on while he was talking to me and the only wiggling around I did was to get my registration and proof of insurance out of the center console.
I'm absolutely sure he assumed I snuck the belt on while I was pulling over, of course the judge didn't believe me either, not sure what possessed me to think he would.

I wish US police would do drifting like that. Most travel at a high enough speed to do it and it would be so cool to see them out sliding around in traffic like that.

Were I still a cop, I'd never write another traffic ticket. Long ago, fines ceased being a deterrent to bad driving and became a sneaky, back door revenue generating scheme (euphemism for tax). The base fine for a seatbelt cite used to be 25 bucks. And that's what it should be. Now a hapless motorist pays the base fine and at least another 100 bucks for assessments including court security. I've recently heard that in CA, a red light cite is over 400 bucks. That's legal extortion. The reality is cited motorists are forced to underwrite politicians' projects that they use to get reelected.

That BS about increased insurance premiums and medical costs is BS. It's Kool-Aid stuff. Neither have gone down. They've gone up along with revenue generating schemes.

I'd get behind a ballot initiative that would cap ALL first traffic infractions at 50 bucks, period. No BS penalty assessments. And all first time traffic misdemeanors at 500 bucks, period. Since Americans are allegedly innocent until proven guilty, court trials would be set at a reasonable date and time convenient for the alleged violator, and the motorist can plead not guilty over the 'net using the cite number. That way he doesn't have to miss two days' work to fight a cite.

Finally, and as other posters have indicated, this is not a nanny state. We don't need government to protect us from ourselves.

gitem,

My criteria for a traffic stop was dirt bag status. I used infractions as a means to stop bad guys and, hopefully, take them to jail for doing bad things. If I made a mistake and the driver was not a criminal, I would tell them of the traffic violation and thank them for their cooperation. A driver would have had to have done something that could have caused an accident and hurt others before I'd cite 'em. But then again, my big boss emphasized keeping his jurisdiction safe from criminals. He didn't much care about traffic violators. He hated dopers and wanted them in jail. I didn't care for thieves (all heroin addicts are thieves), robbers and criminals who prey upon innocent people, and I wanted them in jail. I couldn't care less about seal belts, rolling through stop signs, etc.

Traffic cites do nothing more that piss off good people. Drivers who knew they really effed up by almost causing an accident and hurting others rarely, if ever, complained.

Since nothing anyone does is in a vacuum, that logic can be used to outlaw absolutely anything. If you accept that rationalization as valid (I don't) then chocolate cake and ice cream should certainly be illegal because obesity costs much more in medical expenses than not wearing seatbelts ever will. The argument that "it might cost taxpayers money or raise insurance premiums" can be used to justify government control of every part of your life if you stretch it far enough. That's why it's a BS argument.

Crow hunter,

Government already controls every part of our lives. We NEED to greatly reduce the scope of government.

look closely, the controls are already in every facet of our lives.

I fought the helmet law, I fought the seat belt law, but like a good little drone I complied when they were passed. I am here today because I wore my seat belt. no doubt about it. but I still hate the concept of being forced to do it.

You're right where you belong. Stay there because it's illegal to pull someone over for a seat belt violation here in ID.

Oops,,, that was for Gitem, not eyeball.

I wont wear a seatbelt. Write me all the tickets you want.

I tied a girl up once.....
She didn't like mandatory seat belt laws either.
We split up.




I untied her, first.

Hey 7mmMato,

Sell me your rifle. That was one well made rifle.

OK, back on track...

wageslave,

I should have thought of that. Instead, she tied me up and after we split up she kept me tied up.

If most of America took responsibility for themselves we wouldn't have half these nanny laws.

Most people, whether you want to believe it or not, will cry about being forced to wear a seat belt, then cry about being asked to pay even a small percentage of the medical bills when they get injured.

Of course, different government agencies pick up the rest. Paid for by taxes. Not just taxes from individuals, but also taxes and regulations to insurance companies. Who start being forced to offer a minimum coverage that costs you more. Both car and medical insurance.

The result is that you pay several times for those who won't pay for themselves or demand that underinsured folks go without care.

There's lots of other factors like the way too high cost of the medical care and lawsuits that claim cops/cities "should have protected me from myself." But the point is that there are reasons for these laws that most of you don't think about. These tickets do not generate the revenue you think. The average cop won't write enough tickets in his career to pay for even two entire years of his employment.

did you ever think about the little girl that didn't get medical attention because gov. spent the money on foolish programs so people could sit around with a doughnut watching for strapped in folks on their way to producing income and value?

Any cop using the tax payer pays for medical issues excuse for writing seat belt ticket better do nothing that increase their risks for health issues.

No smoking, drinking, or being a lard ass.

Why don't school buses have seat belts...?

About twenty five million kids ride the school bus every day in our country, and nearly all of them are making the trip without a seat belt.

We�re required to wear seat belts in our cars, but why aren�t there seat belts in school buses...to protect the children...?

Bro,
I got Uncle Henry today.
He arrived with a chest belt and seat belt.
He was safe.
And glorious.
Thanks.

The heck with a seatbelt; I want to be thrown clear if an accident happens

Have no idea - interesting that your basic rationale for your nagging constraining police work here is that you are controlling costs for taxpayers and premiums for the insured. How much of the remainder of your "protect and serve" role is driven by such lofty and serious purposes?

Cost to much... Ironic...

This is what happens when govt and insurance cartels conspire to dig into your pockets.

I have yet to see my "seatbelt dividends" in the form of lower insurance premiums since this BS started.

G-12, with all due respect (and I mean it) wearing/not wearing a seat belt isn't going to change much. In fact, there was a truck driver around these parts who died BECAUSE he had his seatbelt on.

I would respond to any officer who's yowling at me for not wearing a seatbelt and who asks that same question thusly:

"Officer, do you not think that it's much more prudent and safe to drive in such a manner that one does not NEED a seatbelt?" Let him answer THAT.

I refuse to wear a seat belt unless and until I'm hauling one of my trailers; especially the camper due to it's size and weight. If I'm running truck only I will not wear a seat belt.

It's called FREEDOM...

