Mass. House Kills Controversial Seat ...

Mass. House Kills Controversial Seat Belt Bill

There are 20 comments on the Cbs4boston.com story from May 23, 2006, titled Mass. House Kills Controversial Seat Belt Bill. In it, Cbs4boston.com reports that:

The Massachusetts House, in a dramatic reversal, voted Tuesday to kill a controversial seat belt bill that would have allowed police to pull over drivers and cite them solely for not wearing seat belts.Police ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Cbs4boston.com.

Jenn NeumeisterOReill y

New York, NY

#1 May 24, 2006
I am a resident of Taunton and I am embarassed and appauled at the fact that an elected government official would shoot down this bill. It is apparant that saving lives is NOT on this politician's (Fagan)agenda. This law, at least but MOST IMPORTANTLY, would allow police officers to pull over cars with unbelted children as passengers. I have seen alot of children and even babies, particularly in Taunton, riding in cars WITHOUT belts or car seats. I once call the police while driving behind one such car, and was told that they couldn't pull the car over without witnessing an actual offense.
As far as I am concerned, the blood is on his hands.
Arnold Koch

Marlborough, MA

#2 May 29, 2006
The key issue was never the safety benefits of wearing a seat belt, but whether the proposed law was another example of the overreach of government. No doubt enough legislators remembered that when the “secondary” seat belt law was passed in 1994, the proponents promised it would never be expanded so the police could stop a motorist solely for not wearing one.
The opponents probably realized that the insurance industry hadn’t pumped millions over decades into its unrelenting campaign just because it was concerned for personal safety. Perhaps they recognized that, eventually, failure to use a seat belt might be added to the list of insurance surchargeable offenses and, if an accident was involved, would be deemed by insurers as "contributory negligence" and grounds to deny or limit damage claims.
Rich

AOL

#3 May 29, 2006
There are enough laws.. Try enforcing the ones we already have..
I do not need state to tell me if I need a seatbelt or not.. That it is "for our own good" is a joke and an insult to anyone with an IQ over 50..
It is nothing more than another means for which to pull you over and another way of getting even deeper into our pockets.
Another reason to set up these roadblocks.. Reminds me of Nazi Germany, roadblocks and armed people demanding your papers.
There is so little crime in our state we can use our police force to do roadblocks..
I must be reading the news from someplace else.
Richard Hurtz - Holden

Holden, MA

#4 May 31, 2006
To Jenn NeumeisterOReilly: Maybe the government should make you eat your veggies too. Where is personal responsibility in this world?
Ozzie

Worcester, MA

#5 Jun 1, 2006
A big win for personal rights. If you listen to the MSM you would think that people NOT wearing seat belts were the only ones to die in car accidents. No agenda there.
DJC

Montpelier, VT

#6 Jun 4, 2006
It is appauling that the police would be allowed to do this and i believe they can in other states currently it is just another way to get qouta illegitimently, kind of like what they used to do in the 60's, when police would ride up on your bumper, get you to speed, and pull you over. the only difference is that they try to cover it up by saying its safer this way. some people who survive car accidents survive them souly because they were able to lean across the front seats and wouldnt be able to do that unless thier seatbelt was off. does this mean, that, because of a minor probablility that the family of someone who dies in an accident that is wearing thier seatbelt, can then sue the government for enforcing such a redundent law? you sure as hell know that if a survivor of any accident admits that he/she was not wearing a seatbelt they would be ticketed, what does that have to do with the accident itself? nothing. the government is wrong for this law and i believe that the american people (since this is becoming a nationwide consideration) would agree that enforcing such a law is complete bullshit, again showing the flaws in our government. the only way that seatbelts should be mandatory and enforced is when they save EVERYONE who gets into an accident which means %100 of the people in accidents wearing seatbelts survived. that though will never happen, and neither should this law.
Jenn NeumeisterOReill y

New York, NY

#7 Jun 5, 2006
Yea- eating your veggies is the same thing as a law to protect kids whose Moron parents don't buckle them in.
Jenn NeumeisterOReill y

New York, NY

#8 Jun 5, 2006
Yea- eating your veggies is the same thing as a law to protect kids whose Moron parents don't buckle them in.

Nazi Germany? no... more like land of the bleeding heart, paranoid, conspiracy theorist liberals. Look over your shoulder, Big Brother might be lurking around the corner trying to strip you of your personal liberty. Oooohhh! Please.
WBC

Richmond, VA

#9 Jun 7, 2006
Poor Jenn is a dope, Liberals are the ones who demand more goverment control..... Duhhh does jenny understand?....Duhhh
rpa

Dover, NH

#10 Jun 10, 2006
I am a firefighter who has responded to far too many motor vehicle accidents in my 24 years on the job.

