The perennial seat belt bill is once again in motion. This year, House Bill 1237 requires occupants of motor vehicles to wear seat belts. It passed out of the House Roads and Transportation Committee by a vote of 9 to 1. (Rep. Jim Buck voted against it.)
One of the main bones of contention is the idea of making occupants of pickup trucks wear seat belts. Back since the days when I was drafting this bill, I have contended that current law, read strictly, requires occupants of most pickup trucks to wear a seat belt. Currently, the law requires each front seat occupant of a “passenger motor vehicle” to wear a seat belt. The definition of “passenger motor vehicle” means a motor vehicle designed for carrying passengers, but specifically excludes “trucks, tractors, and recreational vehicles.” However, if you go to the definition of “truck,” it means “a motor vehicle designed, used, or maintained primarily for the transportation of property.” My argument is that the vast majority of pickup trucks are used to transport passengers and are not primarily used to transport property. So, they’re best seen as passenger vehicles and not as “trucks,” as defined by the Indiana Code and, therefore, seat belts ought to be required.
(I got into this hair-splitting argument when I was asked to determine whether SUV’s were passenger vehicles or trucks under the seat belt laws.) But, we’ve gotten to where “everybody knows” you don’t have to wear a seat belt in a pickup truck. So, it doesn’t matter a bit what the law actually says. Laws are only as good as their enforcement.
[tags]HB1237-2007, motor vehicles[/tags]
I oppose seat belt laws for adults, emancipated minors, and minors with a driver’s license.
Let the dreck clean itself out of the gene pool.
I guess I like many others from this rural part of the state fall into the “dreck” catagory.I think pickups out number cars around here at least it seems that way and just about every pickup owner I talk to and I own a pickup does not want this law and contact our representative every time it comes up saying so!
Last year on a Evansville station on a program hosted by Brad Byrd talking to various lawmakers a state Rep was on saying before the time issue this was the issue he heard about most with people saying they do not want this law.I for one am tired of the government telling me I need to wear a seatbelt.I am harming no one but myself and it’s really none of there business.I remember when this law for cars first passed they said it’s a violation but you can not be pulled over for it.Now police set up check points for just this situation with one cop sitting in one place watching a driver go by before they get to the checkpoint to see if they do not have a seat belt on and radioing ahead to the cop at the checkpoint in case the person hurrys up an puts the seatbelt on so they can be sure to write them a violation.Let’s also not forget what this is really about which is just a excuse for police to run a check on people and look into there vehicle(not search but nose around) to see what else is going on.
I also am aware that the Federal government holds money back for roads because this law hasn’t been passed yet.The Federal government is always good at blackmailing states with really what amounts to the money we all pay in taxes to get the state to do what the Federal government wants them to.
In New York they pass a law that say’s no trans fats can be used in frying foods.People also want to pass laws against unhealthy foods. What’s next the government telling us we have to wear a coat and hat before we go outside if it’s cold so we will not get sick?
To be fair I have a sister who ALWAYS buckles up and a niece that does the same while both their husbands do not.If they like many others want to buckle up more power to them and good for them but leave me and others alone and take care of yourselves my wearing or not wearing a seatbelt should not matter one way or another to you.It’s not hurting you one bit.
Also before someone brings up the point about injuries being worse for those not wearing a seatbelt thereby making the cost at hospitals increase especially for the 47 million uninsured worry about the cost of the illegal aliens and their care at emergency rooms and the fact that there draining resources from communities all over this country and forcing some hospitals to even close before you worry about the cost of the uninsured as it pertains to seatbelts and the cost of injuries inflicted by not wearing one.
Now if we “drecks” or worthless people whatever you wish to call us want to clean ourselves out of the gene pool so to speak,well I guess that’s our business then and not the governments!!
I do not get the virulent opposition to seat belts at all. The government imposes all sorts of conditions on the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on the public roads. You have to pass a test to get a license, you have to have insurance, you have to put on a turn signal whenever you turn (regardless of whether someone else is at the intersection), you have to stop at red lights (regardless of whether someone else is at the intersection). Your motor vehicle has to meet certain mechanical standards. You are not allowed to exceed certain speed limits (regardless of whether someone else is on the road with you.)