In any case - ALL of us should drive safely, carefully and PAY ATTENTION to the road and traffic.

FWIW.

My observation has been that at city speed (30-40mph) seatbelts don't do dick. Highway accidents however, they save lives. The people were more often than not D.O.A. from horrid injury after being ejected.

click it or ticket campaigns are nothing more than a method for raising money.
Heck, that describes most traffic laws.

I'm hoping the conservatives wear seat belts.

Nah, the seatbelt laws came into being because the Federalis threatened to stop federal dollars that they normally dole out to the states unless the laws were passed. Kentucky started out as a secondary state too, and after a few years it was switched to a primary offense.

I have yet to understand that why it is too unsafe to get on the road behind the wheel of a car without a seatbelt, yet one can get on a motorcycle without one.
Now, I know that a seatbelt on a motorcycle is riciculous and would make it more dangerous, BUT if a car without a seatbelt is too dangerous to drive, then a motorcycle is too dangerous with or without a seatbelt.

still, I always wear my seatbelt. I only have one of me and I cannot go hunting all over the world if I'm dead or a paraplegic.

Lost a good friend who was 19 years old who was driving back from elk camp last year by himself. He had a 5x5 he just shot in the back of the pick up.

It was around 8am when he was driving back the police figured he fell asleep at the wheel, went off the road, and rolled the truck. The truck rolled multiple times and he was ejected out of it, and was killed.

I was a FF on the local dept and it was our ambulance that was there first. It was our EMT's that loaded Matt up. The boy they picked up that day was the previous Captains son. A kid who was cadet in the dept, who was on calls with us in the past, who grew up with many of us, and who knew better.

So don't tell me a seatbelt is bullshit, its a first amendment right or any other crap. Its a law. Don't think about yourself. Think of the paramedics that have to put you in the back of an ambulance, and the memories that are burned in their memory for the rest of their life. And think about your mother, father, brothers and sisters who have to get a phone call to tell them there son/daughter is dead.

Basically not wearing a seat belt is being selfish. I have been on enough calls that a simple seat belt would have saved their life. I have watched a person roll a Chevy Blazer 5 times in front of me, and walk away from it because of a seat belt. I have had extricate a person for over 4 hours because they decided to drive drunk and drive off the side of a hill wedging themselves 6 feet up in a tree. They would have walked away with a seat belt on, but since they chose not to, they wedged them self under the steering column and broke their back and were paralyzed from the waist down.

So do what you want. But don't be surprised to get a ticket, don't give cops crap for trying to make it a little safer for you.

And if/when you don't wear a seat belt and get in a major accident, don't be surprised when you never see your family again.

Cops would be employed whether they write tickets or not. We would still have real crime. If it were not about the money, you would have to do community service instead of paying a fine. That would be more of a detriment and people would comply in most cases. A cop visibly sitting on the side of the road is as much of a detriment to any traffic violations as one writing a ticket but produces no revenue. Spin it how you want, but the ones in charge want the money and will urge the police to write tickets. They might not say it right out loud but the message will get across. miles

the issuing agency in Florida gets 51% of the ticket money. It's why we have so many tickets written.
In 2010, about a half a billion dollars were raised with traffic citations.

Wearing seat belts is a great idea. The government penalizing people for not wearing them is not.

Disagree. Insurance companies can say, you don't wear one, we aren't paying, I have no problem with that. We don't need the frigging law

Good post SierraBravo. I always wear mine, I've had friends ejected and killed too.

I just don't like the attitude or practice of a cop writing a ticket if a guy says the wrong thing to him. That's letting personal bias into the mix.

And I don't like traffic tickets as revenue generators. Last ticket I got was for speeding, 52 in a 40 mph zone. If I paid it within a certain time (14 days) they would drop it down to a non-moving violation. Say what? Nothing screams "cash flow" like a prompt payment bonus.

It's worked both ways for me. Once I was on my way to the airport, got pulled for speeding and the cop was probably expecting an excuse from me when he asked me why I was driving so fast. When I just said "no excuse, I just lost track of how fast I was going" he did a double take, noted the suitcase on my back seat, and asked me if I was headed to the airport. I said yes, and he let me go with a warning. Probably for just fessing up and not whining.

OK,,, you're protecting me from me,,, it's for my own good,,, has nothing to do with the constitution or revenu, yadda, yadda,,,,,,, got it.

But,,, would it be acceptable for you, oh wise one, if I gave the lard ass cop crap for going on the internet and bragging about collecting overtime while handing out these well deserved tickets?
Just asking.

Oh,,, and for the record,,, as I stated earlier, ID doesn't allow a "cop" to stop you for simply not wearing a seat belt and our traffic fatality statistics are no higher than any other state.

Nobody said a seatbelt is bullshit.
Seatbelt 'laws' are bullshit.
Drug laws don't stop people from using drugs who want to use them. Gun laws don't stop criminals from using guns to commit crimes. And the seatbelt laws don't stop people from not wearing seatbelts who don't want to wear one.


So what...? If people didn't smoke, they wouldn't get lung cancer and die from it. Should smoking be against the law too...?


I will. And nothing the government (city, State, or Federal) does surprises me. Cops aren't trying to make it safer for anybody by enforcing seatbelt laws, they are simply generatiing revenue...nothing more than that.


That's a risk people take when they choose to not wear a seatbelt, but it's 'them' making that decision for themselves...as opposed to having something else dictated to them by the government.

Sorry about your buddy. It's likely that all of us here have lost a friend or a family member due to an automobile accident, and in many of those...a seatbelt may or may not have made a difference.

WTH should my taxes or insurance have to pay for some dumba$$ too stupid to wear a seatbelt (or a helmet, for that matter)?

Horsh!t.

Motorist #1 - Riding a 1975 motorcycle, wearing a pair of shorts and flip flops.

Motorist #2 - driving a 2014 full size SUV, anti lock brakes,traction control,multiple airbags,crumple zone technology,collision avoidance system, rear vision camera,climate controlled,5000 lb.

Both are traveling 60 mph side by side on an interstate.
Which one gets a "it's for your own safety" ticket?

