"Case Dismissed" There is justice.

reply to post by diggindirt


Thank you for your candid replies, they are very informative!

I personally see no issue with you not buckling up as there is no legal requirement to do so where you are in the car you drive and you do have insurance that satisfies your needs.

You are clearly aware of the very laws involved here and you live within them and still maintain your freedoms and that is something to be admired.

Please keep us updated on how you will deal with the 'punk' policeman!

diggindirt

AutumnWitch657
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Just because you lost friends in car fires doesn't mean that's going to happen to you. (I am sorry for your loss. )
It doesn't even make it likely. How many lives were lost by flying through a windshield. I'm your age and I remember cars without seat belts and how often there were accidents where people died by going through the glass.
If you're not secure with the old style belts or worry it may jam have new ones with push button release installed. Do what ever it takes but please
Buckle Up...

The answer to your question is that they make me very uncomfortable so I don't like to wear them. I have that right in my state because I lobbied the legislature to exclude antique and vintage cars from the law.
I could easily say to you---just because you can hold a cell phone to your ear, it doesn't mean you should. Lots of studies are beginning to show that those nifty little devices that are held next the brain are causing problems with brain function, especially in children's undeveloped brains.
Lots of studies are showing that fluoride in the water is decreasing intelligence.
See how that works?
Do you know who first lobbied for seat belts? Was the medical profession? or insurance companies? If you are my age then you will remember that it was the insurance lobby that supported the mandatory seat belt laws. They simply paid docs to line up behind them and say "Seat belts save lives." time and time again. If you've ever talked with ER docs and nurses about the subject you'll find that a goodly number wouldn't fasten a seat belt on a dare, especially the shoulder/chest belts. While you're at it, ask them about all the injuries from air bags and how many children and small people were/are killed by air bag deployment.
Then, governments realized they could bring in a ton of revenue....and well, it's been pretty profitable for them. They even get grants from the federal government to set up "Click It or Ticket" roadblocks...they are SO concerned with our health....nah....if they were actually concerned with our health they wouldn't be pouring toxic waste into the drinking water and sending SWAT teams to organic food stores, co-ops and farms.
You know, don't you that people are hurt/die all the time from parachutes failing to open when people jump out of perfectly good airplanes? Why has this practice not been banned by government? I lost a former student to a failed parachute when she was doing what she loved best---jumping from a plane for fun. It was her right and although I miss her I would never have told her "You shouldn't do that because you might get hurt." That's just crazy talk. She was an adult human being who knew the risks and made her decision.
You may be right, I might be in an accident someday and die due to not wearing a seat belt. Then again, I might trip on the stairs tomorrow and break my neck and die or spend the rest of my days regretting that I decided to go downstairs to get a drink of water.
In the end---it is my life and my choice.
My husband has already survived a ruptured aorta back in '85, which the docs say make him 1 in 5 million people. He was on a motorcycle, doing the speed limit, wearing a helmet---but the inattentive driver hit him in the chest rather than the head. Geeze, ya just never know do ya?

I don't own a cell phone and used to have one of those disposable tracfons that stayed in my purse unless it was an emergency.

Do you wonder that the insurance companies lobbied for a safety device to be required on all vehicles?
Having to pay so many death claims.
They only saw this as a long black car ride to the bone yard themselves.
The insurance companies are not here to go broke paying claims day in and day out.
Surely you're not against the free enterprise system. It's one thing that makes this country great.

The warnings for the airbags plainly states that small children can be hurt and they recommend that they sit in back. Some concerned citizens lobbied to require that the car manufacturers post these warnings where they will be seen . If someone chooses to disregard the warnings, well ...
You can have the airbag disabled on either side if your small yourself.

The laws were usually not set up that seat belts were a primary reason to pull people over. In most states it had to be a different violation with seat belts a secondary.
There have been safety checks on some of our roads . Sure you could say it's just a way to fill the coffers. I know a lot of people feel this way about LE. The other side of that coin is that they find vehicles that really are a hazard or their drivers are .


You certainly have a list there and I can't answer to each and every one just know that for every argument you can offer someone else can debate it. We are free to have our own thoughts and ideas too.
You are absolutely correct in stating that this is your right. A right that you were able to lobby for and eventually put through to become law. I commend you for taking advantage of the laws that enable you to do that.
I only question your cause.

juspassinthru

spooky24
Judges make a lot of enemy's-actually traffic court and DUI judges get more threats that criminal court judges. If you recall Charles Harrelson father of Woody is serving a life sentence for killing a judge-the whole thing started out with a parking ticket.