So what is it about the seat belt regulation that drives people batshit crazy? Of all the invasive things the government can do, this strikes me as one of the least intrusive and most sensible.
I’m sure to some it’s the same as the smoking laws.
From the perspective of free will, I agree with Branden but would make it simpler – if you’ve gotten a license & sat through the classes and chosen not to wear a seat belt, well, it’s your own fault. I personally don’t need a law to wear seat belts; I’d be dead without them.
But as far as harming no one if you don’t wear a seat belt, and while they’re trained professionals, I suspect it has some kind of lasting impact on police/medics/firefighters who respond to accidents and deal with the injured & the clean up.
So I agree with Branden & Doug, I guess.
The law got me in the habit of wearing seat belts. Prior to the law going in effect, I didn’t have strong feelings on the issue, but mainly I didn’t wear them. We’d buckle up when we crossed over the border to Ohio because they had a law, but otherwise, mostly not.
Now that I’m in the habit, I’d wear a seat belt all the time, law or not. But, it was the presence of the law that nudged me into the habit.
I really don’t think it’s fair to say that declining to wear a seatbelt doesn’t affect anyone else. Phillip mentions two relatives that don’t wear seatbelt. If those two men are the wage-earners for their respective families, certainly the rest of the family would be affected by their death or serious injury. Suppose that you are rear-ended by another driver, and instead of ending up with a sore neck, you go through the windshield. Sure, the accident wasn’t your fault, but what should have been a minor collision becomes a huge deal with your health insurer, your auto insurer, the other driver’s auto insurer, and so forth.
I don’t mean to suggest that the state should be involved in every aspect of our lives. For instance, I’m not a fan of the trans fat bans or regulation of non-addictive substances. On the other hand, I think there does need to be a balance between the burden and the benefit. The burden of wearing a seatbelt is minimal, and the benefit is significant.
Indiana forgoes milliions (I believe it’s $16,000,000.00 a year) in federal road funding becuase drivers of suv/trucks are not required to wear seat belts. Indiana does NOT have the luxury of saying no to this money. Indiana should have passed this law a LONG time ago.
Doug,I respect your opinion as always but speed limits, using turn signals,the condition of a persons motor vehicle and having to obey traffic lights all have the possibility of effecting other motorists as far as a safety concern. My wearing a seat belt effects no one else but myself it is my personal choice.
It has also been my personal experience that people who wear seat belts that I know and have known either have always buckled up or have not buckled up.My sister and brother in law have a Dodge Durango that has a truck plate she buckles up he doesn’t the same for their truck and car also.
My brother is a city policeman and hates the idea of this law because he mainly drives a truck.He also will never write seat belt violations unless it involves a minor or a child not in a car seat or possibly giving someone the choice between a seat belt violation or a speeding ticket.
Heres a question for all of you who are worried about the safety of those who do not want to wear a seatbelt:
When will there be a law to protect us from the countless reckless drivers fooling around with a cell phone??In the past few years I have been run off the road,swerved,and watched others run off the road or cross the center line all of them efin around with a cell phone!!So if were going to have a seatbelt law to protect me in my truck when will there be a law to protect me from those who do not pull off of the highway to yap on their cell phones which are far more dangerous to other motorist on the road who are not wearing a seatbelt!!
They can pass the seatbelt law but I still won’t wear one.
Shifting away from the question of whether the government ought to be in the business of requiring seat belt use for a moment.
As a practical matter, Phillip, what is your objection to using a seat belt voluntarily?
None of my business, really. But I’m curious if you’d care to elaborate.