Taxpayers footing the bill for medical treatment caused by an accident is horsesh!t as well.

BTW...I wear my seatbelt all the time.

Not the 1st Amendment. Seat belts and free speech aren't even remotely connected. It comes more under the 10th Amendment - its strictly a states rights thing.

The State of Texas gets 90% of all traffic fines, the court having jurisdiction gets 10%. None goes to the LEA writing a ticket.

"Click it or Ticket", in Texas, is a program where officers are hired on an overtime basis by the Texas Department of Transportation for the sole purpose of seat belt violations.

laffin'

Good point.

To generate revenue for the State of Texas (90%) and a little for the Court having jurisdiction (10%).

"Police Department... PD for short"

Don't forget lobbying by the Insurance companies too. They are the sole reason seat belt laws exist.

Gestapo tactics pure and simple. Papers please!

Member of the "saved by the belt" club here...and very thankful to be alive. Yep...believe I'll buckle up every time I'm in a vehicle.

Our son probably would not be here today if the wife and I had not emphasized seat belt usage. He actually dug out the seat belts from behind the seat one time in a friend's truck, insisting that they put the belts on. It paid off for him too, as they were in a horrific accident 15 minutes later and more than likely been ejected from the truck and who knows what else from that point on. He is now a 26 year old paramedic and has seen the worst life has to offer. He would buckle up on the riding lawn mower now if he had seat belts on it!

To each his own.....don't buckle if you don't want to...don't come crying to me though.

Pulease...I can't wait to see what guys like you would do if it really were.

Correct ^^^
Lobbyist's,,, the same reason smoking isn't illegal.

99% of laws only exist to "protect and serve" special interests.

Was in an accident where the driver would have probably been killed or seriously injured if he'd have been wearing a belt. Hell we both should have not walked away from it. Rolled a truck on I5 outside of Coalinga Ca. He was tossed to the passenger side and the driver side roof was crushed to the top of the steering wheel. I was asleep in the bed, tore the canopy off and I ended up in the canopy along with a pachinko machine. Both of us came out of it with just a few scratches. Lot's of pachinko balls all over the highway.

Anyway I still wore my seat-belt after that and still do. Now do I think that we should have laws to enforce seat-belt use? No. I wear it because it's smart. I think that there should be limited liability to insurance companies and other drivers when a seat-belt is not worn. In my mind it both a revenue device and a device to justify stops.

FWIW.

some here are just dense, or so agenda driven that they won't understand.
No one is saying seatbelts are bad, or that they refuse to wear them when they feel it is appropriate.
Most are saying that it's not government's job to insist that folks wear a belt, or get a ticket.
As always, it's cops on one side, with their world view, and Citizens on the other, with the normal world view.

Being somewhat in this wreck business, I"ve seen way MORE damage from not, than from...

But my personal opinion on medical type stuff... you need to prove you have coverage or can pay, before we are going to go get you and then let EMS take you somewhere... And from that point, I could care less if you wear your belt or not. Or have airbags or not.

Of course I would lean towards an advertising campaign with wide coverage of how much better you generally are by using both. At least from every wreck that I"ve been to so far.

Just more government BS. A seat belt should be left up to the driver.

You hear more about the ones who were saved by NOT wearing a belt because it's news. News is the unusual. Being saved by wearing one is so common that it's not news at all.

The son of an acquaintance is another one saved by a belt. His buddy bought a new Jeep and they took it hill climbing. The buddy knew nothing about hill climbing. Half way up a steep one, he spun out and tried to TURN AROUND. It rolled a half dozen times. They had belts and a good roll bar and neither got serious injuries.

Don't bet on that...we bought hay from a fellow just off of 371 last fall.

Ed

ever since they started this click it or ticket ....chit ....I flat out DON'T click it ...f u and your stupid laws ...

Aren't you being a little rebellious?

Your rare.US371 is only 134 miles long and the largest town it goes through has a population of 12,000. So you were somewhere between Coushatta and DeQueen.

got a bud who was sitting at a lunch table with a fellow from our state .gov ..........when tommy Thompson (f-wis to! ) ...called.. tellin our guy to vote yes> for click er ticket ...or the feds will not feed us federal hwy bucks!!!!!!!!!

NO...i'll/I do pay the fine.......pride can't be bought

Perhaps the cops also have the view which comes from a weariness of scraping, with squeegee and mop, the sorry remains of lifeless humans from the pavement?

It isn�t the smart people who need the law. I kind of feel the same about PFDs. It is after all the job of Coast Guard and SAR to protect/save idiots, isn�t it?

I�m not especially fond of a lot of the laws and regulations which are imposed on us - especially the ways they can be enforced upon us. However, I find the contrast with other countries to help with perspective at times. Nepal is a great way to see how traffic laws and rules that we have are not all that bad.

I actually feel sorry for the police.

Can you imagine writing seat belt violations as a job? I'd have to take all the mirrors outta the house.

I'm just giving you a bad time. My mom is hilarious. Every time she gets in a car and puts one on : "I just hate these things!" Oregon was one of the last states to pass that law. I think New Jersey was the other one. Anyway, I can remember when it came down and how horribly it was received in the rural areas. I use a county van in my employment and this stupid ding ding noise goes on forever until everyone and their service dog puts on a seatbelt.

When they enacted the seatbelt law here I was in law enforcement. By far, most of the cops I talked to were against it as well as I was. First, "Mama Laws" are ridiculous. If you are an adult, you should be able to make decisions for yourself. Especially if they concern your own well being and are not going to harm anyone else.

Minors should be subject to protective laws. For obvious reasons.

I, for one had no problem with stupid people joining the Darwin crowd because of their own stupidity. We are all better off when that happens.

A lot of the cops were against the seatbelt law because they could not lean over to create a smaller profile if being fired upon in the patrol vehicle, and some felt when they needed to hit the ground running from the patrol car, the seatbelt slowed them down.

Considering it's legal for women to drive, and women with cell phones to be more precise, I click it when I drive.

It's a good idea no matter who is on the road. But for the government to insert themselves into the matter is unlawful or the way this country was designed. This is an issue with health and that should not involve the government, although it now does seem to. But it shouldn't and hopefully that will change in the near future.

