Mandatory seat belt law

[Skip]

For those of you interested, in a very close vote the House just passed a mandatory seat belt requirement for all. Its off to the Senate now.

Quick preliminary story HERE at the Union Leader no-line edition.

[LIforrelaxin]

This is not really a big surprise for anyone I hope. Not that I agree with it of course, I feel that like most thing it should be my choice. But when your the only standout state, eventually you are going to get frowned upon until you pass the law. It wouldn't have surprised me, that if before long the US govt. would have stopped funding and grants to NH for highway projects for not having the law.......

[NightWing]

Once we are all buckled up, the only thing left is a helmet law for motorcycles.

[gtxrider]

It make more sense to pass a seat belt law than impose speed limits for boats.

[jeffk]

I have a few other things to legislate that are good for me and I'm sure for YOU.

First, I think we should be having tooth inspections frequently to make sure people are brushing their teeth. A lot of gum disease could be prevented that way.

Next, home inspections. Everyone knows that leaving food out or not cleaning up after food prep can lead to various contaminations. Let's get after those slobs that are making themselves sick.

How about alcohol? It's generally accepted that a bit of alcohol is can be good for you but too much is not good. I think this needs to be legislated. A lot of people take low dose aspirin for its benefits. Why not legislate a drink a day, but no more than two? And throw in the the aspirin requirement for good measure?

Salt is not good for you. I think we need a ban on salt shakers in public. And while we're at it lets limit the amount of salt you can purchase. Now really, do you need 26 ounces of salt? Let's keep purchases down to one ounce a month!

I also have a few legislative ideas about things that other people do that bug me.

What should the fine be for sneezing without covering your mouth?

Can we get some kind of legislative handle on kids running around out of control in restaurants and other inappropriate public places??

Isn't it time? Just some food for thought?

[Lakegeezer]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I have a few other things to legislate that are good for me and I'm sure for YOU.

We have a republican federal government that is striving to snoop into everything you do and a democratic state government that is passing laws controlling your freedom to make choices. Where is that third political party that says "you are responsible for your choices and by the way, we won't spy on your every move."?

[fatlazyless]

Truck drivers with New Hampshire licenses have been required to use seatbelts as required by the Federal Commercial Drivers License Act of 1986. This applies for all fifty states since 1986. Not wearing it is a violation that stays on one's CDL-A driving record for 15 years. So, if it's required for the 18-wheelers, probably it's a good practice for the 4-wheelers, too. It's a no-brainer, considering that federal highway money is lost without the new law, and the Granite State is the last to comply.

Does the federal highway money come from your gasoline tax?

And, doesn't it make you feel better knowing that the drivers of the huge trucks all know they absolutely have to wear their seat belt. Wearing a seatbelt sends a self-message to the wearer to be a safe driver. When you click-it, your driving skills automatically improve.
................................................

A couple years ago, some misguided individual - probably a Republican, rolled a small suv off an icy Route 3, close to the funeral home business up at the top of the hill and he was not belted in. Guess what? You guessed it!

[vrrooom]

My companies LTD policy denies coverage if you are in an accident and disabled when not wearing seat belts. It is not in the fine print, you initial next to the provision. Now if we are to have a seat belt law, lets make sure if you are injured not wearing a seat belt, you have no recourse to the sue. I wonder how the trial lawyers would react to that one.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

So we can only blame ourselves. Grass is always greener theory!

[Irish mist]

The Nanny-State arrives.
________
Amx

[SIKSUKR]

Do you hear that sucking sound?That's NH going down the drain with the rest of the liberal states.That's the liberal advantage.
I have other concerns as well:

WE need the transfat police to stop us from killing ourselves from the inside.

I'm pretty sure there should be a timer and monitor on my TV so I don't overdose on the bad programming.

We just had a skiing death at Cannon MT so perhaps a speed limit on the slopes would help.

Just the other day I cut my finger on a can of catfood so the legislature sure take a look at the safety of these dangerous items.

Shouldn't we have mandatory training for power tools?

. How would I have ever survived 100 years ago without all these laws to protect me from myself?
. I guess I'm just very lucky.Maybe I should play that lottery after all and send those taxes to the government so they can make more laws.
Sorry,I'm done now.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

Sorry,I'm done now.

No reason to be sorry, its just unfortanate how we can't depend on our own sense of right and wrong anymore.... luckily the liberals and the government are here to look after us......







otherwise we might live a happy life

[Island Life]

Just a thought. Maybe the seat belt law is not designed to protect you from yourself; maybe it's designed to protect people in other cars who you might kill if an accident throws you out of the driver's seat and you can no longer try to regain control of your car.

Check this out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=42e_0pzcLkw

[snowbird]

So-------------how do you all feel about NCLB?

Seems, also, that some of you may even be unaware NH was a blue state in '04 and '06. As they say about FL in '00, "get over it."

I'd say a seat belt law is pretty innocuous compared with some other acts of our present leadership. Why get all in a dither over it? Oh, pardon me, we "live free or die" up here.

[MaidenCove07]

Looks like the bleeding hearted, nanny types slammed this legislation through when they knew so many people would be missing the vote, they'd have a better chance to win. More than 100 legislators didn't even vote on Holy Thursday/Passover. Guess these snakes were hoping to pull a fast one while the rest of the House was on holiday .

Voluntary use of seat belts, as long as it's more than 60% of the registered driving population, still qualifies the state for Federal highway dollars, or else you'd have seen mandatory belts a long time ago. Our friendly out of staters with mandatory belts help keep our number just above the federal cut off (as measured by traffic at the toll booths - thanks MA, VT, ME drivers).

Write to your senators (or the senators in the districts you would vote in if you could) and let ask them not to martyr yet another of the tenets of this "Live Free or Die" state.
Find out who to write to or call here:
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/whosmyleg/nswhosmyleg/

I've written and called both the Senator where I legally reside and the Senator that serves Laconia...never thought I'd say this, but I wish Bob Boyce was still in office, we could guarantee he'd vote this down....I dread seeing NH become another Taxachusetts.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by MaidenCove07

....I dread seeing NH become another Taxachusetts.