The opposition to seatbelts just seems infantile. “Somebody TOLD ME to DO SOMETHING, and I’ll be goddamned it they’re gonna tell ME to do SHIT!” seems to be the attitude. Good. Just sign a waver that you will pay cash for any injuries you incur on the roadways. I really don’t want your “freedoms” affecting me in increased insurance premiums or increased taxes. If you agree that I won’t get the equivalent of “second-hand smoke” from your seatbeltless driving, you’ll get no objection from me. I pity your family though, that you are so put off by such a simple act that you would be willing to put them through the emotional pain of your premature death rather than wear a seatbelt.
For those who think our time zone arguments make Indiana look backward–this pissing and moaning about seatbelts puts that to shame.
Philip,
I think it was unfair of you to characterize my position as “people in rural areas are dreck”.
(At the same time, I did make an inflammatory statement, so there ya go…)
Anyway, I would hope it’s pretty clear from my post that, societally, we expect good judgment from those who have undertaken to operate a motor vehicle, or who are legal adults and therefore expect to exercise good judgment generally. To the extent that those people fail to exercise good judgment and get themselves killed in an MVA, when they might have survived by wearing proper restraints, they’re the “dreck” of the gene pool.
You’ll note I don’t apply this reasoning to children or infants. We cannot and do not expect them to show the same maturity of judgment as we do from licensed drivers (and in the case of very young children, they cannot even physically manipulate the seat belt appartus to secure themselves).
Anyway, to further counter you on your unwarranted “dreck = rural” assumption, the most lethal intersection in Indiana, according to the State Farm insurance, is 86th and Allisonville Rd. In fact, eight of the top ten are on the north side of Indianapolis[*].
If the dreck is gonna get cleaned out of the gene pool, I reckon the big city is where it’s going to happen.
[*] The other two are in Merrillville. One of the Indy locations is marked as “Carmel”, but it’s 96th and Keystone, and 96th Street at that point is the county line between Marion and Hamilton, so I reckon the intersection is as much Indy’s as Carmel’s.
Braden Robinson,
I did not mean that you implied all rural people were dreck just that rual people who drive pickups that do not agree with this bill are dreck which is fine by me if that’s your opinion.
Doug,
I just do not like the feeling of the thing(seatbelt) on me.That may seem dumb and probably is to a degree but I just never could stand the things.That said when I drove a company pickup for a time the rule was seatbelts must be worn and I wore it.I was in the companies employ,that was their rule and I followed it end of story.I just feel in my truck that should be my decision not the governments as long as I’m not harming anyone else.
I am not trying to be sarcastic but would like some thoughts from some of you about my earlier question which was if the government is going to demand I wear a seatbelt for my personal safety what about my safety which has been far more in danger numerous times because of reckless people and there cell phone distactions?Will we next make it law you must pull over to use your cell phone as some states have done?If that becomes law next do we move on to no eating while driving?Where does it end?
One more quick point about this bill I know they trot this bill out every year but correct me if I’m wrong it always seems to get closest to passing on off election years.I know last year it went no where.My point is if the politicians really believe in this bill they need to have the courage to vote for it in a election year.
Phillip,
Nope, didn’t say or imply that either. ;-)
I don’t think people in non-truck vehicles who refuse to buckle up are making any better or worse a decision than people in trucks who don’t secure themselves.
Philip,
Please also note my original comment; if you’re a licensed driver or legal adult, I don’t think the state should make you fasten your seatbelt either.
If I remember right, New Hampshire crudely approximates my preference on this front. Only people under 18 are required by law to buckle up.
It seems rational to examine causes of accidents and see if there is a statistical difference in injuries and deaths with seat belt use and without, and the statistics have consistantly told us seat belts hold down injuries and save lives. So laws to make seat belt use mandatory,at the expense of personal freedom seem like a good idea over all.How else can we look at it? Arguing personal freedom vs state control in a vaccuum of evidence seems fruitless.As was stated above,driving is already controled by state so it’s hardly a new infringment.
There was a reference above to cell phone use and the dangers on the road. Here’s an issue that needs to be documented.Ask anyone who drives a great deal and I would wager they will say hand-held cell phone use while driving is the biggest correctable hazard on roads today.Driving is very serious business and also is very dangerous, and many people have to drive to make a living and anything that is done to make it more safe for everyone should be on the agenda to discuss.