It should involve only commerce. Let the insurance companies deny coverage if a seat belt was not worn in a personal injury crash. That would have two effects: more seat belts would be worn, and the gene pool would be cleansed.

Calvin, Calvin, Calvin [with my head shaking] There's a fair share of male ding-a-lings out there with their cell phone plastered to their ear.

Actually, most cops don't GAF whether you wear a seatbelt or not, but will use the law as a pretext to investigate further. There are some agencies that require their officers to make certain number of "contacts" per day however, and seatbelt violators are easy pickin's.

Until you name drop that their sargeant is your brother

I never wear a seatbelt.

I also don't close my container.

Gun cases are stupid. I don't care what state I'm driving through.



Travis

Your milk container?

I hate milk.



Travis

What's with the avatar?

Seat belt laws.......? Pffffft!

George

You don't need em. You have a highly trained vicious attack dog that you can use to cause duress and gain submissive compliance to maintain your overlord status...

Is NH the last State standing without? I thought there was one other.

[bleep] seatbelt and helmet laws.

I cant reach into that case of beer on the far floor board.... if'n my seat belt is on....

Thats one thing i think is off kilter. We have a seatbelt law, but no helmet law

Do you always wear your uniform like that or did you just come over from the gay side of the 'Fire?

Would that do it?

Next up, helmet laws for car drivers. But it will only be a secondary offense. At the start...

Naahh. And and had he said anything differently than "dude, you can't give me a seatbelt ticket, I JUST FREAKING got one yesterday, on this God damned road". He would have gotten a warning too

I have been to a lot of safety programs in my 39 years with a utility. Seat belts and air bags can save your life from a 60mph head on collision. Most can just unbuckle and walk away. I know a state trooper who was in a high speed chase in a Ford Crown Victoria and ran off the road at 100 mph and hit a huge oak tree. Totaled his car, but he walked away. They do save lives, about 10,000 a year since before the laws were mandatory. However, I do see where you are coming from, It is your life, and your car, and you are the one to be hurt killed. Not really anyone else, except maybe your passengers if they don't have them on. It could be regulated by the insurance companies. No payout for accidents if you didn't have your seat belt on. No laws needed.

Often times a person's avatar is not an actual image of the person posting.

Take TRH for example. You may think he's a gold coin, but he isn't. He's a person.



Travis

Next up you'll get a special license plate that allows the police to stop you without probable cause because you're a previous offender.

Oh wait. They're already doing that.


Travis

That's Ohio isn't. With their yellow "drunk driver plates"?

True. Travis is actually a fat dwarf with an insatiable sexual preference for sheep.

I dinno that anyone has ever seem me utter a word against Cops here.

But as a regular Joe few things irk me more that the "CLICK IT OR TICKET" posters featuring stern looking Cops in shades staring hard. About the worst PR campaign you could possibly imagine.

Birdwatcher

Couldn't agree more


I get a kick outta the fact that I can get a ticket for driving down the road in my 8000 lb truck. But I can legally be in flip flops, no shirt, no helmet and be perfectly legal on my cycle.

The truck must be pretty damn dangerous.

Yep, just like when police have to defend themselves against a diabetic and beat on someone. If they didn't do it and just left them there passed out everyone would be complaining about that instead.

I am somewhat with you there since a balaclava would make the point much better than the sunglasses. Maybe even looking over a set of sights to add emphasis.

Come on Birdy, what's $200 for a good cause?

That's why I love visiting San Antonio. The population is 100% sheep.


Travis

Tx seatbelt tickets are $200?

[bleep] ours are like 75 including costs

10 bucks here and not a primary stop.
Which is 10 more than it should be.


http://www.itd.idaho.gov/ohs/ClickIt/SeatBeltLaw.htm

What????

Yeah, but according to Charles Barkley, they're big ol' sheep... and in my neighborhood, New Braunfels, they're mainly a bunch of well-armed sheep of German descent who love to shoot stuff... like sheep molesters.

Yeah...TxDOT does those.

Uh, well Travis, since that's not your pic I was kind of wondering, are you white? I mean, uh, on the outside.

Don't any of you blame the cops, they're just puppets following orders.

Do you realize how insecure you people look?

No I guess not, I was always busy taking care of my own, never had the inkling or need to get behind a uniform and a badge so I could tell others how to act.

This thread really makes me question the �$1000 fine for littering� sign I saw today; what I throw out the window really is no one�s business but my own. Plain, empty ditches are so over-rated anyway.

I hate these campaigns. I got in my truck one time in Frisco, Colorado and drove about two blocks towards I-70. I pulled on my seat belt after two blocks and evidently passed a city cop as I pulled the seat belt on. I saw him turn around and get behind me. I drove carefully, not knowing why he pulled a u-turn. Then, as I turned to get on I-70 he hit the lights and pulled me over. First thing he asked me about was my seat belt. I told him I was wearing my seat belt. Then I asked him why he pulled me over, because by law he can't pull me over for a seat belt anyway. He said my rear wheels crossed the white line on the entrance ramp. I told him he was wrong. He offered me a choice - no point and $75 for no seatbelt or $150 and three points points crossing the white line. What an asshat.

I got the same offer from a Florida Highway Patrolman a couple of years back, except it was for speeding...and yes, I was on duty.

And Rancho_Loco isn't a woman? shock and awe.

Perhaps your employer will take some of that 'click-it-or-stick-it-to-the-taxpayer' additional revenue.......to actually deposit in those empty public pension accounts.

Yea, probably not.

What on earth happened with the Florida Highway Patrol? Sounds almost as bad as the witch that pulled over and arrested the Miami officer a couple of years ago. At least the one that got you didn't make a big deal out of the 100mph+ chase to get you by smearing it all over the media I guess.

I expect the Bears to be out in full force from now until Tuesday morn lookin for seatbelt violations and sobriety check points, didnt see a soul out yesterday, guess they were all sleepin up gettin ready.

Gunner

Yep, next two nights we run "wolf packs". For DUI patrols

We put a trooper in a car from another agency, with that officer. That gives us jurisdiction anywhere in the county. Wr will have several if these teams from numerous agencies, all given specific patrol areas.