Maybe it started with a legitimate parking ticket. A parking ticket written because the public was put in jeopardy because of where Harrelson's vehicle was parked. Maybe, just maybe it started because it was just another revenue generating fraud by yet another bureaucratic group trying to meet their overblown budgets.

As far as the OP being ticketed after they gave the cop the text of the relevant law, at minimum these victims should be suing both the officer and the department. This scumbag cop needs his a** handed to him.

I certainly don't disagree with this either nor the OPs stating the statute to the cop. The officer should not have written the ticket.
You can try bringing suit but an old saying about how you can't sue city hall comes to mind.
I'd say a nice piece in a local paper say right around someone's election time could be a wiser and even more efficient way to deal with the problem. You could publish court costs showing the wasted revenue. Perhaps if the budget is over blown cutting down on bogus court appearances and paying an officer to spend the day in court could help balance it a bit.

reply to post by Domo1


When I was thirteen there was a bad crash on the corner one block away from my house. The sound was like thunder. A sixteen year old girl was ejected from the vehicle when the car she was in was t-boned. She died when she hit the street sign post breaking her neck and back.
Her name was Denise Brown. I didn't know her but I'll never forget her either.

Maybe a compromise can be found regarding seatbelts.

How about this, if you are involved in an incident while not wearing a seatbelt, even one not of your making, you forfeit the right to sue anyone for your injuries and/or damage to your vehicle. You forfeit the right to an insurance payout of any kind.

However should you, by the inaction of wearing a seatbelt, cause damage or injury to anyone else or their property, you are required to recompense them either from your own funds, if you are still alive, or from your estate if you died in the incident.

That would make the insurance firms happy, as they won't have to pay out on your own stupidity, and it will make you happy as you don't have to wear a belt.

In my opinion, the law exists, not to make insurance firms richer, but to protect people from their own stupidity. The whole "don't have to, therefore won't" ethos. Insurance firms favoured and lobbied for the law, maybe in the states, I can't comment on that, I'm from the UK. They didn't here, it was a pure governmental action to counter the rapidly rising number of deaths caused by people not wearing their belts.

It's not speed that kills, its suddenly stopping. When that happens, your inertia, if unrestrained, turns you into a lethal projectile, and you are going to kill or at least seriously injure yourself, and anyone else you might hit in the process of being a projectile. The belt isn't JUST for your safety, its also to protect your passengers from you.

reply to post by diggindirt


Meh I tend to agree with you. If you have appropriate insurance on the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for you if you wind up in a vegetative state you shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt. I feel the same way about helmet laws. That doesn't mean I don't think people who refuse to wear seat belts or helmets aren't taking a huge dumb risk. I don't see any good reason to not wear a seat belt or a helmet. Yes, in extremely bizarre cases the seat belt or helmet winds up killing someone, or the lack of wearing on or the other winds up saving someone. Those are bizarre cases. I'll link a video that always makes me WTF. I HIGHLY doubt this guy was belted in.



I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't want to see you killed when something that takes a split second to do could easily save your life.

And just for your information, my car is very safe, has regular six month check-ups with the mechanic and is made of metal, not plastic. I've survived two rear-endings with only a tail-light broken. The other guys' entire front cap fell off both times because the car was made of plastic. Those cars probably need seat belts to be safe.

If it was built in the 70's it's not very safe. It has bad brakes, bad glass, bad seat belts (that you don't use), bad seats, poor handling, no crumple zones to mitigate force, no airbags, awful traction and crappy lights. I've owned a few (well the oldest was a '70). I loved them all, but even with a complete overhaul of the suspension and brakes they are unsafe. Being well maintained does not mean safe.

The front is SUPPOSED to fall off on newer cars. They have crumple zones. They help mitigate force. There seems to be a misconception among non car people that a bumper cover is a bumper. Underneath my bumper cover (I've taken the thing off 3 times in under 7k total miles for... reasons) is a burly ass piece of metal that is the bumper.

Your car is unsafe, and should probably be illegal on the roads unless you've dumped over $30k into the suspension and brakes.

It should be like a scooter. Only allowed to go 30MPH. It's a novelty item. Awesome looking, full of nostalgia, completely unfit for anything over 35 MPH. I'll give you the 5 MPH extra.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by Domo1

 

When I was thirteen there was a bad crash on the corner one block away from my house. The sound was like thunder. A sixteen year old girl was ejected from the vehicle when the car she was in was t-boned. She died when she hit the street sign post breaking her neck and back.
Her name was Denise Brown. I didn't know her but I'll never forget her either.