Funny everyone dreads Massachusetts.... but I live in Vermont.... I would rather have the Mass. Tax system......

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

Funny everyone dreads Massachusetts.... but I live in Vermont.... I would rather have the Mass. Tax system......

Easy to see why... I just finished reading this...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit..._taxachus.html

[Pineedles]

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot
exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the
candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through
the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.
Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.


Sorry if this offends anyone. Its just one man's opinion.

[Irish mist]

Great post Pineedles. I think we have somewhat longer than 5 years......but it's all going to end very badly in the USA, and the West in general. All these people who are crowing about how NH is going "blue" and "get over it" don't really have any idea where we are going as a nation. When we get there it's going to be an ugly surprise for them I'm afraid.
________
Chevrolet citation

[Waterbaby]

Originally Posted by Skip

For those of you interested, in a very close vote the House just passed a mandatory seat belt requirement for all. Its off to the Senate now.

Quick preliminary story HERE at the Union Leader no-line edition.

IF this passes in the Senate -- God forbid, though unfortunately it probably will, how is this mandatory law going to be enforced on all of the school busses in this state which do not have seatbelts on them???????? Believe me, this has been a "hot point" with me for the past eight plus years, ever since my son started preschool and went on field trips on the busses. Mandatory that he be in a carseat up to a certain age/weight in a personal vehicle? No problem. Mandatory that he be buckled in in a personal vehicle? No problem. In fact, he still at the age of 11 3/4 years, rides in the back seat, in case the front seat airbag inflates. However, 180 days per year he - along with thousands of other precious children in this state - is riding WITHOUT A SEATBELT twice a day. And yet, the bus drivers' seats have belts. Go figure.

Do I wear a seatbelt? You betcha. Does my husband? Nope, hardly ever -- not unless my son is in the car and shames him into it. Personal choice? Absolutely!

Now I'm fired up enough to contact my Senator, and to check the vote that my Rep made. I'd much rather see a seatbelt law for the school busses on the books, it would make the "mandatory" law for the under-18s in personal vehicles a bit less hypocritical.

Thanks for reading my vent.

[SAMIAM]

Wow....great post.I'm sending that to all of my friends....and to my liberal daughter in Mass.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

And, doesn't it make you feel better knowing that the drivers of the huge trucks all know they absolutely have to wear their seat belt. Wearing a seatbelt sends a self-message to the wearer to be a safe driver. When you click-it, your driving skills automatically improve.

Actually ... no. What I want (not my original idea) is a 6" long, razor sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel aimed right at the driver's chest. Then everytime the driver got behind the wheel he'd be getting a message to be a safe driver .... or else.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

How Long Do We Have?

About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new
constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the
Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot
exist as a permanent form of government."

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that
voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury."

"From that moment on, the majority always vote for the
candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose
fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the
beginning of history, has been about 200 years."

"During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through
the following sequence:

1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage"

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St.
Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000
Presidential election:

Number of States won by:
Gore: 19
Bush: 29

Square miles of land won by:
Gore: 580,000
Bush: 2,427,000

Population of counties won by:
Gore: 127 million
Bush: 143 million

Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Gore: 13.2
Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory
Bush won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare..."

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million
criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.


Sorry if this offends anyone. Its just one man's opinion.

Ok Guys and Gals,

I get many of these sent to me all time, welcome to the new world of the internet. Before I forward them along I always check them at Snopes.
The post Pineedles lists here is part of a widely distributed e-mail and while not totally inaccurate it does have enough unfounded or inaccurate statistics and misquotes that I personally would not forward it. The link to Snopes writeup is: http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp , I would post it here but it is copyrighted. As a conservative I think anything like this should be as accurate as possible or trashed. I wish liberals would strive for this also.

[John A. Birdsall]

Havin g that in CT it is a bother and I am not sure it does that much good. I know, I know tell it to those that got killed not wearing one. I want you to tell it to a friend that was wearing one and lost his head over it.

But you know they have a valid use, and I am surprised that they do not require them in boats. How many people have been thrown or fallen out of boats? That would not happen if they wore seat belts. Especially those under 12.

[Pineedles]

It was an article that was sent to me by a very conservative friend. I went to the snopes site and see the inaccuracies. States won were off by one, murder rates were not as divergent, but if there was one point that I can subscribe to it was the following:

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the
"complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of
democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

Our rights are being eroded and as pogo said, "the enemy is us".

[Kevin C]

Do I believe that everyone should wear them? Absolutely. Do I feel they should be mandated by law? Probably not. It's just another way to be pulled over and ticketed. If it does pass, make sure that before you take your belt off ( to get your wallet) while being pulled over, that the officer is alongside and that you take it off in his presence. I know of cases where the seat belts were being worn, but were taken off before the officer was alongside and tickets were issued. My third car had them (a 1966 Mustang) and I have been wearing them ever since.

[wehatetoquitit]

I know what you mean about not removing your seat belt before the officer is along side. The same thing happened to me and I was ticketed for not wearing it. An officer friend of mind advised me, if pulled over to keep both hands on the steering wheel until the officer is at the window--makes them feel more comfortable.

On to my second thought. I wonder what percentage of no seat belt injuries are non-insured, and what the cost of medical care is to the public. Any stats?

[Puck]

I'll start by admitting to my own foolishness. I've been in accidents both with and without my seatbelt fastened and been fortunate enough to walkway unscathed every time. However I still don't wear my seatbelt all the time. That being said, my position on the issue is that sometimes you need to let natural selection happen.

[fatlazyless]

Walking is a right. Driving is a privilege. (Ok Woodsy, let's just say that driving requires a license and walking does not.) If you don't want to go by the rules of the USA , 49 other states and soon, New Hampshire, then you should get out of your car and walk!

