On primary offenses

imported post

DarkHorse wrote:

Well, in a worldwhere everything that is black and white.....then it wouldn't be.

However, wearing a seatbelt is related to driving a car that produces statistics like this.....

"Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes."

So, I would be interested in knowing another one of these activities that has that big of an impact.

Click to expand...

Where did these stats come from? How many of these accidents involved a driver or passengerwithout a seatbelt on?People die in car crashes that actually have seatbelts on, so how many of these deaths would have been prevented by the use of seat belts?

These stats are incomplete and resemble the "statistics" provided by anti's in the effort to ban guns.

In 2000, the Journal of the American Medical Association quoted435,000 deaths associated totobacco use, and 85,000 deaths associated to alcohol. Why are these activities still allowed?

imported post

DarkHorse wrot

Car Crash Stats: There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes."

So, I would be interested in knowing another one of these activities that has that big of an impact.

Click to expand...

And how many of those crashes wouldn't have occurred if the occupants had/hadn't been wearing seatbelts?

No direct correlation.

Just like there's no direct correlation between the number of "children" dying in gun accidents and the number of concealed-carry permits, or between the number of "children" dying in gun accidents and the number of firearms sold.

Relevance .....

imported post

DarkHorse wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

DarkHorse wrote:

snip.......
So, I would be interested in knowing another one of these activities that has that big of an impact.

Click to expand...

Living.

Eating.

Smoking..

Drinking.

Fill in the blanks.....................

Yata hey

Click to expand...

I guess I never considered "living" an activity in the same contextas driving a car. But, I guess when we start making arguments like this.....clearly there is no middle ground to discuss here.

BTW- What is the history with your signature"Yata Hey"?

Click to expand...

My primary point is that there are risks in many of our behaviors and I do not wish the govt to legislate or attempt to control all of these for my alleged safety.

I for one, never move my vehicle without first buckling up and would never ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I would rather see insurance companies requiring these to recover benefits than legislators passing more laws.

Was not trying to close the door on sharing of ideas but you did ask.

PM sent re: signature line

Yata hey

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

I'm just saying that debating whether or not the state should require us to wear seatbelts has strayed from our purpose here.

Click to expand...

Yes. I was curious how something that is totally legal can be treated illegal while something that is clearly illegal must be ignored by law enforcement.

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

As strongly as I feel about this subject, we're really starting to lose any connection with open carry here.

~ Boyd

Click to expand...

You're right and I am one of the guilty parties. So folks, I regret taking this thread down a different path.

imported post

Dispatcher wrote:

The officer can stop you for any violation of the law. If you aren't wearing your seatbelt and he can plainly see that, he can stop you.

Click to expand...

Not true.

§ 46.2-1094. Occupants of front seats of motor vehicles required to use safety lap belts and shoulder harnesses; penalty.

Blah, blah, blah......

F. No citation for a violation of this section shall be issued unless the officer issuing such citation has cause to stop or arrest the driver of such motor vehicle for the violation of some other provision of this Code or local ordinance relating to the operation, ownership, or maintenance of a motor vehicle or any criminal statute.

Without cause to stop a motorist in the first place, the policecan't stop you just to lecture you about not using your seat belt.

The state lawmakers have been very clear in stating the reason they won't make a seat belt violation a primaryoffense.... namely, because the cops will abuse it to stop people and conduct plain view searches and all these other little tricks they execute during traffic stops. They were also afraid a seat belt violation as a primary offense would simply give the police another tool in racial profiling.

imported post

Which is the basis for my original post. We are seeing people getting stopped and harassed here on Norfolk and even more so in other states while clearly breaking the law as in the case of seatbelt use cannot legally invite even stopping the vehicle for a friendly reminder.

imported post

HardChrome wrote:

Which is the basis for my original post. We are seeing people getting stopped and harassed here on Norfolk and even more so in other states while clearly breaking the law as in the case of seatbelt use cannot legally invite even stopping the vehicle for a friendly reminder.

Click to expand...

There isn't anything friendly about being stopped for any reason.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

HardChrome wrote:

Which is the basis for my original post. We are seeing people getting stopped and harassed here on Norfolk and even more so in other states while clearly breaking the law as in the case of seatbelt use cannot legally invite even stopping the vehicle for a friendly reminder.

Click to expand...

There isn't anything friendly about being stopped for any reason.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. An officer could stop you for a burned out tali light and not issue a summons. That would be pretty friendly. I had one stop me for not having my current year stickers on my plates. I had them but had just forgotten to go out and put them on. He was friendly.