How do you keep that GD F'n bell from going off in the Fords? I don't usually wear one at work because I'm in and out of the truck every 5 minutes.

Now THAT is cool!!! Sounds like someone there is a fan of the Kriegsmarine!! Would be awesome if you could set up a checkpoint with several Kubelwagens blocking the road.

When seconds matter; the nanny-state cops are conducting seat belt check points.

I bet you don't set your road blocks up in 'Color Town'.....nope, that'd be just too much paperwork. And them big, bad niccas with the dred locks and "goal teefesez" are just too scary huh?

Go to a junknyard and get the lock from another seatbelt for that model vehicle model and put it in the seatbelt slot

I can't imagine having a job which compelled me to run up and down the roads aggravating people about wearing seatbelts.

That'll work, hope youinz clean all the damn drunkards offa your stretch of highway.

Gunner

No money on the south side.

Jerry, we have found that we get more drunks off the road using increased saturated pTrol areas than using static check points.

http://www.northjersey.com/news/cli...oking-for-more-than-seat-belts-1.1022775
Contrary to what has been posted, the money for this comes from the FEDS.

10-4, cruising around looking for bad driving instead of lettin em pull up to ya at a checkpoint?

Gunner

Not only that, but it isn't long before every bar patron knows where the checkpoint is located. The roving patrols also (according to theory) also acts as a deterant because drivers may not know we are. Plus the added officers on the street, dedicated to DUI enforcement, increases the chances that DUI positive operators are encountered

RAH-JAH THAT.

Gunner

Takes a special kind of person, I'm sure. Maybe he will be promoted to genuine meter reader in the next eight to ten years. Don't wanna overload anybody.

Gitem, that's nice of you to offer a tip. It's all a cat and mouse game to me. Why get irritated with it and ruin a good day?
I'm glad for the technology that can get around the your radar gun when there's a good reason to speed. ...and sometimes it's necessary. I also realize that cops don't make the laws. Many, many times they give warnings to people, but some people are just not going to fall into line. That's their right. They pay their fine, pay higher insurance, and be on their way.

I don't get irritated. I collect the overtime pay whether ai wrote tickets or not. Just as I collect a regular salary for working my normal shifts whether Inhandle complaints or catch up on paperwork. And you won't get around "my" radar, because we don't use radar here. We use Vaascar and laser systems here. And as I stated, i normally don't give tickets. This guy was an exception.

So, we're all paying for this stupidity?

The public sector will get their due.....eventually.

Cities like Stockton and Detriot have already 'modified' their pension pay-outs.....all approved by higher courts.

There will be a day when they actually blame their employer.....rather than the legitimate tax-payer.

Gitem,

Sorry for the misunderstanding. You didn't sound irritated. I'm referring to all those who don't like the seatbelt law [including me]. Vaascar and laser system, huh?

Your premises are so far off that any conclusions that you might draw from them will be junk; to wit: "If most of America took responsibility for themselves we wouldn't have half these nanny laws." Nanny State has prevented us from taking care of ourselves. Nanny State has asserted itself as superior to, "We, the People..." That way, Nanny State tells us what's it needs to do to take care of us, prevents options that would compromise its superior status, and arrests and prosecutes us if "We, the People," deviate from its agenda. The goal of Nanny State is laws as vehicles of total control of, "We, the People."

Well said.

I've worn them since starting to drive, too, and that was before there were any seatbelt laws. That's my choice, though. I see no legitimate basis on which government should make that decision for the individual.

What's far off kilter is that such stupid, revenue generating laws exist. Get rid of 'em!

Vaascar is a timing/ distance computer that determines speed,

I don't like the seatbelt law either, thats why out of 17 stops that shift only one person was cited.

So tell me, How many warnings or citations have you given to someone out riding thier Harley without a seatbelt on?

Seatbelt laws are bull chit and it should be a choice.

I rest my case.

Similar thing happened to me. Cop pulled me over for speeding, so I pull over and, in order to get to my wallet, I remove my seat belt. He tries to cite me for not wearing it. Fortunately, I was able to convince him that I only took it off to get my wallet.

gitem_12,

God forbid you were to discharge your weapon, God forbid that you kill a person appearing of Arabic descent, and God forbid the deceased's family's lawyer gets ahold of your avatar. On a minor note, if there are people of Arabic lineage living in your jurisdiction and they find out a cop in their city has an extremely hostile and overt prejudice against people of Arabic ethnicity, you'll be looking for a new job within days.

You oughta give up Kool-Aid. It warps your brain. But since you're such a bright dude, I'm sure that you'll disregard this advice and keep your avatar in defiance.

Jus' sayin'...

Hey moron, the avatar has nothing to do with people of Arabic lineage. You should just keep to chasing the trannys, laguna, you pathetxi, syphillis infused degared fool.

That's always perplexed me, as well.

Gitem_12,

It ain't me you might need to convince.

Does your agency know you are prejudiced against Muslims? God knows, a search here will turn up numerous of your anti-Muslim rants. You are aware of state and federal hate crime laws, aren't you? You ought to be since you're all over law enforcement.

What flavor Kool-Aid warps you???

Seems like folks in that country go through their day wearing sleepwear.

Blahh blahh blahh, isn't your alloted time at the computer about done for the day. Or did you get extra time for good behavior?

seems like sans is sharing the glue with that butt head from flagstaff.
I don't see anything anti Arabic in your av.

Sansouci/ravioli/Laguna/ Bigsqueeze lives in a mental institute, and suffers from various STDs due to years of unprotected sex with transsexuals. Hell he even started a thread here faking his own death and reincarnation.

So what. The whites wear sleepwear at WalMart every day. Although it would be a disadvantage to run from a burning car in a nightgown. AND some nightgowns are made of flammable material. I hope the things on their heads aren't.

Sounds like great technology. Has your department been able to get the Lidar system yet?

I would so much prefer, that you and your fellow LEO's ignore those who are not wearing their seatbelts.

And when you see someone texting, pull them over and take their phone, smash it on the concrete and then beat the living fk' out of them with our baton.