Just like bald tires, a burnt out headlight, worn out brakes, a cracked windshield, worn out wheel bearings or ball joints, wobbly steering or a leaky exhaust: driving without a seatbelt should be an equipment-safety violation.

For both physical and psychological reasons, seatbelts make you a safer driver. Think about it...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Irish mist

The Nanny-State arrives.

Italy's answer to mandatory seatbelt laws was a popular T-shirt with a seatbelt pictured on it, already buckled!

The U.S. Nanny-State attempted an arrival in 1972.

If you bought a new car in 1972, it came with a little buzzer. When the seat was occupied and the seatbelt wasn't buckled, the buzzer would buzz.

Though it was a simple device to bypass, dealers wouldn't disconnect the buzzer for you. Most people objecting to the Nanny-State Buzzer just buckled all the seatbelts before getting in, then sat on them.

The negative reaction to such an intrusion lead to the addition of "passive" restraints instead—which proved fatal to hundreds of unbelted children and small adults nationwide. As bad as that was, airbags have added thousands of dollars to the price of every vehicle, and to every insured vehicle with an airbag deployment. All insured drivers "share" in that expense.

"Hope is on the way" in 2010, when automatic active vehicle controls will be mandated for all new cars. (Passed Congress this month).

"Rollover airbags" for SUVs will follow: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...rollovers.html

Seems The Buzzer wasn't so bad.

[Woodsy]

FLL...

If its not guaranteed by the US Constitution, then it is a personal freedom. You actually have very few rights...

I personally don't like the government sticking its nose in my personal business...

I don't wear a seatbelt, and I'll tell you why. When I was 17 I was coming back from my first job interview at Compugraphics in Wilmintgon, MA. I was driving a 1974 Mustang II (an underpowered overgrown Pinto)... I got T-Boned on the drivers side by big old Buick Electra... barely scratched his chrome bumper, my Mustang was totaled... I wasn't wearing my seatbelt. I was thrown into the passengers side of the car, the drivers seat was crushed, the drivers side door was sitting where the steering wheel used to be... Had I been wearing my seatbelt, I would be dead, or seriously injured.

This "Mothering" (smothering) of America has got to stop.... I am sick and tired of people (government) telling me what they think is best for me. I am an 40 year old adult and I am quite capable of making my own decisions, some of which are no doubt not PC!

I don't smoke, because I don't like it, thats my choice! If you want to smoke, its your business not mine. Its your restaurant, you make the rules about allowing patrons to smoke or not. If you allow smoking in your establishment, I have the CHOICE to patronize your establishment or not. I find it more annoying that people smoke outside... there is nothing worse than running the gauntlet of smokers just to get into a place... The government doesn't seem to have a problem taxing cigarettes and making money off smokers, so why is it necessary to make thier decisions for them. If you really wanted to do something about smoking, the government should just outright ban cigarettes! Then we wouldn't have this problem... of course we wouldn't have all the billions of tax $$$ that smoking generates. Oh ya, smokers cost us tax dollars... right

While we are at it, lets ban alcohol too... I mean I know we tried it once before, but hey its a Brave New World now! Perhaps a better solution would be to require breathalyzers in every car! Just think no more drunk drivers... The breathalyzer would be able to download your results monthly into Mother's Computer, but thats certainly an acceptable sacrifice we should all make to promote a safer driving experience.

While I am on the subject of cars, why is it only the high end cars have side impact airbags, AWD & Traction Control? I HAVE to wear a seatbelt, but they car companies are not required to manufacture all cars with the best safety technology? Shouldn't these safety devices be mandated for all cars?? Oh wait... that costs money!!

Guns are another popular nanny subject.... more and more gun rules and regulations! The caveat here is that guns are protected by the Constitution. Hmmm... how could big brother get around that?? I know, tax the crap out of ammunition. Just think of the tax revenue if a .22 caliber bullet costs $5 each intead of .10!!! Everyone should be able to buy an AK-47 for $500, just make sure the bullets cost $100 each... Remember what Mother said... "You'll shoot your eye out!"

McDonalds & Burger King are fast food gone wild... perhaps they should be legislated out of existence too! After all they are the real eason America is fat!

The list goes on and on... quite frankly it never ends!

Stop the Mother! I already have one!

Woodsy

[Puck]

While wearing a seatbelt may make you safer in case of an accident, I have to disagree that seatbelts make you a safer driver. If anything they give you a false sense of security much the same way as four wheel drive does for so many people. The more secure people feel, the more careless people get.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Actually ... no. What I want (not my original idea) is a 6" long, razor sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel aimed right at the driver's chest. Then everytime the driver got behind the wheel he'd be getting a message to be a safe driver .... or else.

Wow.... that is it I am voting for Mee-n-Mac in the next election.... Drive safe or else is the message......

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

For both physical and psychological reasons, seatbelts make you a safer driver. Think about it...

Here's a thought from real life...

An over-the-road truck driver once told me about an experience which convinced him to never wear a seatbelt again.

He had an accident in which the truck ended up upside down, with him unable to undo his seatbelt and get out. Meanwhile gasoline, yes gasoline, was dripping on him.

Hope that never happens to you or any of the seatbelt proponents.

Remember, most of them drive gasoline powered vehicles.

A NH state trooper once told me that the worst situation he encountered on the job was listening to two people burn to death, trapped in their vehicle and pleading to him to shoot them. Shooting them would have put him in jail. Interestingly, they shoot horses to end their pain.

[vrrooom]

I had a experience when I was in college. I was riding in a Corvair, yes Ralph I know, the driver lost control on a curve, we ended up upside down in the ditch. No one was injured in the flip, but releasing the seat belts while hanging upside down was encouraged by the knowledge that the gas tank was under the dash and also upside down.

[fatlazyless]

For over 20 years now, federal law has required NH and all 50 state's drivers of gasoline tanker trucks and all CDL-A and B truck drivers to wear seatbelts. Not wearing one is a violation. 20 years is a lot of experience.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

For over 20 years now, federal law has required NH and all 50 state's drivers of gasoline tanker trucks and all CDL-A and B truck drivers to wear seatbelts. Not wearing one is a violation. 20 years is a lot of experience.