WHat side was she t boned from? ANd really you get hit hard enough your seatbelt can snap your neck just as well. It only goes so far before it stops suddenly. When are peole going to learn when its your time to die there is no stopping it? And yes the Seatbelt laws ARE breaking into people rights. their cars should be considered private property and a peice of their home away from home.

Look, any guy who wanders in off the internet can give you a story of a loved one or friend who was killed in a car accident who would have maybe not died had they had a seat belt on.

The OP clearly recognizes this...

The entire POINT to this whole thread is that our society seems to have fallen into this hyper-legislative era of MANDATING personal safety for consenting adults when it only effects the individual in question.

This sort of Legislating individual choices because 'its whats good for you' is diametrically opposed to the American notion of freedom.

I too am from Kentucky, I too realize that its actually a GOOD thing to wear your seatbelt, it COULD save your life, its also GOOD for you not to eat fast food, not to watch TV late at night, not to spank your children, not to call your spouse mean names, not to leave dog poop in your back yard, not to forget to change the batteries in your smoke alarm, not to do many things which are ACTUALLY or POSSIBLY bad for you in varying degrees of intensity and varying degrees of severity.

Should we litigate all of these potential problems? Oh, because the state knows whats best for you, you stupid little peons cant be trusted to make good decisions for yourself.

Well you know what, Even if that is true, screw it, Let Personal Freedom be the rule, and if people want to do harmful things to themselves that don't directly effect the well being of any other intentional agents (man or beast) then they should be allowed to do so.

Want to drink too much Bourbon? Go for it. Want to smoke Cigs? go for it! Want to watch disgusting poop themed pornography, Go for it! Want to use illicit substances which could harm your health? You should be able to. Hell, you should be able to legally just kill yourself if you want to, Because this is America, where you can choose to be as stupid or as intelligent as your cognitive capacity directs you, and the damn government shouldn't be LEGISLATING intelligent decisions for the masses of morons thus thwarting natural selection, people should be able to make unhealthy and idiot choices if they wish.

Just my opinion

reply to post by RalagaNarHallas


My '72 Ford Gran turino was rearended by an 85 Buick Regal. The regal folded like an accordion and I got a ding in my chrome bumper . Monster of a car.
I was wearing my lap seat belt as was my front seat passenger. No bumped heads.

reply to post by yuppa


I was thirteen. That was 44 years ago.
She was a front seat passenger. Not wearing a seat belt. Her boyfriend the driver ran a stop sign going south and was hit by a car going east. This was told to me at the scene by my cousin who saw it happen. If I recall the car was facing almost west when it came to a stop.I think it spun completely around. Denise was at the rear of the vehicle about fifteen feet off to the right. That's all I know. I heard it but I didn't see it. I saw her on the ground and the cars smashed .

reply to post by immoralist


Not wearing a seat belt does not only effect the individual all the time. What if someone in the passenger seat who happens to not be wearing a seat belt gets jostled to the left on a sharp right hand turn because the driver takes it a little to fast. Then in bumping the driver , the driver pulls to the left and hits a tree. Now the decision has affected two people.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by immoralist

 

Not wearing a seat belt does not only effect the individual all the time. What if someone in the passenger seat who happens to not be wearing a seat belt gets jostled to the left on a sharp right hand turn because the driver takes it a little to fast. Then in bumping the driver , the driver pulls to the left and hits a tree. Now the decision has affected two people.

stretchin for that one...

ThePublicEnemyNo1
reply to post by diggindirt

 

What a Jackass!!!! I had the same thing happen to me here in So Cal. However, my situation was a tad bit different. I encountered a California Highway Patrolman that admitted he pulled me over simply so he could check out my 1968 Barracuda. He went on to say that if I showed up in court, he would just walk away...and he kept his word.

I feel bad for you, because I know how that feels. My husband and I have been pulled over 3 times in one month for not wearing a seat belt in a 1955 Chevy Bel Air! What the heck? Always dismissed, but never compensates for the time wasted going to court.

I said "the next time it happens...I'm suing the crap out of the next A Hole who cites me, when I'm legally riding/driving with no seat belt". Mind you going about 35 miles per hour.

What a piece of work your cop was

edit on 3/28/14 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: spelling

Cannot stand you or people like the OP. You are the type who will sue if you get into an accident and are thrown through your windshield.You'll blame the car manufacturer instead of yourself for not wearing a seatbelt.And calm your tits, you ain't suing nobody. I sincerely hope you don't need that cops help when you inevitably wreck.And get hurt because you wanted to show [the man" that legally you dont have to wear a seat belt.