Only thing worse would be having to work as a telemarketer. At least as a cop you get to shoot guns and drive fast once in a while.

From what I hear, there are no seats in a bus where there isn't a tall soft seat back in front of you now, for that reason. Not that it 'll do a damn thing for a rollover..... but impact wise its supposed to be about the same. At least thats what I've heard.

Still can't go the chit when I have to wear a belt, which I do unless I"m in a fire engine and the damn belt is too short to go around me with all my gear on plus SCBA gear.... go figure... but I wear em other than that, why do the cycle guys get off free?
I actually have yet to see a good cycle wreck without a helmet either. Always been head trauma and most of them dead or dying as I get there.

Yes, and the slope is greased; it is impossible to crawl back up it. Politicians inevitably expand government while limiting individual freedom by Rules, Regulations, and Restrictions. I doubt one in ten understand the significance of what they do.

I�ve heard the idea that �bodies-as-projectiles� is one of the big concerns in a rapid deceleration (impact). Even a 50 pound body free to move around at 30 mph, when everything else has slowed dramatically, is a force to be reckoned with. High school-bus seats - as well as the significantly greater mass of the larger vehicle, mean that those bodies are less likely to fly around so much. Motorcycle riders probably have better survival chances if they can get free from their wreck; their odds simply aren�t very good when you think about it.

How did you pull over 17 fellow officers in their personal vehicles &/or their immediate families in a single shift? You need to buy a lottery ticket!

Don't think there have been any cars produced since the late 1960s/early 1970s that didn't have front seats without tall, soft seat backs.

Don't know if the guy on a radio show I was listening to was kidding or not, but allegedly the state he was calling from had tried to mandate seat belts on motorcycles. Sounds reasonable to me.

Free from the cycle is good with me. But no helmet is the same as no belt IMHO, and IMHO may even be worse.

I've seen heads hit asphalt too many times. You pick up the body, and then scoop what was in the cranium up and drop it inside the body bag with the body best you can.

I have not seen a car with a front seat that was as tall and solid and blocking as a bus seat yet. I have seen around and over every seat when I've been in the cars. Yet for kids in a bus, I find the only way they can see is out a window or into an aisle. Still, all in all, one wonders why the "people" we often do ANYTHING for, to save just one, and so on, do not wear belts in a bus even...

Hey Officer Paul Blart,

Sears has been trying to raise you on your radio. You have a customer assist in tools.

Were you half the mall cop that you think you are, you'd be able to conduct a leash law violation and figure out who's who. But then again, cherry red Kool-Aid has removed creases from your brain.

I'v found footage of you working high profile interdiction:

Gitem states one very good reason on how seat belt laws save everyone money on insurance premiums and that is because of the "uninsured motorist pool" that we all pay for dickheads that drive w/o insurance. Case in point. I was driving to work one day on an interstate hwy and traffic stopped suddenly and I rear ended and car with three people who were injured and I totaled their car as I was driving a Dodge Durango. The driver of the other vehicle was driving a brand new car but didn't have insurance. My insurance agent advised me not to worry because here in NJ they have a MV law they call " The no pay, the no play law" and she and her passengers would receive nothing for their injuries and no reimbursement for totaled car. The driver even went so far as to hire a lawyer to go after me personally and the lawyer wouldn't take the case due to this NJ law for uninsured drivers.

Yep on the helmet deal. Quite frankly, I don�t know where the line is when it comes to statutes. I try to consider what other countries do in terms of �nothing� when I look at questions such as this. Nepal seems to have very liberal rules - or lack of them - as it applies to traffic. I�m not sure that�s a better thing though.

[quote=rost495I have not seen a car with a front seat that was as tall and solid and blocking as a bus seat yet. I have seen around and over every seat when I've been in the cars. Yet for kids in a bus, I find the only way they can see is out a window or into an aisle. [/quote]


I couldn't see out a window of post 1970 passenger cars when seated in the back seat other than by looking out the side window or in between the front seats up to about age 12 either.

http://www.ncbussafety.org/seatbelts.html

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/safedrivers-childsafety-stage4-seat-belts-1087.htm


Not really seeing any differences in seat back heights of buses versus passenger vehicles in those images and tend to guess if a seat back fails due to impact then seat belts are going to have minimal effect on the outcome as well.

Simple solution. No taxpayer-funded ER treatment for folks in car crashes without seatbelts or helmets on. Either I fund it out of my own pocket, or my insurance, or the collection agency puts me on a payment plan. But don't protect me from myself with paternalistic laws.

School bus seats are much more confining than most passenger cars as well as more solidly constructed. More importantly, a bus, because of its greater mass, will rarely decelerate (stop) as quickly as a passenger car which means the contents (passengers) will not have as much disparity in momentum.

Sounds great. Keep up advised as to when those laws get changed as I look forward to lower insurance premiums.

How exactly is a school bus seat "more confining"? They are open benches.

How does "more solidly constructed" make things better on the object striking it?

Don't think I have ever heard increased stopping distance listed as a positive in passenger safety either.

Could you explain why the strobe light on top of the bus(impairing the vision of any drivers near the bus) is a good idea?

I wish!!! Unfortunately our nanny state will continue with its ill-fated obsession to protect me from myself, despite my absence of a request to do so...I'm afraid we're stuck with these crappy laws. On a state level however, Wyoming or Utah could probably pull it off

Then it makes zero sense to permit folks to drive motorcycles if car drivers have to wear seat belts.

I couldn't see out a window of post 1970 passenger cars when seated in the back seat other than by looking out the side window or in between the front seats up to about age 12 either.

http://www.ncbussafety.org/seatbelts.html

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/motorvehiclesafety/safedrivers-childsafety-stage4-seat-belts-1087.htm


Not really seeing any differences in seat back heights of buses versus passenger vehicles in those images and tend to guess if a seat back fails due to impact then seat belts are going to have minimal effect on the outcome as well. [/quote]

Guess we never really had bench front seats in our vehicles.... was always a way to see out the front....

I like this for a lot of reasons. Wish it would apply in various similar situations also.

I'd have to find new work but for the freedom folks would get, would be no big deal to me to find different work.