The same could be stated about the speed limit.

Remember the 55 mph Federal speed limit? Another great idea out of Washington...

Does NH still enforce it?

and why not?!

[MJM]

I do not believe wearing a seatbelt makes someone a better driver. If anything, I'm concerned it subconciously increases aggressive driving.

I read somewhere a while back about Target Risk - the theory is that people with protective gear on feel safer, so actually take more risk. The article mentioned SUV drivers, bicylce helmets, seatbelts, etc.

(For the record, I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time, and am against them being mandated by the government.)

[rander7823]

Originally Posted by GWC...

A NH state trooper once told me that the worst situation he encountered on the job was listening to two people burn to death, trapped in their vehicle and pleading to him to shoot them. Shooting them would have put him in jail. Interestingly, they shoot horses to end their pain.

Both of their seatbelts malfunctioned? There had to be a lot more than just seatbelts keeping those people in the car. Maybe the doors?

[fatlazyless]

Let's see, every individual is going to think what they want to think.....it's their brain. Ok....for me....when I click the seatbelt closed it reinforces the seriousness of driver safety.
If you are required to wear a seatbelt it must be a potentially dangerous situation. So, I think to myself that driving is no-joke and you need to follow the rules. Besides, you don't really get anywhere faster by speeding what with stoplights, traffic and speeding tickets.
Just like bald tires or worn-down brake pads/shoes, driving unbelted should be an equipment violation that comes with a fine and insurance points......(ouch!). Driving is a licensed privilege!

[Skip]

Originally Posted by MJM

I do not believe wearing a seatbelt makes someone a better driver. If anything, I'm concerned it subconciously increases aggressive driving.

I read somewhere a while back about Target Risk - the theory is that people with protective gear on feel safer, so actually take more risk. The article mentioned SUV drivers, bicylce helmets, seatbelts, etc.

(For the record, I wear my seatbelt 100% of the time, and am against them being mandated by the government.)

Thanks MJM, you aroused my curiosity on this unique concept which led me to this very interesting website!

The text of his first book can be found here. I climbed in to my truck, snugged up my seatbelt and felt so safe that I read most of his first few chapters while driving home from work this afternoon!

Seriously, a very interesting read so far!

[Gatto Nero]

I don't like the idea of a nanny state any more than anybody else, and if I had the option I wouldn't vote in favor of this law, but I also wouldn't go out of my way to fight this particular inconvenience. I ride a motorcycle and as stupid as I know it is not to wear a helmet I usually don't. However, I think some good things could come out of this particular law. At least the MA version of it did for me. As a kid growing up I never used a seatbelt. I don't think I started wearing them until they became mandatory in MA. Probably because of that law, I made certain that my kids had theirs on every time they got in. Whenever they would forget I would always remind them that it was the law. Now in their teens, they always put it on whether I'm there to bug them or not.

Recently my oldest daughter and two of her friends were involved in very serious accident in which the car rolled end over end two or three times. Everyone in the car walked away. All three, and several witnesses, know in their heart that they would not have survived had they not been wearing their seat belts. Now I know its not the law that caused her to put a belt on that day; it probably had more to do with my wife and I drilling it into her head for the past 18 years, but as I think back it was probably the law that helped us do the drilling when it mattered.

[Kevin C]

I'd say that you are better off wearing seat belts in most accidents. There are those who say you should and those who say you shouldn't. The unfortunate souls who burned to death may have been hanging upside down. In his position with the body weight on the belt latch, very difficult to release. I had a friend not wearing his belt was ejected out the driver's window only to have his car roll over him and kill him (and he was a cop).
I know from a technical standpoint that when you are attached to the car by way of a seatbelt, you let the car's body absorb the brunt of the impact thereby lessening the impact on your body. Statistically, you are better off wearing your belt. The thought of my body continuing to do the speed of my car into the wheel or dasboard after my car has already stopped is chilling.
That being said, I do not feel it should be mandated by law. It's just another
excuse to pull you over and write you a ticket.

[Woodsy]

Newton's Laws of Motion are a bitch! Especially the first one!

However, I just don't think we need a law to legislate common sense! I have a mother... she told me all the time to buckle up. I don't need the government becoming my mother! One is enough...

Woodsy

[Grant]

New Hampshire further establishes itself as a card-carrying member of the Nanny Nation. Population: Those who are too stupid to make their own decisions.

New motto: Comply or Die.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Let's see, every individual is going to think what they want to think.....it's their brain. Ok....for me....when I click the seatbelt closed it reinforces the seriousness of driver safety.
If you are required to wear a seatbelt it must be a potentially dangerous situation. So, I think to myself that driving is no-joke and you need to follow the rules. Besides, you don't really get anywhere faster by speeding what with stoplights, traffic and speeding tickets.
Just like bald tires or worn-down brake pads/shoes, driving unbelted should be an equipment violation that comes with a fine and insurance points......(ouch!). Driving is a licensed privilege!

Well then "we" have done a truely bad job at driver education (yeah I know, no surprise there) if that's what makes you serious about driving. I used to say that the people turned their brains off when they turned the key on but now I just wonder if "they" ever think at all. I'd say that making people buckle up isn't going to change the mental outlook or driving habits of the vaaaast majority. It's simply a DC beaurocrat's job to reduce traffic injuroes and fatalities and this is his way to answer his boss. NH falls in line because their Fed Highway Funds get threathened and nobody in charge much cares about what "the people" think.

Frankly I think you're stupid if you don't wear your belt but I'd just as quickly say it's a personal choice and no place for Gov't regulation. It's not that this law is so onerous but that it sets another bad precedent, that will be cited in the future, to regulate personal choices not because they materially affect other's rights but because it's "the right thing to do".

