Seat-belt law with teeth sought - Sen...

Seat-belt law with teeth sought - Sentinel & Enterprise

There are 38 comments on the Sentinel & Enterprise story from Jul 7, 2009, titled Seat-belt law with teeth sought - Sentinel & Enterprise. In it, Sentinel & Enterprise reports that:

Efforts to make "Click It or Ticket" more than a slogan have shifted into a higher gear after a deadly holiday weekend on Bay State roadways.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sentinel & Enterprise.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Another tax

Fitchburg, MA

#26 Jul 7, 2009
This is a joke the only the state is doing it is to raise money. It's lie a tax. How can a cop tell if your wearing a seat belt or not. It should a personal choice whether or not to wear a seat belt!!
one dumb kid

Fitchburg, MA

#27 Jul 7, 2009
Marie P wrote:
It's funny you said that....When my son was going for his driving test at the RMV, the cop didn't put on his seatbelt...My son repeatedly asked him to do so and he said no...He told the man that he would not start the car unless he put one on...The cop told him that if he didn't start the car and get going, he would fail him right there and then...Of course, he started the car...Why is it this guy didn't have to put one on? We are told that we are not suppose to start driving until all passengers are buckled up yet this guy thought he was above the law...They want us all to obey the laws of the road, then they should as well...
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you but your son is a moron. What a fresh pr$%^ he is telling a state trooper what to do. The cop should have failed your son to teach him some respect!!

Gardner, MA

#28 Jul 7, 2009
One dumb kid,

I hate to tell you BUT its the passengers in a vehicle are the responsibility of the driver. He had every right to make that request as everyone who has taken a driver education class would know. Clearly, you didn't pay that bill like the rest of us. The trooper is the one with the issue not the teenager. The trooper was clearly violating the rules and should be canned, period. Power trips help no one.

To comment on the topic, individuals should not be mandated to wear their seatbelt.

Fitchburg, MA

#29 Jul 7, 2009
Everyone talks about lives being saved by seatbelts but it's never mentioned when a person dies because they had one on. My uncle hit a farm tractor and was thrown into the passenger seat. The steering column went through the drivers seat. If he was wearing a seatbelt he'd be dead. But those stories never make the news. There was another guy who was ejected from his car when it rolled and caught on fire, if he had a seatbelt on he may have burnt inside. So putting on a seatbelt doesn't guarantee you will survive an accident. I'm waitng for someone who suffers more injuries because of being forced to wear a seatbelt to sue the state for it. The government is always looking for a new aspect of our lives to control by saying it's to protect us.
Mechanical Engineer

Leominster, MA

#30 Jul 7, 2009
Not wearing a seatbelt is most irresponsible. The difference between no or minor injury versus significant injury in moderate speed accidents is well documented. Recently a young woman failed to stop at a red light, went through the intersection, collided with another vehicle and put her face through the windshield. Hitting the dashboard of a vehicle with the human skull at 25 miles an hour can result in a fatal fracture, it just depends how thick the particular skull that does the impacting is. The benefits of seat belt use is well documented, any politician who does not support robust seat belt laws is a hoax, incompetent and has no regard for the health and safety of his/her constituency.

West Barnstable, MA

#31 Jul 7, 2009
one dumb kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you but your son is a ****. What a fresh pr$%^ he is telling a state trooper what to do. The cop should have failed your son to teach him some respect!!
Oh, geez, another moron. What don't you understand about a cop swearing to uphold the laws of the state he works in?

It doesn't state anywhere "if you feel like it" or "unless your ego demands otherwise"...

There are LAWS that are in place for this state for vehicle drivers to follow. The trooper was out of line and acting as though he were (wrongly) above the laws he swore to uphold. What an ignorant power trip.
Just my opinion

Leominster, MA

#32 Jul 7, 2009
There is no question that wearing a seat-belt is the smart thing to do. But, an individual not wearing a seatbelt doesn't pose a threat to anyone other than that individual. I do not want to see our police force focusing their attention on looking into cars for seat-belt violations when there is plenty of other threats that have the potential to affect the lives of every one of us at any given time. Be smart; buckle-up and protect yourself; let the police protect us from others!

Catterick, UK

#33 Jul 8, 2009
I also agree about not forcing the seat belt law. I have a friend that was in an accident.... He also did not have a seat belt on. If he did he would be dead...... Seat belts do not promise to save your life but in fact can take your life. Seat belts should be a choice not mandatory.......

Fitchburg, MA

#34 Jul 8, 2009
I was surprised that Mr. Hargraves backs his car out of his driveway Period. That action would be suicide on my road with all the trees that need trimmed. Seat belt enforcement is a personal choice. We need less government, not more.
The golden goose is the taxpayer. Soon the little money that families had for food will be paid out for all these new taxes, fees, or whatever else you choose to call them.