Come to think of it, most of the cars I can recall riding in as a child did have bench front seats so there was not even any leaning to the middle to look out the front. One of the few I can recall riding in with bucket seats prior to about age 12 was a 197? Firebird. Seated properly behind either of the front seats without leaning to the middle and it was an exciting view of the seat backs so I spent as much time as possible(curtailed either by getting caught not seated properly it or just from the sheer lack of comfort) sitting on the tunnel that divided the rear seats for a better view.

My employer doesn't get any of it and the problems of which you speak are indigenous to you blue States.

One time on I35 through Austin I passed one of them mean-Cops-in-shades "CLICK IT OR TICKET" billboards and I actually reached over, undid my seatbelt, and flipped the poster the bird.

Freedom lives!

So where does the money from tickets written by Texas agencies go to?

90% to the State and 10% to the court of venue.

You do realize how ridiculous you look.....right?

secondary offense in mo. and it's a $10 ticket. if i write you a seat belt ticket you got bigger problems.

Whatcha expect from a dumb ass cop? He thinks there's different cookie jars that the cash goes? His local PD doesn't receive state funding? It sure receives Fed funding as it pays his OT. Where do these people think the money comes from? Pennies from Heaven?

Seatbelt laws should not exist. Period.




Travis

$125 or so out here.

Staters are the only cock suckers bored enough to pull you for it. They love it.

Been stopped a few times for it. Once in a parking lot, putting it on before I pulled out on the road!

Always staters. Clowns.

City cops have enough to do. They just wave.

The only thing as stupid as a seatbelt law, is an open container law.

Good luck finding a politician with enough sense to admit it.



Travis

That's wild that you don't receive any money from the state, but pretty shrewd to send money to the court. That has to be a plus when the judge remembers who is buttering their bread if an officer ever ends up in front of them for a divorce hearing or anything else.

I don't wear one and I won't wear one. Got pulled over for speeding last year and wasn't wearing my seat belt. I was polite, a rareity for me. Cop says I could write you a ticket for no seat belt and I said you can write me two cause tomorrow when I come through here I ain't gonna be wearin one then either with a chuckle. He handed me my license and say go on while shaking his head. Nice guy, guess my honesty was refreshing.

Lol...are there others like you where you live? I'd be pissed too.

HA!

Biggest PITA was when a couple of Sheriffs' Deputies on motorcycles would sit in the center divider on the road from the poor neighborhood to my school in the morning traffic, just nailing folks for sticker and seatbelt violations. And those seatbelt tickets were expensive, especially so or people living where they lived.

I dunno they "saved any lives". Prob'ly more'n a few kids ended up walking to school after that and they didn't help the image of Cops any. Or maybe not too much harm; nobody confused these guys with the SAPD.

SAPD DOES sit out in front of elementary and middle schools, enforcing the twice a day 20mph speed limit. But nobody minds that.

Birdwatcher

I think there should be a minimum speed of at least 80 MPH through school zones, you could get rid of the dumb ones early and avoid putting them on the taxpayer dole.

Sounds like you must not have ridden on school buses...they are high-backed, rigid seats, closely spaced so there is little opportunity for objects (bodies) to move very far in a sudden deceleration.


The object (person) striking it is secondary to the fact that that object is less likely to become a 100 lb missile capable of impacting others closer to the point of vehicle impact.

Same principal as why a parachute is generally a safer way to jump out of a plane; instant deceleration tends to be quite �bruising� .



Probably not a good thing for those with ADD/ADHD disorders. Not staring at it works reasonably well for the rest however, similar to not looking into the headlights of oncoming traffic at night. The strobe point kind of begs the question of why those �blue� super-bright halogen headlamps are legal though.




Cars make zero sense compared to semis or buses also; so also two lane highways compared to divided highways. I not at all crazy about sharing the roads with motorized bikes; I wouldn�t do it and certainly don�t want to paste someone on one, but I�m not going to suggest that you shouldn�t be allowed to ride one.

You're missing my point. It's that the seat belt laws make no logical sense if you still allow motorcycles (whose riders cannot wear seat belts) on the road. It's an argument against seat belt laws, and I think it's a pretty insurmountable one. It only fails because logic doesn't prevail in the creation of laws.

There are lots of laws that I disagree with.

In the same universe, how logically and justly do you both fine car drivers who don't wear seat belts and permit motorcyclists (who can't wear them) on the same roads with them? If you're fining car drivers for not being safe, how much less safe are motorcyclists? That amounts to fines for being a little unsafe, and no fines for being a lot unsafe.

Clearly, then, it's not about safety. It's about revenue generation.

It ain't about revenue it's about politicians thinking they need to babysit the voters and the worst part is a lot of voters like it that way.

Correct. Politicians like to believe that they are taking care of, not oppressing, you.

Go easy on wildbill. He's special.

You ain't kiddin! He's a member of the "color of the week"at the walmart huffers club

Vehicles differ obviously. Besides the passenger projectile factor in an automobile collision, automobile occupants are also much more likely to be crushed by the vehicle if they are not secured. That is just the opposite of what is likely to happen in bi- or quad-cycle accident.

Don�t worry. If fairness/equalness in every detail is what suits you, ObamaCare has it covered. Your prenatal exams are covered for life, even if you have been male your entire life.

Got to thinking on this. I bet the 10% is based on tithing which makes sense because the judiciary is sitting in judgement of everyone else because they are nearly totally free of human failings that effect everyone else. I bet the law enforcement agencies get 10% out of it also for the same reason, but have to do it via fund laundering so as to keep the cop haters quiet.

Not exactly, but all politicians want cops to write more tickets in the name of income. You see, it doesn't matter where the money goes, because money in...is money in. Kinda like when your Dad gets a raise...you may not get any of it, but he won't bitch as much about the food you're already eating.

Sounds like you must not have ridden on school buses...they are high-backed, rigid seats, closely spaced so there is little opportunity for objects (bodies) to move very far in a sudden deceleration.


The object (person) striking it is secondary to the fact that that object is less likely to become a 100 lb missile capable of impacting others closer to the point of vehicle impact.