I have yet seen a fatality because someone was wearing a seatbelt... but have seen many fatalities of those who were not wearing them.
Spig

Westborough, MA

#11 Jun 13, 2006
I'd say NO on the bill. I wear my safety belt ALL the time and I feel awkward driving without it. I will continue to use it law or no law. Think back to the days when we were kids...I was NEVER belted into a seat as a child, nor were any of my friends. By God...how did the population grow? Were we dumb or just plain lucky? I'd side with lucky. Different than my parents, I belt my kids into their seats, and am completely comfortable doing so. My feeling is that it's totally a money issue generated by the insurance companies and sold to the public as a safety concern. Watch, if nobody ever got injured on the road any longer and the need for EMT's dropped by 80% then there would be crying about the loos of jobs. People just love to complain, don't they? We should use our enery worrying about more important things.
Men in blue

United States

#12 Apr 13, 2017
Rich wrote:
There are enough laws.. Try enforcing the ones we already have..
I do not need state to tell me if I need a seatbelt or not.. That it is "for our own good" is a joke and an insult to anyone with an IQ over 50..
It is nothing more than another means for which to pull you over and another way of getting even deeper into our pockets.
Another reason to set up these roadblocks.. Reminds me of Nazi Germany, roadblocks and armed people demanding your papers.
There is so little crime in our state we can use our police force to do roadblocks..
I must be reading the news from someplace else.
What about using police to drag paying customers from their seats on United airplanes because the airline decides to use his seat for "more important" passengers to occupy and then attempting to bribe all the other passengers in an attempt to getting them to "forget" what they witnessed by giving them a free flight or paying for this flight on United?
Exposing truth

United States

#13 Apr 28, 2017
Men in blue wrote:
<quoted text>

What about using police to drag paying customers from their seats on United airplanes because the airline decides to use his seat for "more important" passengers to occupy and then attempting to bribe all the other passengers in an attempt to getting them to "forget" what they witnessed by giving them a free flight or paying for this flight on United?
Imagine the mistreatment that occurred prior to the invention of devices that allow viewers to see and hear what actually happened.
Rug Doctor

Dallas, TX

#14 May 2, 2017
Jenn NeumeisterOReilly wrote:
I am a resident of Taunton and I am embarassed and appauled at the fact that an elected government official would shoot down this bill. It is apparant that saving lives is NOT on this politician's (Fagan)agenda. This law, at least but MOST IMPORTANTLY, would allow police officers to pull over cars with unbelted children as passengers. I have seen alot of children and even babies, particularly in Taunton, riding in cars WITHOUT belts or car seats. I once call the police while driving behind one such car, and was told that they couldn't pull the car over without witnessing an actual offense.
As far as I am concerned, the blood is on his hands.
Last I checked school busses don't have seatbelts either.
Sophies choice

United States

#15 Jun 1, 2017
Arnold Koch wrote:
The key issue was never the safety benefits of wearing a seat belt, but whether the proposed law was another example of the overreach of government. No doubt enough legislators remembered that when the “secondary” seat belt law was passed in 1994, the proponents promised it would never be expanded so the police could stop a motorist solely for not wearing one.
The opponents probably realized that the insurance industry hadn’t pumped millions over decades into its unrelenting campaign just because it was concerned for personal safety. Perhaps they recognized that, eventually, failure to use a seat belt might be added to the list of insurance surchargeable offenses and, if an accident was involved, would be deemed by insurers as "contributory negligence" and grounds to deny or limit damage claims.
Adults should have the right to decide whether or not they feel it necessary to wear a seat belt in an automobile or a helmet while traveling on a motorcycle. However, if an injury occurs causing bodily damage that was exacerbated by anyone not wearing the appropriate protection, insurance companies should also have the right to deny any and all claims made by the injured party.
Youll do it our way

United States

#16 Jun 1, 2017
Rich wrote:
There are enough laws.. Try enforcing the ones we already have..
I do not need state to tell me if I need a seatbelt or not.. That it is "for our own good" is a joke and an insult to anyone with an IQ over 50..
It is nothing more than another means for which to pull you over and another way of getting even deeper into our pockets.
Another reason to set up these roadblocks.. Reminds me of Nazi Germany, roadblocks and armed people demanding your papers.
There is so little crime in our state we can use our police force to do roadblocks..
I must be reading the news from someplace else.
You're reading the news from Massachusetts. Ask any aspiring flagmen. The police in this state rule. Not even the bravest law maker dares hire civilians to work on these details.
Next stop Cedar Junction

