SIPEDO and YOU

If one life is saved, it's worth it.

Oh hush up and wear your damned seat belt! Whine whine whine! If you really dont want to wear one, drive a car built before 1964! by law you dont have to then! I know one thing, you wont whine about the Troopers when you need one to pull you out of your car after an accident! Show some respect will ya!

By the way, I SUPPORT THE PROGRAM AND WEAR MINE! Remember, God might be your co-pilot but he's got to buckle up too!

Cars built before 1964 were not requited by federal law to have seat belts. When they were made a requirement, they were lap belts. I dont believe shoulder belts came out until the 70s.

Just to be on the safe side of any "misunderstandings", I wont reach for anything until an officer tells me to. Seat belt or wallet, it doesn't matter. My hands stay on the wheel as I turn to the left and smile!*lol*

Actually Frank, it is a primary offense. They can pull you over for it. I was on Oakridge near OBT one night, and that is exactly what Orlando police were doing. They were checking to see if people had seatbelts on with shoulder restraints, and it they didn't, they were motioned into a restaurant parking lot.

mmustang, you missed the point. The point is not about saving lives. Do they save lives? Yes! Do they not save lives? Yes as well. They are using inconclusive statistics to keep a law that little more than add money to the public coffers. They are lying.

I do wear my seatbelt, BUT, as an adult, that should be my decision as a lone driver with no children. The law was only passed to create a revenue flow, nothing more, but they have guised it with "saving lives", called it the whole truth. This law is based upon lies and a greed for money.

As far as wanting a trooper to pull me from the wreckage? No thanks, let me stay there and rot rather than have one of those lepers touch me. I have no respect whatsoever for any trooper or the FHP or the FDLE. NONE. Talk all you want about how they lay their life on the line, the truth is, they mostly harrass people, and the bad DOES outweigh the good.

I see this "campaign" as just one more example of the government invading the lives of it's citizens. Look, I'm an adult...as a matter of fact, I'm a pretty intelligent adult. I stopped letting my parents make my decisions when I was eighteen (although they would argue I didn't listen long before that). Now I'm 42, but the government still doesn't think I'm smart enough to decide when it's safe to cross the street without a mechanical device telling me to walk. I'm not qualified to decide if I should wear a seatbelt or not. The government has to tell me if I have the right to risk my life by staying in my home during a hurricane. And the list goes on and on.

When I see a cop helping an accident victim, a stranded motorist, at a robbery, or any of a thousand other situations I am glad they are there. But I have to agree with the original post here and the points he was trying to make:

1. It's my life - let me live or die as I see fit.
2. Traffic penalties aren't about your safety - they're about collecting money, increasing police/political power and an excuse to harass people they think may be violating another law.

If you don't buy this, try sponsoring a constitutional change in this state that eliminates traffic fines and replaces them with mandatory Community Service. Then look at those that oppose this proposal.
1. The cops - because they want the money.
2. The politicians - because they need the power.
3. The rich - because they can afford the tickets and/or can buy their way out of them.

I do wear my seatbelt. I don't speed (at least not intentionally

...Nick Bollea case. There is, again, no conclusive evidence that the seat belt (or lack thereof) contributed to the passengers injuries nor prevent Bollea from being injured.

Beyond the fact about the seatbelt, the press has never gone into any detail as to what physical stresses actually caused his injuries. For example, a tree may have impaled his side of the car, or he may have been leaning over to put a CD into the player when the accident happened. You have been assuming that the forces were equal on both occupants, which flies in the face of any scientific investigation. To be fair, what 'appears' to have happened may be exactly what DID happen. I don't know.

My point is that the 'authorities' will tell you want they want you to know, but not things that contradict their position. What the media tells you is just as important as what they don't say.. Listen for both.

Driving may be a privilege, but if you don't live in a big city with ample mass transit, it is also a necessity. One could easily argue that it should be a right. After all, nobody told a cowboy in the old west that he couldn't ride his horse because he rode it drunk last year...

Sipedo, you are wrong.
It is not a primary offense, even though they are still trying to pass that BS into law.
You can only get a seatbelt ticket if you were stopped for something else.
It is a secondary offense. You must be mistaken.
The scenario you describe violates the law as written, and being stopped for that alone would be grounds to throw out ANY other violation discovered during the illegal stop.

Check the law. You will see.

I'll look it up Frank, but it was my understanding that they can pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt, and that is what this Clickit or Ticket campaign is doing.

Erik, you have your proof. I'm glad you're happy with it. It's right for you, but it still doesn't make it right.

Jabit, I like what you had to say. You brought it home better than I did.

All others who take the law and swallow it no matter what remind me of . . . well, I won't go there.