Fitchburg, MA

#35 Jul 8, 2009
one dumb kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you but your son is a ****. What a fresh pr$%^ he is telling a state trooper what to do. The cop should have failed your son to teach him some respect!!
The kid was right to tell him to put on a seatbelt. If it was someone else in the passenger seat and the kid was pulled over he would get the fine for the passenger not wearing it. The trooper also could've been testing the kid to see if he would drive off with an unbuckled passenger,which would be a fine. But I guess it wasn't a test, just a cop not following the laws he is paid to enforce.

Fitchburg, MA

#36 Jul 8, 2009
For those who think the government should make laws to protect our health and safety, how about a law for not dressing properly for weather conditions. Maybe they can fine people for not wearing a coat in the winter because they could get sick and pass it on to others. Maybe fine for sneezing or coughing in public without covering your face to protect the public. Personally I'd rather see people fined for driving with a dog in their lap because that is creating a possible danger to others.
Marie P

United States

#38 Jul 8, 2009
Drivers ed 101...Excuse me but he did the right thing...One of the things the drivers ed teachers tell these kids is to make sure EVERYONE is buckled up before you move that car, otherwise you will get failed on the spot...The kids are to ask whoever is in the car to please buckle up...He did what he was told to do...The cop was the dumba$$...He is there to protect and make sure that these kids become decent, responsible drivers...HE was the one at fault.
one dumb kid wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to tell you but your son is a ****. What a fresh pr$%^ he is telling a state trooper what to do. The cop should have failed your son to teach him some respect!!
Al from Townsend

Manchester, NH

#39 Jul 8, 2009
I wear my seatbelt faithfully but certainly don't want big brother telling me to wear it. This is a personal choice issue and the gov't should back off. For all those Firemen and Police who talk about what they see at accidents scenes, I have a lot of respect for the job you do but if you can't handle, go do something else.

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#40 Jul 8, 2009
It should be the choice of the person involved as to if they want to wear a seat belt or not, with one caveat...if the person decided they didn't want to wear a seat belt, they cannot SUE ANYONE as a result of their injuries. They made the choice and should live with the consequences of their choice.

Boston, MA

#41 Jul 8, 2009
likki wrote:
A University of Wisconsin study demonstrated that car accident victims who had not worn seatbelts cost the hospital (and the state in the case of the uninsured) on average 25% more

The people who say "It only affects me!" are so wrong. The increased cost of hospitalization of non-seatbelt wearing accident survivors is surely passed on to us all in creased health insurance premiums.

Also there's the aspect of injury responsibility. If I'm at fault in an accident and the other party is injured because they were not wearing a seatbelt, I'm sure I will be sued/charged on the injuries actually sustained, not the injuries the would have been sustained if they had been wearing a seatbelt.

So, to the people here to don't want to wear seatbelts fine, don't wear them, I don't care. But don't then go and ask my health insurance company to foot the hospital bill if injured, or ask for financial assistance or handicapped access if crippled, or sue the other driver for life altering injuries, or expect your life insurance company to pay up if killed.

If you refuse to do something that's so simple and costs you nothing, then I should be able to refuse to accommodate your decision in any way.

I wonder how many would choose not to wear seatbelts. If by doing so they would be required to pay the full hospital bill, and loose the right to sue another driver for injuries?

Also, I would like to see statistics on how many people are injured because of a non seatbelt wearing occupant in the same car flying around in the car in an accident.

My feeling is that the root motivation of most people who don't wear seatbelts is a childish refusal to do what they are told.

And the same arguments apply to motorcycle helmets as well.
old townie

Princeton, MA

#42 Jul 9, 2009
I think this seems well intentioned, seatbelt use is a good idea, as it does save lives, but how much of our personal lives are we willing to have someone control by legislation?


Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#44 Jul 9, 2009
This is a way to bilk more money out of the taxpayer. The legislature has made some under-handed deal with the Insurance companies. The voters twice have voted against this yet the legislature enacted it ignoring our vote. I guarantee the insurance industry will be raking in the dough with this law....
Bagdad Harry

United States

#46 Jul 9, 2009
Anyway wrote:
<quoted text>
where it is also legal to get on a motorcycle without a helmet. Now THAT is stupid!
Live Free or Die (of a concussion)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

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.

Walpole Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Road Pavement Jul '17 bobbyd 1
Review: iLoveKickboxing - Norwood, MA (Jul '16) May '17 IHateKickboxing 30
Beatles For Sale returns to E. Walpole in June May '17 Beatleman 1
Hallmark Job Opportunity in Walpole May '17 VictorOrians 1
What say you Ernie Bock Jr (Oct '16) Apr '17 Archie Bunker 5
Election Who do you support for Sheriff in Massachusetts... (Oct '10) Apr '17 Butch Cassidy 13
sharon ma voted best ton in U.S.? (Aug '13) Apr '17 Cohen 2

Walpole Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Walpole Mortgages