It's disturbing so many here think it's okay not to wear a seat belt because the law says you don't have to. Same with those idiots I see out on the highway not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle.

spooky24
I'm only a few miles south of the base and I will never believe that this exchange occurred in a court in session that is public record.

"The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice. I smiled and thanked them both. The judge's comment was, "Well, I've learned something today. But you really should wear your seat belts." I smiled again and said nothing more.

You are telling me that David J. Hale had this exchange with you and a non mentioned judge over a seat belt violation in open court?.
" But you really should wear your seat belts" That could get your mystery judge impeached for misconduct as it is not up to the judge to decide how laws are enforced. Also, you charged that you were given 'special treatment' by the judge because you knew him? This stuff is public record.

You rant and rail at the system yet you do EXACTLY what you rant and rail about- You smiled at DA Hale and the judge and get off?

What in the Sam hill would the District Attorney be doing in traffic court?

Good job-the officer was trying to save your life.

If I could give you 10 stars I would. Said it better then I could.

I do not believe it went down like she said. Not over a seat belt ticket.

No way. Reread the OP and you'll see what I mean.

reply to post by AutumnWitch657

The insurance companies are not here to go broke paying claims day in and day out.
Surely you're not against the free enterprise system. It's one thing that makes this country great.

So, if the outcome of the accident is death and the person who died was not wearing a seatbelt, then the insurance company simply does not pay.

That should be the law, not the one requiring people to wear the belt.

ANNED

The district attorney stated that was his reading of the statute as well and therefore his only choice was to dismiss the charge with prejudice

This could allow them to use the ticket against you later.

if you are caught in a post 1981 car and you were not wearing your seat belt thy might try to make this a second offense.
and in many cases a second offense is 2 to 3 times the fine of a first offense.

No, it means that the case can't be brought up again.

In criminal prosecutions, dismissal with prejudice bars the government from prosecuting the accused later on the same charge.

definitions.uslegal.com...

Domo1
reply to post by diggindirt

 

Meh I tend to agree with you. If you have appropriate insurance on the taxpayers aren't forced to pay for you if you wind up in a vegetative state you shouldn't have to wear a seatbelt. I feel the same way about helmet laws. That doesn't mean I don't think people who refuse to wear seat belts or helmets aren't taking a huge dumb risk. I don't see any good reason to not wear a seat belt or a helmet. Yes, in extremely bizarre cases the seat belt or helmet winds up killing someone, or the lack of wearing on or the other winds up saving someone. Those are bizarre cases. I'll link a video that always makes me WTF. I HIGHLY doubt this guy was belted in.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't want to see you killed when something that takes a split second to do could easily save your life.

And just for your information, my car is very safe, has regular six month check-ups with the mechanic and is made of metal, not plastic. I've survived two rear-endings with only a tail-light broken. The other guys' entire front cap fell off both times because the car was made of plastic. Those cars probably need seat belts to be safe.

If it was built in the 70's it's not very safe. It has bad brakes, bad glass, bad seat belts (that you don't use), bad seats, poor handling, no crumple zones to mitigate force, no airbags, awful traction and crappy lights. I've owned a few (well the oldest was a '70). I loved them all, but even with a complete overhaul of the suspension and brakes they are unsafe. Being well maintained does not mean safe.

The front is SUPPOSED to fall off on newer cars. They have crumple zones. They help mitigate force. There seems to be a misconception among non car people that a bumper cover is a bumper. Underneath my bumper cover (I've taken the thing off 3 times in under 7k total miles for... reasons) is a burly ass piece of metal that is the bumper.

Your car is unsafe, and should probably be illegal on the roads unless you've dumped over $30k into the suspension and brakes.

It should be like a scooter. Only allowed to go 30MPH. It's a novelty item. Awesome looking, full of nostalgia, completely unfit for anything over 35 MPH. I'll give you the 5 MPH extra.

