Seat belts in Massachusetts

[anhinga_anhinga]

"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 can now cite drivers for not buckling up only if they pull them over for some other reason.

The 80-76 vote is an about-face for the House, which had voted to approve the bill in January by a narrow 76-74 margin. The Senate backed the bill by a wide margin after debating it last week. [...]"

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/23/house_in_dramatic_reversal_votes_against_primary_seat_belt_bill/

Comments

[spamsink.livejournal.com]

What's your stance on that law? Do you agree with the personal responsibility argument (contra), the selective enforcement argument (contra), or with the societal harm reduction argument (pro)?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

The selective enforcement is a compromise, right?

I actually tend to like moderation and moderate solutions and compromises.

Besides, the loyalty to the wishes of my SO would prevent me from supporting this law, even if I were to do so in the absence of such wishes :-)

Not all politics should be based on "big principles", sometimes it is based on the "constituency" which can be very small :-) Although I am very much for the use of seat belts..

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

After more thought, I don't agree with the personal responsibility argument, as long as fines for seat belt violations effectively only amount to a moderate tax, although imposed in a strange way, and don't contribute to the loss of driving privileges..

Basically, imposing moderate taxes for socially harmful things is OK in my book..

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

So.. we thought about parking restrictions on our street and decided that we actually like them, and that when we are too lazy to park a car where it should be parked, if a fine is imposed it's OK and should be considered a parking fee, but we don't want our street to be everyone's parking space around the clock, we want it to be empty of cars, even if we have to pay for that once in a while..

Similarly, it's OK to pay a fine on top of a ticket as a "seat belt tax", but it's not OK to be harassed by the police, just because it wants to collect this tax, when one just passes by peacefully..

It's a strange logic, I guess, but that's what it is :-)

[spamsink.livejournal.com]

Using this analogy, as nothing prevents the parking department from giving you a ticket every night when your car is standing there peacefully, then why shouldn't the police be able to impose the "seat belt tax" every time it sees a possibility?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

a traffic stop is not a "peaceful event", unlike writing a parking citation..

the police should not be able to insist on contact with people without a good reason (and not wearing a seat belt is not good enough)..

[spamsink.livejournal.com]

In my words (and I agree with you), the fiscal and societal benefits of enforcing the seat belt law as a primary cause are too small to justify the time spent by both parties and the use of the police and judicial resources.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Yes, but it's not just time, it's also privacy of the people and their safety.

For example, there is a big overhead when an officer (who has a gun) insists on talking with an unknown person, who is not a priori known to be unarmed, etc. The society is a better place when these contacts happen less often..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

is there a child seat requirement in MA? If yes, do you support it?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

yes, and yes..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

then how different is the seat belt enforcement? If police officers can stop motorists whose children are not in the car seats, why can't they stop motorists whose children are not wearing seat belts? The requirement for child seat/booster covers only kids under 12 years old (or 80 lbs, I forget). Shouldn't the 13 year olds be protected as well?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

The cut-off age is probably different here. And I don't know whether police can actually stop people for this as a primary offense here. But, in any case, the question is when the child is old enough to decide this for him/herself?

This is a somewhat orthogonal question anyway: there are states which have seat belt requirements for kids, but not for adults. As far as I know, this bill was not about seat belt requirements specific for kids, which might be different.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Our cut-off for child seats is 5 years old and 40 pounds. Which is why I support this requirement..

So it's basically unrelated..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

Maybe I'm not explaning it right. After the car seat (up to 40 lbs and 5 (in my state 7) years) come the boosters (up to 80 lbs and (maybe or) 12 years), and police can actually stop a motorists for violation of this rule. Kids under 12 can not ride in the front passanger seat either (I am not sure, but I think it's a similar offence for which you can be stopped and fined). That's why I am asking - should a 13 year old who is not wearing a seat belt be protected as a 12 year old in the fron seat (or without a booster)? If the answer is yes, then police should have a mandate to stop a car in which a 13 years old is riding unprotected. More than that, since it's a tough call to tell if a passenger is 13 or less, a reasonable suspicion might be enough for a police officer to act, in which case a driver who's not wearing a seat belt can be fined at the same time. Child car seats/boosters/not riding in the front seat laws are generally enough to make any driver with an unrestrained passenger a target.
My point is, either all laws allowing police to stop any car for any restraint violation should be abolished, or a law that targets only drivers should not be seen as a big threat. If I am allowing police to stop any car with an unrestrained passanger, I might just as well give them a license to stop an unrestrained driver.
Personally, I'm on the fence about it - if it's not going to change police behavior much (they won't set up traps to catch unrestrained motorists), we'll end up with a law that nobody bothers to enforce. And if police will have to add this task to their responsibilities, will they have time to do anything else?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> After the car seat (up to 40 lbs and 5 (in my state 7) years) come the boosters (up to 80 lbs and (maybe or) 12 years), and police can actually stop a motorists for violation of this rule.

But not in Massachusetts. And I don't support the way it is done in your state.. I only support this extra restriction for really small kids, and 5 years of age (which is what we have) looks to me like a reasonable cut-off..

Even in your version of law, if we assume that the police would not typically abuse their "reasonable suspicion" criterion, but would behave with some integrity, there is quite a bit of difference. And we do assume that the police would often abuse their guidelines, this is an extra reason to curtail their power ("when in doubt, restrict the police power").

> if it's not going to change police behavior much (they won't set up traps to catch unrestrained motorists)

They were actually planning some stupid campaign of this sort, if I understand it correctly. Yes, it would probably come at the expense of doing what actually needs to be done..

I felt that what we have now is a finely tuned comprimise, and, in some sense, finely tuned compromises are the essence of good legislation.