As for driving being a privilege ... well there's not much that isn't if I follow your logic. Let's see, I need a license to get married. Does that mean the Gov't can now tell me what I can and can't do with my wife because they think "it's the right thing to do" and "for my own good" ? We grant Gov't limited powers to accomplish what we need it to do. When Gov't starts to use those powers for other than what's needed then it's abusing those powers granted it. The seatbelt law is a small case of abuse, trying to accomplish a good goal but by bad means. It's not the Gov'ts job to protect me from myself.

[fatlazyless]

Seatbelts - not my choice,
Live Free or Die!
...............................................

How's that work for a bumper sticker for the next election?

or maybe

It's a seatbelt,
Not a choice!

or maybe

Don't make me click-it,
Just go stick-it!


hee hee hee, ha ha ha, hee hee hee!

[ApS]

Anecdotal stories about "the dangers of seatbelt use" are unhelpful.

Side-impacts by other cars are not particularly common. Today, it's SUV roll-overs and frontal impacts where seatbelts really shine.

Should the FAA should revise its seatbelt usage on aircraft? Where are this forum's airplane pilots on this, anyway? With military, commercial, and General Aviation pilots in my family, there IS no seatbelt issue.

BTW: Your insurance company probably sponsors this nation's many school-touring "Convincer" exhibits—a photo of one example, below:

[Puck]

Seems ironic that someone could be pro-choice before birth occurs and pro-life after...

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by Merrymeeting

Easy to see why... I just finished reading this...

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/cit..._taxachus.html

How do they arrive at 8% tax for N.H.?
Interest and Dividends are taxed at 5%.
Do property taxes account for the other 3%?
No way.

[jeffk]

If you go to the report by the Tax Foundation http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr153.pdf you'll find it's much more complicated than simply looking at the tax rates (read their Methodology). However an in depth discussion doesn't belong in a seat belt thread.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Anecdotal stories about "the dangers of seatbelt use" are unhelpful.

BTW: Your insurance company probably sponsors this nation's many school-touring "Convincer" exhibits—a photo of one example, below:

So, when will all school buses be required to have seatbelts, if it's so important?

[MomCat]

With all due respect for those of you who feel that being required to use a seat-belt is simply an infringement of your rights by a “big-brother” government, please consider the following...

1. The Laws of Physics: Drivers who are not buckled are more likely to lose control in a compromised situation (e.g., swerving to avoid something in the road, being cut off, etc.)--which means they could then crash into another vehicle, a pedestrian, a house, etc. The forces of speed and gravity are NOT respecters of "rights," and the human body can turn into a flying or sliding object very easily. Instances when seat-belt use would have saved someone from injury or death FAR outweigh cases when someone was trapped because of a seat belt.

2. Economics: The expenses for treating people who are injured in car crashes because they weren't buckled are borne by ALL of us. They impact health insurance premiums and medical costs and resources in general--not to mention the cost to taxpayers when the families of injured, permanently disabled, or DEAD drivers have to go on public assistance. Who do you think picks up the cost of care for someone with a long-term disability or in a persistent vegetative state? Unless the family is fantastically wealthy, it's ALL OF US. Think of that the next time you complain about your health-insurance premiums and rising hospital costs—not to mention those soaring taxes, which pay for public assistance. (Of course, helmetless bikers who are injured or killed are part of this equation, too.) “Live Free or Die” doesn’t mean that OTHERS should have to PAY for YOUR recklessness, when there is a PROVEN method for avoiding unnecessary risk.

3. Personal Responsibility (see “Live Free or Die,” above): If you prefer not to buckle, are willing to relinquish your right to public assistance for yourself and your family if you are injured/disabled/killed in a crash? Are you willing to forgo medical treatment when you or your insurance company can no longer pay? Are you willing to pay higher auto and medical premiums as a “non-buckler”? Also, when you pull out onto public pavement, your rights end at my bumper, and I have a right to expect you to take responsibility and use whatever is available to avoid an accident. If you won’t, are you willing to pay for MY expenses, too?

4. The “Right” to Drive: We drive on PUBLIC roadways, and only those people who have proven that they know the laws and rules of the road and how to operate a vehicle are licensed to drive. Those who act irresponsibly and endanger others—including their own children—on those roadways have always risked forfeiting the right to drive. Every citizen enjoys the freedom to acquire a license, but not to endanger others OR expect them to pay for irresponsible behavior.

5. Human Suffering—perhaps most important of all: Unless you or someone close to you has experienced the tragedy of a crash in which a life could have been saved or a permanently disabling injury could have been avoided, you can not imagine the suffering—physical, emotional, and financial—that results. Cruelest of all is the chronic, nagging pain of knowing that it all could have been avoided. Seat belts won’t save every life or prevent every injury, but I do know that they work—they saved the lives of my husband, our children, and I when we were broadsided by a driver who ran a stop sign at 60 mph. Our car was totaled, and a suitcase thrown from the trunk landed over 50 yards away (hard to believe but true)—but our total injuries were one cracked, rib and some bruises, from the seat belts. The troopers said they had no doubt that if we hadn’t been buckled we all would have been killed or seriously injured.

Thanks for this time on the soap box and your respect for the exchange of ideas. The Forum is just what it’s name implies—a place to voice opinions and share information. Please drive safely, whether you buckle or not!

[fatlazyless]

Today's www.citizen.com has a piece about the New Jersey governor, and his state trooper driver who were injured while driving in what was probably a large suv. The governor was in a passenger seat with no seatbelt and it does not say if the driver was belted or not.

Here's a guy who besides being the Governor of NJ (Democrat), is a former US senator, a former big boss at a Wall St money biz, a mega multi-millionaire and he gets wacked with a bad compound leg fracture, broken ribs, and a head smash which would probably not occur had he worn his seatbelt.

How about that? As a non-seat belt wearer will he be cited and effectively lose his good driver insurance discount for the next three years?