Same principal as why a parachute is generally a safer way to jump out of a plane; instant deceleration tends to be quite �bruising� .



Probably not a good thing for those with ADD/ADHD disorders. Not staring at it works reasonably well for the rest however, similar to not looking into the headlights of oncoming traffic at night. The strobe point kind of begs the question of why those �blue� super-bright halogen headlamps are legal though.


I have ridden on a bus and I suspect you haven't ridden in any passenger vehicles made after about 1980 because there is a lot more space between bus seats than there is the back and front seat in a passenger car.

Can you point us to any passenger car wrecks where the seats got snapped off and anyone survived? Interesting that a harder bus seat back is better to hit than a passenger car seat back.

Didn't know there were any parachutes involved in school bus trips. So what you are saying is the increased odds of getting in a wreck due to increased stopping distance if preferable over shorter stopping distances and not getting in to the accident in the first place.

Not that big of a deal to pass a bus which is where the headlight comparison would seem to come in to play for most of us, but since that was your first idea how often do you follow someone driving in reverse so that you are looking directly in to their headlights mile after mile?

My Dad getting a raise has no effect on me so not sure why you are trying to be rude.

So now you are saying your department makes money off tickets or what?

The long buses are a little roomier.

LOL. Be nice.

The point being that driving a car without seat belts is X amount unsafe, and is fined, but riding a motorcycle is X+ amount unsafe, but no fines. If safety were the factor determining fines, then riding a motorcycle should result in a higher fine than driving a car without a seat belt. It's logically inconsistent, illustrating the absurdity of the law.

It depends if the insurance companies are losing money.

That could be it. I always rode the standard long bus and those were very roomy. I would assume the shorter buses may be tighter since many of them are little more than vans. Perhaps that is what he is talking about.

If they are going to write tickets for whatever, it applies to EVERYONE not just poor or middle class or rich.

I thought someone was comparing to short buses

Believe it, or not, it tough to work traffic in the inner city. Every car you stop has no (or fake) inspection, registration, insurance, etc., and the driver has a suspended license and warrants. There ain't enough cops in any city to do that.

Not really that far OT, but whats an opinion here? Well cheap and many of them I know...

But say you are like me, I don't want folks telling me that I have to while cycle folks can do without helmets...

If we went back to personal responsibility, and our insurance reflected in cost whether we were safe or safer or not... and then we only would be helped if we'd "paid" in.... would folks get along with that?

I don't like paying for welfare as it is. Folks get to have however many kids, I gotta pay, educate, incarcerate etc....

So I don't like having to pay in this instance because I or you were too stupid or stubborn to put a helmet on. What happens if emergency pulls up on scene and gets your ID, and you haven't paid... they then get back in the vehicle and drive off?

Tricky situations really.

Shhh...

Apparently Klikitarik rode a short bus because they keep talking about how confining the seats are which definitely does not describe seats on standard length buses.

Ding ding ding!!!!

Winner - by a landslide..

Yes because while officers often disagree with laws they enforce them without question against civilians so we can have an orderly society.

Sherp, it's not a problem as long as you don't say the wrong thing to the officer. Unless he's got a quota to meet.

As it should be.

I�m not sure why you insist on avoiding what I am saying. Either you have no grasp whatsoever of physics so you need to twist what I have said to avoid what I am saying, or you simply can�t understand what I�ve written - for whatever reason. (You can take an out there.)

Perhaps you just want to be combative?




By the same token, insurance should also be higher for automobiles than for larger vehicles, and smaller autos should pay more than larger and/or better built autos. I get the safer/less-safe part. I also don�t have a problem with whatever vehicle being operated in the �safest-for-it� condition possible. The real question from a �logical� standpoint is why some vehicles are even legal on the highways. As I alluded to earlier, it logically seems ludicrous to built skinny two-lane highways where vehicles approach and pass each other by a few dozen inches at closing speeds of over 100 miles per hour. I�m not suggesting that should be outlawed, just that it isn�t a very logically sensible concept.

I'm speaking of laws, not insurance.

By the same token, fines should also be higher for automobiles than for larger vehicles, and smaller autos should pay more than larger and/or better built autos. I get the safer/less-safe part. I also don�t have a problem with whatever vehicle being operated in the �safest-for-it� condition possible. The real question from a �logical� standpoint is why some vehicles are even legal on the highways. As I alluded to earlier, it logically seems ludicrous to built skinny two-lane highways where vehicles approach and pass each other by a few dozen inches at closing speeds of over 100 miles per hour. I�m not suggesting that should be outlawed, just that it isn�t a very logically sensible concept.

Better?

I am reading what you are saying. Trouble is:

1) I have seen school bus seats and they are no closer together than the back to front seat distance in a passenger car and in most cases are much farther.

2) Understand the more solid line which would have some merit if passenger car seats got sheared off very often in wrecks, but not seeing that as the case. Think I would rather have a bit of flex than not....kind of like landing on a foam mat or asphalt. I would choose the former, you would choose the latter.

3) Understand you find it preferable to have a longer stopping distance so an object gets hit by the bus instead of stopping sooner and not hitting the object.

4) You have an eccentric neighbor with high entensity headlamps who likes to drive in reverse and you have followed them home creating the same issue that occurs when mortal people follow a bus with strobe light doing what it does best.

You're going to drag your feet all the way on this one, aren't you?

Got it. I might also concede that you are simply being contrary and fickle so as to avoid what I have actually said.



I understand you would prefer to see everything equal. There ain�t no way a cycle and a car will ever be nor they should not be treated the same. I have already conceded that there are plenty of logical reasons why some vehicles should not be on the road together. That should not be construed to mean that I would support laws against it however.

I haven't felt the need to modify your posts, but your claims are so weak you had to mine.

It isn't my fault that your "confined" bus seats are far more roomier than any passenger car seating arrangements from the last 30+ years. It isn't my fault that hitting something solid will cause more injuries than something with give to it as has been the case since the beginning of time. It isn't my fault that strobe lights screw with people's vision as numerous flashlight companies have noted and are making money by selling flashlights that do just that.

In short, blame your baseless ideas for backing something totally bogus.