My insurance agent is a "car guy" and his opinion is that vehicles made in the '60s and '70s are the safest cars he insures. My brakes and suspension are regularly maintained the same as the engine. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that well maintained doesn't mean safe? I'm really curious.
My mechanic races cars made in the '60s. Unlike mine, his are muscle cars but he gives the same care and attention to mine to be sure I'm safe. It's true that parts are getting harder to find but he goes to lots of car shows and finds the most amazing things that are brand new. Just last year he found us a carburetor, new in the box, so he's says we're good for another 350k miles on that. He could give you all the reasons that he feels safer in an older car. Not me, I'm no car person so for the past 30 years I've depended on him and his expertise. As a result, despite the fact that I drive classic cars, I've never been left on the side of the road due to something on the car failing. It may happen tomorrow but I think his record speaks for itself.
Mine are not sporty or muscle cars, just 4 door sedans that have been kept. Yeah, I have a '63 Jag that draws attention because people don't recognize it as a Jag unless the notice the hood ornament. But because the Jag doesn't get the best gas mileage, I usually drive the car I was driving when the cop caught sight of me. It gets 29 mpg on the road when I take it over the mountains to the east coast a few times a year, was built after oil embargo nonsense and built for mileage and comfort. It is cheap to maintain, relative to what I hear others saying about newer vehicles and it is cheap to insure relatively speaking.
I do appreciate your concern for my life. I've had a good one but our children are grown and weaned. I've had a wonderful life full of great adventures and a few bumpy parts---one caused when a distracted driver turned directly in front of my husband's motorcycle and caused him to suffer a ruptured aorta. But hey, nobody promised me that I would live forever so I've decided to live my life as I see fit, in freedom from the nanny state so far as it is possible.
As my Mammy used to say: "To each his own said the old lady as she kissed the cow."

BMorris
Maybe a compromise can be found regarding seatbelts.

How about this, if you are involved in an incident while not wearing a seatbelt, even one not of your making, you forfeit the right to sue anyone for your injuries and/or damage to your vehicle. You forfeit the right to an insurance payout of any kind.

However should you, by the inaction of wearing a seatbelt, cause damage or injury to anyone else or their property, you are required to recompense them either from your own funds, if you are still alive, or from your estate if you died in the incident.

That would make the insurance firms happy, as they won't have to pay out on your own stupidity, and it will make you happy as you don't have to wear a belt.

In my opinion, the law exists, not to make insurance firms richer, but to protect people from their own stupidity. The whole "don't have to, therefore won't" ethos. Insurance firms favoured and lobbied for the law, maybe in the states, I can't comment on that, I'm from the UK. They didn't here, it was a pure governmental action to counter the rapidly rising number of deaths caused by people not wearing their belts.

It's not speed that kills, its suddenly stopping. When that happens, your inertia, if unrestrained, turns you into a lethal projectile, and you are going to kill or at least seriously injure yourself, and anyone else you might hit in the process of being a projectile. The belt isn't JUST for your safety, its also to protect your passengers from you.

Okay, under your belief system as expressed above, "In my opinion, the law exists, not to make insurance firms richer, but to protect people from their own stupidity." that government should protect people from their own stupidity, we should be throwing about 40%-50% of the population of the US into jail and feeding them only bread and water until they get their weight under control. Wouldn't you agree that hauling around an extra 30 pounds or more is just stupid since it leads to higher rates of all sorts of health problems? So why aren't we dealing with that? Why aren't we demanding a "fat law" that requires everyone to go down to the local health department and do a weigh-in on an annual basis? Why aren't we taxing them for all that extra weight they're carrying about and costing the health care system?
I understand that you don't live in the US so you probably don't understand the concept of freedom as I knew it in the US. I grew up believing in this: We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

reply to post by diggindirt


Wait a minute.
You had a perfectly good seatbelt in your car, and you refused to wear it?
Have you ever been in a car accident before?
They are extremely violent, extremely fast, and extremely damaging to the human body.
I believe you, that you should have the right not to wear a seatbelt, even in a modern car. You also have the right to live with the consequences though (paralysis, brain damage, or death from a car accident).
Common sense tells me that you SHOULD wear a seat belt!

immoralist

The entire POINT to this whole thread is that our society seems to have fallen into this hyper-legislative era of MANDATING personal safety for consenting adults when it only effects the individual in question.

Well you know what, Even if that is true, screw it, Let Personal Freedom be the rule, and if people want to do harmful things to themselves that don't directly effect the well being of any other intentional agents (man or beast) then they should be allowed to do so.

The damn government shouldn't be LEGISLATING intelligent decisions for the masses of morons thus thwarting natural selection, people should be able to make unhealthy and idiot choices if they wish.

# Trouble is it does sometimes effect other individuals .... If the driver has an

accident which leaves them needing 24/7 attention for the rest of their lives?

Who pays the medical bills?

If they have children/dependants who will support them now?


Through their right to 'Personal Freedom they will now be totally dependant on

the 'benefits system' in other words the taxpayer (maybe even you?)