What's more dangerous? Not wearing Seatbelts or Seatbelt Traffic Stops

We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by
other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more
dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side
of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is
now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two
vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one
drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not
forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped
cars now become a roadside hazard to.

"Rob" > wrote in message
...
> We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by
> other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more
> dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side
> of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is
> now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.
>
> By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two
> vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one
> drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not
> forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped
> cars now become a roadside hazard to.
>
>

It seems if you don't wear a seatbelt you risk both of your scenarios. In my
opinion, only hand holding liberals need laws to wear seatbelts. Everyone
else uses common sense.

On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:23:45 -0500, Rob > wrote:

>We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by
>other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more
>dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side
>of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is
>now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.

Getting pulled over by an idiot cop who refuses to accept that
stopping on the roadway is dangerous.

In article >,
Rob > wrote:

> We've all seen the videos of cops and stopped cars getting hit by
> other vehicles during traffic stops. My question is, which is more
> dangerous? Not wearing a seatbelt or being forced to stop on the side
> of a highway so you can be issued a $25, or whatever the amount is
> now, ticket for not wearing a seatbelt.
>
> By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two
> vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one
> drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not
> forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped
> cars now become a roadside hazard to.

I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my
time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop
can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so
your question raises a moot point.

In article >,
Shawn Hirn > wrote:

>
> I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my
> time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop
> can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so
> your question raises a moot point.


Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary
offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been
ticketed and fined solely for not buckling up, according to a Globe
review of state records.
http://motorists.org/ma/law_skirting.html

So your objection is a moot point.

Ivan

Shawn Hirn, > was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on Tue, 03 Jan 2006 20:51:39 -0500:
> I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my
> time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop
> can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so
> your question raises a moot point.
>

Just because you are in an area that makes seatbelt violations a
secondary offense does not make it a moot point. Here in GA, seatbelt
violation is a primary offense. So AFAIAC the OP's question is valid.

Ivan wrote:
> In article >,
> Shawn Hirn > wrote:
>
> >
> > I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my
> > time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop
> > can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so
> > your question raises a moot point.
>
>
> Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary
> offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been
> ticketed and fined solely for not buckling up, according to a Globe
> review of state records.
> http://motorists.org/ma/law_skirting.html
>
> So your objection is a moot point.
>
> Ivan

Couldn't it be that the officer was trying to be nice by giving the
driver the lower of two penalties? Like, if they were speeding and not
wearing a seatbelt, the seatbelt ticket is usually going to cost less
(or in some states, a heluva lot less) than a speeding ticket.

Would the National Motorists Ass'n prefer they just give two tickets to
all those drivers just to cover their asses?

Dave

In article >, Rob wrote:

> By the way, I wear a seatbelt. It just seems silly to risk two
> vehicles (violator and cop) all in the name of safety for the one
> drivers who's violation is only endangering himself. Let's also not
> forget you have to count the potential third vehicle that the stopped
> cars now become a roadside hazard to.

I find it silly how many people and police officers are put at risk for
stops that have nothing to do with traffic safety of all kinds. How
conducting even basic police work has become a road side affair. It just
doesn't make sense to me, but then again, I don't get the profits from
the ticketing nor any sense of power from it.

In article . com>,
"Dave in SD" > wrote:

> > Where I live (Massachusetts) not wearing a seat belt is also a secondary
> > offense. Yet tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers have been
> > ticketed and fined solely for not buckling up, according to a Globe
> > review of state records.
> > http://motorists.org/ma/law_skirting.html
> >
> > So your objection is a moot point.
> >
> > Ivan
>
> Couldn't it be that the officer was trying to be nice by giving the
> driver the lower of two penalties? Like, if they were speeding and not
> wearing a seatbelt, the seatbelt ticket is usually going to cost less
> (or in some states, a heluva lot less) than a speeding ticket.
>
> Would the National Motorists Ass'n prefer they just give two tickets to
> all those drivers just to cover their asses?
>
> Dave



The NMA would prefer if tens of thousands of Massachusetts drivers
stopped illegally wouldn't be ticketed at all.

Ivan

> I don't know where you live, but in PA and NJ, where I spend most of my
> time, not wearing a seat belt is a secondary offense. As such, no cop
> can pull over anyone only on the basis of not wearing a seat belt, so
> your question raises a moot point.

Some states are PRIMARY enforcement for seat belt use. I know NY is, I
believe CO is. There are probably several others I'm not aware of. It
wouldn't surprise me if most states are primary enforcement for seatbelt use
soon. I don't wish it to be so, I'm just saying it wouldn't surprise me.
The question is not moot. -Dave