United States

#17 Jun 3, 2017
Youll do it our way wrote:
<quoted text>

You're reading the news from Massachusetts. Ask any aspiring flagmen. The police in this state rule. Not even the bravest law maker dares hire civilians to work on these details.
According to today's (6/3/17) Wall Street Journal there's currently a nationwide shortage of prison guards. The prison system would gladly pay police officers in Massachusetts for working as many detail hours to which they felt entitled in prisons throughout the state to help alleviate this shortage. Citizens hope that police would take advantage of this opportunity. Not many are convinced that they'll even try.
Filling the coffers

United States

#18 Jun 11, 2017
Youll do it our way wrote:
<quoted text>

You're reading the news from Massachusetts. Ask any aspiring flagmen. The police in this state rule. Not even the bravest law maker dares hire civilians to work on these details.
Even the normally powerful chamber of commerce here in Melrose should have had exerted enough influence over our lawmakers who reduced the allowable speed limits on the streets in our city from 30 MPH to a paltry 25 MPH. You'd think that our businesses would rail against the passing of such legislation that would cause would be customers to avoid Melrose and take their business elsewhere. Is the expected increase in the income derived from the anticipated larger volume of traffic tickets to be issued by the police really worth it? Is greed always good? Even Michael Douglas could, on occasion, question whether greed for greed's sake always yields positive outcomes.
The good hands people

United States

#19 Jun 13, 2017
Filling the coffers wrote:
<quoted text>

Even the normally powerful chamber of commerce here in Melrose should have had exerted enough influence over our lawmakers who reduced the allowable speed limits on the streets in our city from 30 MPH to a paltry 25 MPH. You'd think that our businesses would rail against the passing of such legislation that would cause would be customers to avoid Melrose and take their business elsewhere. Is the expected increase in the income derived from the anticipated larger volume of traffic tickets to be issued by the police really worth it? Is greed always good? Even Michael Douglas could, on occasion, question whether greed for greed's sake always yields positive outcomes.
The positive outcomes most certainly will benefit the auto insurance companies.
Black gold

United States

#20 Jun 13, 2017
Filling the coffers wrote:
<quoted text>

Even the normally powerful chamber of commerce here in Melrose should have had exerted enough influence over our lawmakers who reduced the allowable speed limits on the streets in our city from 30 MPH to a paltry 25 MPH. You'd think that our businesses would rail against the passing of such legislation that would cause would be customers to avoid Melrose and take their business elsewhere. Is the expected increase in the income derived from the anticipated larger volume of traffic tickets to be issued by the police really worth it? Is greed always good? Even Michael Douglas could, on occasion, question whether greed for greed's sake always yields positive outcomes.
Talk about pouring salt on a wound, it's strange how traffic light sequencing is established. Not exceeding the speed limit should reward a driver to expect green lights while maintaining the speed limits printed on signs in any city or town or highway. For the most part, exceeding the limit at some point is usually the only way to achieve the desired effect of not having to sit idly wasting precious fuel while waiting for traffic lights to turn green in a confusing and hap hazard way. But not to worry. That's just another weapon in the arsenal of cities like ours hoping to snare frustrated drivers who learn that exceeding speed limits in a limited on occasion is, unfortunately, the best way to minimize the wasting of gasoline when traveling through municipalities whose timing sequences are used mainly for revenue enhancement. Sorry gang, no need to call city or town hall to rectify the situation, the money extracted from the violators mean increasingly bloated salaries for municipal administrators, our good friends in Russia and OPEC who benefit most from the wasting of the fuel they export to us and, by the way, those folks in law enforcement who make the added treasure possible.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Dedham Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pink 2 hr Pink Star 2
News Worcester restaurants close as part of 'Day Wit... 9 hr Darlene 10
Ready weed n opiods Mon Boston drop off 1
News Advocates push for in-state rates for undocumen... Jul 22 Vote Trump 2020 30
Racist Disgusting Boston (do not visit here) (Nov '16) Jul 21 Boston is Trash 61
Donald Trump for President ... and here's Why... (Nov '16) Jul 20 Fifty first 37
Hallmark Job Opportunity in Dedham Jun '17 VictorOrians 1

Dedham Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Dedham Mortgages