Lou,
Interestingly, the cable show MythBusters tackled the notion of cell phone use making drivers less attentive and more hazardous — and confirmed it. Two of the show’s cast performed just as poorly — failing a driver training course — when talking on a cell phone as when driving with a BAC of 0.70 to 0.75 (just under the legal limit in California).
Branden,
Well, at least they didn’t prove that drivers perform better with cell phones. . Would some people be just as inattentive doing something else or nothing as using a cell phone? That’s quite likely.
My biggest grip is having to wait in a line of left-turning cars when someone ahead has been chatting on the phone.That happens all too frequently,and sometimes I have to wait for another sequence of lights.
I would say simply keep gathering evidence and make a dossier on accidents happening when the driver is talking on a cell phone. Im not sure who should do this. I guess anti-cell phone advocates?
I have seen too many distracted people driving inattentively talking on the cell phone. Of course driving in highly congested areas makes distracted drivers more lethal. So let’s keep the cell phone dossier open and continue to gather more data.
I highly suspect my last accident was the fault of the other driver talking on a cell phone,but I didn’t see him talking on it til after he stepped out of his car,so there is no proof,and that may often be the situation.Fortunately for me, he got a ticket and I didnt, and all my damages were paid,so it wasn’t a necessary issue..His ticket was for ‘inattentive driving/failure to take due precaution’ which sounds ironically suspicious.
UPDATE FOR THOSE INTERESTED:
I contacted Rep Dave Crooks who said he believed the seatbelt bill will pass this year but I never did get a straight answer whether he supported it or not.Today however on PBS meet your lawmakers he said he would take A LOT of heat for supporting it from his constituents but would vote for it.That would have been nice to know before the election.Rep Kreg Battles stated he would vote against it.
TIME ZONES:
This ones hilarious. Crooks said he sent out a survey in which out of 2000 people 2-1 were in favor of switching back to Eastern time(his district) so get this he said he was going to have to fight Pat Bauer to try to kill his own time zone referendum bill co authored and still supported by Rep Kreg Battles.It’s funny how all these things come to light after the election.If I knew then what I know now many people I know myself included would not have voted for him although he still would have won the election since the man who ran against him Ron Arnold was a bad candidate.Anyway Crooks,Battles,and state Sen Hume said the counties request for Eastern time will be granted with the change coming this Fall.They basically stated it’s a done deal before a NPRM has ever been issued.
Lou,
You have my sympathy(wreck because of cell phone driver) I’ve had to practice defensive driving many times while driving on two lane highways to avoid people fooling around with cell phones which is why I stated earlier if the state mandates I wear a seatbelt in my truck let them do something about this problem.I will not comply with the seatbelt law if it passes anyway so oh well.Lou you also stated awhile back that the DOT would give the whole time zone situation a fair study but these state politicians say it is already a done deal before the NPRM is even issued.Do you think they know what their talking about?They seemed very confident but who the hell knows.It was a hell of a debate either way and won’t really hinder me since won’t be living in one time zone but working in another like many are now but a new group soon will be because they will now be on the wrong side of Governor Daniels and Ex-state Rep Woodruffs time zone wall!I guess I will be happy for my sister and her husband who work at Crane in the Central time zone but live in the Eastern time zone.I will feel bad however for the thousands of new residents of the counties who will now carry the time zone burden.I still say this has nothing what so ever to do with convenience of commerse and everything to do with politics!
Branden,
I misinterpreted your comments above about mythbusters proving the use of cell phone does hinder driving.I reread your commentary several times and then it dawned on me what ‘BAC at.75′ meant’ It was a reference to impaired driving under alcohol influence.Fortunately I’ve never been embarassed by not knowing things that are common knowledge…
Lou,
No big deal. All it means is that you’ve either never been pulled over on suspicion of DUI, or were too drunk to remember it… ;-)
Phillip,
Looking at your updated information, it looks like all that would be left on Indiana TZ agenda would be for Perry County to have their promised referendum on TZ preference, followed by the commissioners recommendation for possible re-petitioning with DOT.