[SIKSUKR]

I'm glad you all survived your accident Momcat but I don't really buy your argument with unbelted drivers being more dangerous to you as being very credible.That is most of the basis behind your post.I think that's quite a stretch.First of all I always wear a belt.There are certainly a lot more distracting things going on in a car that are far more dangerous to you than an unbelted driver.The obvious first one is cell phone use.How about stereos and on screen navagation systems,people eating and yes reading while driving.Teenagers just having fun not paying attention.I'll bet 95% of accidents are due to driver error,virtually none would be due to losing control of yourself in the seat cuz you were not belted.If your in position to be hurled out of your seat,your already in big trouble.If this is one of your basis for having seatbelt laws then you should be trying to ban the most dangerous activities that I mentioned above.I doubt that will happen cuz we all love our accessories.As you put it,why should I pay for all of the inattentive drivers who have saddled us with all these medical expenses?Clearly that's the cause of the majority of accidents.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

Today's www.citizen.com has a piece about the New Jersey governor, and his state trooper driver who were injured while driving in what was probably a large suv. The governor was in a passenger seat with no seatbelt and it does not say if the driver was belted or not.

Here's a guy who besides being the Governor of NJ (Democrat), is a former US senator, a former big boss at a Wall St money biz, a mega multi-millionaire and he gets wacked with a bad compound leg fracture, broken ribs, and a head smash which would probably not occur had he worn his seatbelt.

How about that? As a non-seat belt wearer will he be cited and effectively lose his good driver insurance discount for the next three years?

If the Governor was sitting in the back then he is not required to wear a seatbelt in New Jersey. Only the driver, front seat passenger(s) and children under 18 must be belted.

And if he was sitting up front, the driver is responsible for the offense, not the passenger. So the State Police would have to cite the State Police....don't think that is going to happen!

Nope, his good driving discount remains good!

[vrrooom]

Acording to news reports the Gov was riding in the front seat, unbelted. The driver a trooper and the Gov's aide in the back seat were able to "walk away". A classic and typical example of wealthy politicians, who push laws for the "common(er's)" good, but believe they are way above the law.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Skip

...
And if he was sitting up front, the driver is responsible for the offense, not the passenger. So the State Police would have to cite the State Police....don't think that is going to happen! ....

Politics can be funny, that State Police driver may have to take one for the team. We can't let the general public figure out that the police are above the law. Well at least some of the "little" laws.

[gtxrider]

Seat belts are mandatory here so why not in passenger cars.

Picture from a NEMA Midget Race Conn. The driver broke her leg. Before seat belts driver were thrown from cars some survived but most did not. Full roll cages help to but make it hard to get in and out.


Here's to our governor. Throw the book at him but I guess it's Imus's fault since he was going to meet with the Lady Knights last.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by GWC...

So, when will all school buses be required to have seatbelts, if it's so important?

I didn't know that answer, so I checked at our region's nearest, truest Nanny-State—Canada's "Ministry of Transport".

Canada transports millions of kids every day, and average one school bus traffic fatality per year. Their reason is that school children walking to school face a far greater danger than while riding unbelted in school buses!

School bus drivers are required to buckle up, and some Provinces prohibit cellphone use by school bus drivers. (Good idea, eh?).

http://www.safety-council.org/info/t...schbusbelt.htm

Originally Posted by vrrooom

Acording to news reports the Gov was riding in the front seat, unbelted. The driver a trooper and the Gov's aide in the back seat were able to "walk away". A classic and typical example of wealthy politicians, who push laws for the "common(er's)" good, but believe they are way above the law.

The point "lost" was that he rode unbuckled in the front seat.

Governor Corzine suffered a compound fracture of one femur (broken in two places), but calling his "rib fractures" oversimplifies his injuries. (Quote from another forum, below).

"Corzine suffered 12 rib fractures, a sternum fracture, a collarbone fracture, and vertebral fractures. At the very least he has a flail chest. I haven’t heard anything about his liver, spleen, or lungs yet."

BTW: Walking back to my office and while waiting for a traffic light to change, I've seen many a momma front seat passenger—unbuckled—carrying an infant on her lap. Good idea, Governor Corzine?

Originally Posted by puck

While wearing a seatbelt may make you safer in case of an accident, I have to disagree that seatbelts make you a safer driver. If anything they give you a false sense of security much the same way as four wheel drive does for so many people. The more secure people feel, the more careless people get.

I dropped off my car in Alton last year and hitched a ride home with the mechanic in his truck. (What the heck, he does New Hampshire vehicle inspections, right?)

Not only did the driver "light up" (which made me want to reconsider the free ride) the seatbelt was missing from my side!

Try that ride for a no-belt experience!

[ghfromaltonbay]

The driver and belted passenger walked away from the crash. The governor faces surgery today and possibly again on Monday, several weeks in the hospital and rehab center. From last night's press conference with the acting governor, a spokesman stated that the governor was not wearing his seatbelt and does indeed face a citation. No one tried to soft soap the infraction.

[Irish mist]

The state trooper should have insisted that the governor of NJ buckle up.......lol, no chance of that. Typical behavior of our current "ruling class". What's "good" for you and me......not so good for them.
________
Honda capa history

[ghfromaltonbay]

According to today's newscast and local paper, the drivers (state troopers) were quoted as saying that whenever one of them would ask the Governor to buckle up in the past he got testy. Despite the protection of a Chevy Suburban, he really got tossed about. According to the driver and rear seat passenger Corzine was thrown on impact and wound up in the rear compartment of the vehicle. He's 6'3" and probably 200+ pounds, it's just a good thing he didn't hurt the rear seat passenger on his way flying to the back of the vehicle. The driver and passenger who were both belted walked away from the accident. With 12 broken ribs, a broken sternum, 2 fractured vertebrae, a crushed clavicle and double compound fracture of the right leg, he's going to need at least 6 months of rehab according to the doctors. My physician was quoted in the article and he said he'd be in a wheel chair for quite a while since he couldn't use crutches for the broken leg due to all the upper body fractures. I guess from now on he won't give the trooper/chauffeurs a hard time when they ask him to buckle up.