But I posted because it seemed like an interesting development (and something which impacts the lives of some of the readers of this LJ), not necessarily to lobby for my position. I only explained what my position was because I was asked in the comments.

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Another way to think about it is this: if we base our logic on an idea that police cannot tell the age of a person, then we might just as well give them a license to stop any driver for no reason (for example, to check whether the driver might be an underaged person, who cannot have a license).

But.. we probably don't want to do that.. In some sense, police is already able to find a "reasonable suspicion" of something almost every time they really want to stop a driver (e.g. that's how "racial profiling" works in many places), but we don't want to further encourage arbitrary stops, we should instead try to curtail arbitrary stops more..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

Well, that sort of was my point - they already can stop you for a variety of quite legitimate reasons, so eliminating just one of them might not yield any results. :)

I agree about the arbitrary stops - some are definitely downright scary. However, we sort of imply that police generally want to make as many arbitrary stops as possible and they'll just jump at opportunity to start checking ages/belts/etc. I don't think that's the case, they are way too busy with other things (at least in my state).

Like I said, I have mixed feelings about seat belts - on one hand, if an adult doesn't want to use them, let him be. However, the rest of us bear the cost of serious accidents through higher insurance premiums, ambulance costs, police investigations, etc. If insurance companies didn't pay on the claims where the injured party didn't wear a seat belt, I would have felt better. But then again, would it make people buckle up?

Funny, but the only reason I've ever heard from people who do not use seat belts (I've known a few) was along the lines that seat belts are "not manly enough". I just read recently that about 28 mln drivers generally don't buckle up, majority of them being light truck drivers in rural areas (the manly kind).

But when it comes to the laws, it's a tough call, either way. :)

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> Well, that sort of was my point - they already can stop you for a variety of quite legitimate reasons, so eliminating just one of them might not yield any results. :)

True. But to resist an introduction of the new one, which we don't have yet, is nevertheless quite natural :-)

> Like I said, I have mixed feelings about seat belts - on one hand, if an adult doesn't want to use them, let him be. However, the rest of us bear the cost of serious accidents through higher insurance premiums, ambulance costs, police investigations, etc.

Indeed. I would be comfortable with an increase of the fine, if the fine is not high enough yet to compensate for these extra cost (both, via deterrence and just by collecting these money)..

My S.O. does not buckle up and hates it deeply. I'd rather have her buckle up, but the idea that armed people in uniform would force her to do this seems very wrong.. A police traffic stop is quite a traumatic experience..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

I'd rather have her buckle up, but the idea that armed people in uniform would force her to do this seems very wrong..

Well, they are not going to physically force her - they'll just write her a ticket and let her go. A police stop is a traumatic experience, but it mostly hurts your pride - all my tickets (I didn't have that many though) were absolutely deserved and served as a good deterrent. I cried once, but was never scared. A visit to an emergency room would be much scarier.
I try to imagine this situation with my kids (once they are old enough to drive) - I'd rather the police scare them and make them buckle up than I'd have to lose them. Seat belts do save lives - especially in cars with airbags.

My S.O. has a couple of tickets for not buckling up, and I think it served him well - he remembers every time now, which is a good thing when kids are in the car with him, they see a better example.

I wonder if there's a way to act through the insurance companies. I know they ask about seat belt use, but how do they enforce it?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> Well, they are not going to physically force her - they'll just write her a ticket and let her go.

Yes, but I think she has the right not to wear seat belts, and not to deal with the nasty armed people just because she does not want to wear seat belts.. Whether I like that she does not wear them is irrelevant..

As long as there is a mechanism to cover the social costs, and we do have a reasonable mechanism to cover them already (the fines are collected as public income), I don't think it's a public problem..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

That's very interesting. It must be a difference in perception - I see it not as much as a right not to wear seat belts, but rather as an obligation to the family to wear them. I enforce the rule myself (when I am in the car), and I am not bothered by the fact that police in a way are helping me (though because of other reasons). We do allow police to help us in other cases, such as collection of unpaid child support, don't we?

As long as there is a mechanism to cover the social costs, and we do have a reasonable mechanism to cover them already

But that brings us to square one: does the existing mechanism cover the costs?

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

> I see it not as much as a right not to wear seat belts, but rather as an obligation to the family to wear them.

This is something which is different for different families. People negotiate about what their obligations are and aren't..

> We do allow police to help us in other cases, such as collection of unpaid child support, don't we?

When the relations suck so much that people need police help, yes, sometimes. I fortunately never was in such a situation in my life..

I think it's a very bad sign, when such help is needed.. Pride and dignity and mutual respect do matter a lot.. You would never call police in such a situation (to help you enforce seat belts), correct?

> But that brings us to square one: does the existing mechanism cover the costs?

I don't know, I never saw the numbers. But, as I said, if not, I don't mind to increase the fine amount so that the costs are covered by this mechanism..

[m-p.livejournal.com]

When the relations suck so much that people need police help, yes, sometimes. I fortunately never was in such a situation in my life..

I think it's a very bad sign, when such help is needed.. Pride and dignity and mutual respect do matter a lot.. You would never call police in such a situation (to help you enforce seat belts), correct?

In some cases help is necessary (child support), in some cases it's not needed at all, but there are multiple in-between situations when help comes handy even if both proud partners respect each other. I won't call police if my husband doesn't wear seat belts, but I would definitely call if he attempts to jump off the the Wilson bridge. There are other places to call, of course, but the point is - things like that might be needed even in the relationships that do not suck. At some point respect for his right to do whatever he pleases at the moment is outweighted by other concerns. I can imagine a whole spectrum of situations when a "if you respect each other, you let him be no matter what" rule doesn't work that well.

It would be interesting to actually see the costs. My opinion would be greatly influenced by the numbers.