Seat Belt Exemptions

[Whosyer]

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...4c42BN&sig=AHIEtbT6VWbEL22J3DfdYypQ8HlfAiDEQw

From 2007, in response to the seat belt bill sponsor, Atty General Carter uses the word " for" instead of " on". Page two of document.

 

[BE Mike]

The whole " on a farm " language makes no sense. Someone please explain the logic, of going to all the trouble of writing an exemption to the IC, for an activity that is already perfectly legal. Or has there been a rash of instances where police went on private property, and issued seatbelt tickets.? I guess the farm truck exemption was written to keep me legal, while driving in the corn field? And yes, for the record #1 - probably going to pay the ticket #2- I don't really think that trying to understand the logic of an exemption for an already legal activity is " twisting the words". #3- I'll admit that I'm lucky, but statistics aside, 2 years ago I went upside down at 60 mph in my last F350. No seatbelt. Crawled out, walked 5 miles to the house, called the cops, ate a cheeseburger. Not being belted in an accident, is not an automatic death sentence.

You have been wronged. The officer doesn't understand the law. Hire an attorney and take it to court. I'm sure the judge will side with you on this.

 

[Whosyer]

You have been wronged. The officer doesn't understand the law. Hire an attorney and take it to court. I'm sure the judge will side with you on this.

Yes, there has never been an instance where an officer didn't know the law. Like the dozen or so, " officer told me that OC is illegal " threads. Do you have a logical explanation for the exemption? Or do you just like to use the "eye roll" thingy?

 

[Hookeye]

It sounds to me like "Farm plated" vehicles are only exempt when doing farm stuff on/along the road.

I see farm plated vehicles on the road all the time, in the city.

 

[BE Mike]

Yes, there has never been an instance where an officer didn't know the law. Like the dozen or so, " officer told me that OC is illegal " threads. Do you have a logical explanation for the exemption? Or do you just like to use the "eye roll" thingy?

I'm just tired of your whining. If you think you were wronged, then pursue it. Otherwise suck it up and pay the ticket. Is that clear enough for you?

 

[RyanV]

How is this thread still going? Pay the ticket and wear your seat belt.

 

[Whosyer]

I'm just tired of your whining. If you think you were wronged, then pursue it. Otherwise suck it up and pay the ticket. Is that clear enough for you?

The sole purpose of an internet forum,is to 1) whine 2) bi**h 3) belittle others. Looks like you got the memo on #2 and #3.

I might also add, it is possible to just scroll on past a thread, or use the ignore function. I have thick internet skin though, so feel free to chime in.

 

[Whosyer]

How is this thread still going? Pay the ticket and wear your seat belt.

Mainly boredom.

 

[qwerty]

The sole purpose of an internet forum,is to 1) whine 2) bi**h 3) belittle others. Looks like you got the memo on #2 and #3.

I might also add, it is possible to just scroll on past a thread, or use the ignore function. I have thick internet skin though, so feel free to chime in.

So, does that mean you are paying it or fighting it?

 

[Whosyer]

So, does that mean you are paying it or fighting it?

Still researching the issue,mainly out of curiosity,and the illogical wording.I mean, it's no points, and only $25 (x2). Not really a big deal, but curiosity has the better of me. I don't think that there are any additional court cost associated with going to the hearing, and asking the Judge for an explanation. And, due to my 3 on / 3 off work schedule, I'm off work that day anyway. Pay the money now,or pay the money then.

 

[Curls & Swirls]

The statistical base is child fatalities per accident, not the number of kids traveling in a year. The calculations stand since they are based on the total number persons killed in each mode of transportation during a set time period (12 month period). The only variable is how long a person is in a vehicle a day....that is why I used ".138 children killed per hour in car accidents a year (8760 hours)", because the .138 is still higher than fatalities in school buses (.033) considering "a child rides a bus 60 minutes a day, five days a week, 9 months a year (180 hours)". The truth is, that a child probably never is in a automobile even 8 hours a day, but if you were to use 8 hours a day in a year (2920 hours) the rate is dramatically increased to .414.

Okay Qwerty this is my last comment!!! lol
If the statistical base is per accident wouldn't it be obvious that it would be higher in a vehicle other than a bus because there are more car accidents than bus accidents? There is no doubt in my mind more kids die in regular car accidents than bus accidents for many reasons. Including the size of the bus vs. size of most cars, the time of day most buses travel with children, the amount of high speed travel in cars on highways compared to city street speeds and neighborhood speeds, in buses etc. I just don't think you can compare these things apples to apples because of all the factors. Oh and my kids spend about 14 hours in a car per day at least 2 to 4 times a year when we go out to see family!!

 

[qwerty]

Hakuna matata

 

[LarryC]

The damned seat belt law was passed in Indiana for one reason & one reason only! In either 1986 or 1987 the DOT notified all Automobile manufactures that they would have to install active restraints or Air Bags in all vehicles UNLESS a number (can't remember the number of states they required) of states passed a law making the wearing of seat belts mandatory. GM, Ford, Chrysler and AMC all notified their part vendors and State governments that they would only purchase from states that enacted the seat belt law - as they weren't ready to install Active restraints - and at time air bags were pretty expensive, especially for the "economy cars".

So Indiana passed the law. At the time they (the politicians and LEO'S) said that they would not "Stop anyone" for not wearing the seat belt - they would only fine you if you were stopped for other reasons and not wearing the seat belt.. Like many other lies, in a very few years it became a good source of revenue.

I remember the press speaking to a state senator or rep. right after the law passed - noticing that he wasn't wearing the belt. The politicion remarked "I didn't vote for it so I won't wear it" (laws only pertain to the "Common people". It was printed in the local paper.