[fatlazyless]

Anyone see the 'Wear your safety belt' New Jersey Dept Motor Vehicles poster which has both Gov Corzine and a crash dummy emerging through a shattered windshield with the Gov exclaiming 'Save your head, wear your safety belt.' And now what with the crash, he can become the safety belt crash dummy, himself! As Rodney Dangerfield would say. 'Is he kidding, hey what a dummy for a guy worth 100+ million!.' Way-to-go Gov, and he is a Democrat too, so he cannot claim Republicanism as a totally understandable excuse........ahem.
.................................................
Just googled Jon Corzine wikipedia for his biography including a link to a NY Times article April 14, 'Corzine faces severe challenge in intensive care.'

Smart(?) guy- very dumb practice, not wearing his seatbelt...former Marine Corps sergeant, ceo Goldman Sachs and US Senator.

[fatlazyless]

On a snowy April 6 with a lot of state reps not there, HB-802 just barely passed the house, and now it's on to the senate. $50. - 1st violation, $100. - 2nd violation, and it becomes law as soon as it gets passed. The senate has something like 14 dems and 10 repubs, and then it goes to the gov's desk. My totally biased opinion is that it is looking very good to get passed, but surprises can happen in politics.

And who, according to Wikipedia, spent the most ever on a US Senate race, when he spent $62,802,999. of his own money in 2001? 62.8 mil, and he doesn't know enough to 'click-it', how about that!

Probably, Gov Corzine's bad luck and publicity will help HB-802 become NH law. If someone as smart and successfull and rich as him doesn't know enough to wear a seatbelt, then hey, there otta-be-a-law, you's knows what I means!

[rander7823]

$62.8 Million to get a $162,500/year job. No wonder he doesn't buckle up....I'd like to see the ROI calculation on that transaction

[phoenix]

so i guess then Mitt will be president.

[jrc]

Seat belt law in the news


http://www.unionleader.com/article.a...0-b55ea5da4860

[Irish mist]

There is a good chance the seat belt law will not pass......seems the Dems understand that thousands of 50$ tickets will make for a very angry voting public. What would work better for the people that want this bill passed is if they made not wearing a belt a secondary offence. If tickets are only given out after a motorist is stopped for another infraction the public will not feel so put-upon.

But, as usual, the Dems want it all, and most likely will get nothing.
________
Babi mac

[Ropetow]

Bad enough the leftists in the House want to give us a seat belt law, but they want to make it a primary offense....meaning that if a law enforcement official notices that you are not belted in, they can stop you for that. When our neighbors to the south first passed their seat belt law maybe a decade ago you could be ticketed for not wearing a best but only if you were stopped for some other reason. Great....we're now further along the road to socialism that even they were! For a humerous look at what the lefties in Concord have accomplished, check out this link: http://nhelection.info/

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Ropetow

"...Great....we're now further along the road to socialism that even they were! For a humerous look at what the lefties in Concord have accomplished, check out this link: http://nhelection.info/..."

Your link has much worse "fixes" (and far more expensive "fixes") than what the Legislature delivered. I'd go with a lost-balloon fine before "fixing HealthCare", and any study over "fixing Transportation".

[skprbob]

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

We have a republican federal government that is striving to snoop into everything you do and a democratic state government that is passing laws controlling your freedom to make choices. Where is that third political party that says "you are responsible for your choices and by the way, we won't spy on your every move."?

Such a party actually exists - "Live Free Or Die" actually means something to the NH (and national) Libertarian Party. Check their web site, www.lpnh.org Also check out the NH Liberty Alliance at www.nhliberty.org

[Mink Islander]

NH is the ONLY state without a seat belt law for adults. Could it be other states have figured out that the costs of dealing with those critically injured by not wearing seat belts is a financial burden on every taxpayer (higher insurance, Medicaid costs, etc.). Tell you what, if your willing to consent to having zero zip nada insurance coverage if you're injured in an accident when you WEREN'T wearing a seatbelt, then I say "live free or (and?) die. This is a reasonable law. It saves taxpayers $$$$. But if you'd rather not, then let's change the insurance coverages and you can do as you please at your own risk AND EXPENSE. If you libertarians don't like additional laws, then don't ask the average joe to pay for your stupidity if you don't wear a seatbelt.

[Argie's Wife]

...$10 says that driving while talking on a cell phone will be next on the nanny nation list of things we'll get cited for...


(although personally, i have no issue with either law - hang up and DRIVE!)

[skprbob]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

NH is the ONLY state without a seat belt law for adults. Could it be other states have figured out that the costs of dealing with those critically injured by not wearing seat belts is a financial burden on every taxpayer (higher insurance, Medicaid costs, etc.). Tell you what, if your willing to consent to having zero zip nada insurance coverage if you're injured in an accident when you WEREN'T wearing a seatbelt, then I say "live free or (and?) die. This is a reasonable law. It saves taxpayers $$$$. But if you'd rather not, then let's change the insurance coverages and you can do as you please at your own risk AND EXPENSE. If you libertarians don't like additional laws, then don't ask the average joe to pay for your stupidity if you don't wear a seatbelt.

I, for one, do wear my seat belt even though the state does not require it because it's stupid not to. Not wearing it flies in the face of just about every accident statistic there is and also is contrary to my 30 years of experience as a firefighter/EMT. I am perfectly willing to have my insurance company charge me more if I don't wear it and/or deny coverage if I have an accident while not wearing it. I agree with Mink Islander about not asking the average joe to foot the bills for my stupidity. It's called accepting the consequences for your own actions. The taxpayers would save a bundle if we started doing that again.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

This is a reasonable law. It saves taxpayers $$$$. But if you'd rather not, then let's change the insurance coverages and you can do as you please at your own risk AND EXPENSE.

The law saves the insurance companies money, not the taxpayers.

How about this...

You pay for all your injuries incurred while wearing a seatbelt and I'll pay for all mine. Let the insurance companies survive without our money.

Originally Posted by skprbob

It's called accepting the consequences for your own actions.

Sounds great, but remember, there are those who are not able to accept the consequences for their own actions and flee the scene of an accident they caused. Then who pays?