Lou,
You are correct.When the counties petitions are granted Perry county will repetition to go back to Eastern time because of ties to Dubois county.While the decision is more than likely a done deal at least according to the lawmakers whom I spoke of above, the debate will rage on for a little while longer and get somewhat ugly probably as soon as the new group of people I believe around a thousand in Dubois county alone find out they will be on the wrong side of the time zone wall.
Lou,
This sure has seemed like a lot of trouble,debate and hard feelings for a time zone line to end up exactly where it was before this whole thing started doesn’t it??
The only hard feelings I will take away from this thing is that after the repetition is granted the local business people in Dubois county and some politicians will say this is being switched back for convenience of commerce which in my opinion just is not true,no evidence has been provided that businesses have been harmed or hurt in anyway because of Central time.Inconvenienced maybe, but since these businesses do business in all time zones the same can be said if switched back to Eastern time.I guess I’m just hard headed!
Phillip,
On the USDOT docket 22114 There’s a comment that Reps Hume,Crooks, and Battles stated on a PBS issues forum that they felt the 5 counties would be returned to ET in Nov.That’s also your comment. Kreg Battles’ district is all in CT now but would be effectively split down the middle,if true. You know the time issue well and you live in that area. It seems like TZ preference is split except for the immediate Evansville commuting area. Is this your estimation?
Lou,
Pretty much.Here’s something. Crooks sent out a survey last year where the majority from this district wanted Central time.On the PBS program he stated his new survey shows a switch where more favor Eastern time and stated the reason being was the early darkness in the Fall and Winter especially November and December and that this now was the over riding issue for people.
State Senator Hume spoke up quickly and stated the same thing I have heard in that people in the Eastern time zone hate the 10:00 pm light in the Summer which we have not experienced yet.If and when the counties switch back and people experience this for the first time the complaints will come.
This whole issue boils down to this to me and that is that what TZ you prefer is the one that will inconvenience you and your family least and that’s it period for most people.I’m not one of them but I’m in the minority.For example My sister and her husband HATE Eastern DST but because they work at Crane in the Central TZ they want Martin county to go to Eastern time and that’s it.
I am very disappointed in Sate Rep Crooks he stated last year over and over we needed a time zone referendum so the PEOPLE could vote on the issue although non-binding to see which time zone they preffered.He stated if the Dems took control in November he would write a referendum bill which he did co-authored by Battles.He then stated Saturday on PBS Lawmakers he wanted to try and kill his own bill rediculous!Battles disagreed because of the split TZ district he represents and being from Vincennes in Knox county which borders Illinois he’s between a rock and a hard place.
I believe Eastern time would win in a referendum vote but I believe anytime people want to vote on a issue they should be given a chance but the politicians are always trying to keep us out of the loop just like Doug’s post today about Senator Torr trying to make sure no future General assembly could get rid of DST.
Crooks was critical of Troy Woodruff last year for going against what his constituents wanted by voting for DST and not being truthful by saying he wouldn’t vote for it(DST)then doing the opposite.So isn’t Crooks now doing the same thing by trying to kill his own bill after promoting that very cause or bill for a year and a half?Also voting for a seatbelt bill that he admitted he would take heat for from the people in his district?
I’ve voted every year since I was 18 and one thing has been consistent in all these years and that is politicians never tell the truth and say only what people want to hear until they are elected then imediately flip flop.
Needles to say Rep Crooks can expect no more votes or cotributions from this family and several others I know I do not care who runs against him or what that person believes.I do not like flip flopers or liars.
I’m not trying to come off as childish but for heavens sake say what you mean and stand for something and stick to it waffling and flip floping are not good qualities in my opinion.I’m not saying you can’t change your mind like President Bush and continue to follow a doomed Iraq policy but on these local issues don’t say one thing then after elected flip flop!!!