[fatlazyless]

By 16-8, today the NH Senate voted no to the mandatory seatbelt law so New Hampshire continues to be the only state without this law. I am surprised it did not pass. As a NH cdl-a licensee, I am required to wear a seatbelt by federal law, even when driving a car in NH and can be cited by the local or state police.

What oh what were the no-voting, Democratic NH state senators smoking when they decided to vote no, today?

[Irish mist]

If this bill was drafted without the "primary offence" language it would have passed......it's that simple. To give GOVERNMENT the power to stop motorists for seat-belt violations on a primary basis is insane. It would give government the biggest cash-cow since the lottery.

"Secondary offence" language makes the most sense......and would be a good comprimise for both sides.
________
Weedmaps

[Mink Islander]

Actually it's pretty silly to think that cops and staties in NH would suddenly be scouring the roads to find non-belted drivers to pull over for fun and profit. By way of example, as it stands, (and as previously discussed ad nauseum in a prior thread), drivers in NH (and everywhere else), consistently exceed speed limits. If the state and local towns wanted a cash cow related to traffic law enforcement they long ago would have invested in radar guns and stepped up enforcement with a zero tolerance policy on speeding. Isn't there a town in FL that zealously pulls over the unsuspecting who pass through their town going even 2 MPH over the speed limit? No, I don't it's "insane" to give our police the right to pull you over for this as a first offense. I think you'll find there are other "first offense" traffic laws where our men in blue demonstrate ample discretion on when to use it. This law would be no different.

But alas NH prefers its "last in the nation" status on a practical safety requirement that saves lives and money. Go figure.

[MJM]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

Actually it's pretty silly to think that cops and staties in NH would suddenly be scouring the roads to find non-belted drivers to pull over for fun and profit. By way of example, as it stands, (and as previously discussed ad nauseum in a prior thread), drivers in NH (and everywhere else), consistently exceed speed limits. If the state and local towns wanted a cash cow related to traffic law enforcement they long ago would have invested in radar guns and stepped up enforcement with a zero tolerance policy on speeding. Isn't there a town in FL that zealously pulls over the unsuspecting who pass through their town going even 2 MPH over the speed limit? No, I don't it's "insane" to give our police the right to pull you over for this as a first offense. I think you'll find there are other "first offense" traffic laws where our men in blue demonstrate ample discretion on when to use it. This law would be no different.

But alas NH prefers its "last in the nation" status on a practical safety requirement that saves lives and money. Go figure.

It's not a matter of police "scouring" for unbelted. It's more of a concern that it gives them a free pass to pull someone over, when otherwise there would not have been a reason.

NH is a "reasonable speed" state, as I understand it. So the speed limits are general guidelines, not set-in-stone absolutes. For example, if you drive the posted speed limit in a snow storm, you could be cited for speeding - the conditions call for the "reasonable speed" expectation to be lowered. This is why you won't be pulled over for 65 in a 55 - 65 is still considered a reasonable speed.

And the Secondary Offense is simply a stepping stone to First Offense. Pass the new law with that has a little less bite to it, then a couple of years down the road pass the tougher one - which doesn't seem so bad by then because the point of reference has changed.

I am proud of NH for this vote. (BTW, I wear my belt 100% of the time.)

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Mink Islander

But alas NH prefers its "last in the nation" status Go figure.

Thankfully it does.Keep your liberal morality in Mass please.

[AC2717]

This topic burns me up because working for a towing company while in college and high school I have seen accidents were seat belts have saved lives and ones where seat belts have killed because they were wearing them. It should be your own choice to where them. Getting thrown from the car in a lot of times is better than being belted in! There are plenty of accidents to back this up. Some people cannot wear them because of their size or body conditions or whatever the problem. Down here in MA I had a boss that had a certain condition than when he sat for long periods of time his body would swell and with the seat belt it would cinch down on him and cause problems and the doctors told him it would not be safe for him to wear one. there was a lot more going on that helped this problem along and he had a medication he carries in his pocket. He got pulled over explained the situation and still got a ticket for not wearing his seat belt, he fought it and still lost.

I am a sometimes seat belt wearer and to me it is my choice, my daughter, who is still in a car seat will wear one later on in life because I will tell her and that will be the rule, but as an adult I should be free to make my own decisions, there are no seat belts on motorcycles and there is way less protection on them, is this next?

[Mink Islander]

He Siksukr. How do you rationalize that all the BLUE states like Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, etc. have mandatory seatbelt laws? Hardly a "liberal" or "MA" issue -- or a moral one???. This is not a topic you can so conveniently describe that way, though you and others soooo desperately need to be able to think about many issues on this forum in such overly simplistic, FOX network-like ways.

Every other state, blue or red has reached a common conclusion on the need for mandatory seatbelt laws. NH, sadly, just sticks its head in the sand.

Happy Friday!

[MaidenCove07]

Head in the sand? Are you kidding me?
You must not have been born in NH or must have had bad teachers in school. NH has always been the center of Liberty and Libertarianism. "Live Free or Die" isn't just a trite quote. It is the foundation of these United States. NH has been the last bastion of the Revolution that created this wonderful place we live in. Government was created by our forefathers to manage infrastructure and the nation's borders. That's all, not to manage each individual American.
Seat Belts, helmets, even smoking and guns which I personally despise other people's freedom to use and abuse, are not the place for government interference. It's that simple. Liberty equals freedom and any rule or law imposed across the board just because there may be a danger if some scenario happens is a violation of each of our freedoms. Government taking responsibility to manage our lives is at the crux of the issue - government should not regulate these things and should not pay for the consequences of people who decide to do them.

[Irish mist]

So Mink Islander It's pretty silly to think that government will not abuse a power ? Sure, and I have a bridge to sell you too. Don't worry though, NH is slowly being turned into the same rat-hole Massachusetts is.
________
VAPOR TOWER VAPORIZER

[Grant]

Know what? You can mandate seatbelt usage, but you can't make people actually wear them. Pure and simple.

And, as for the political nuances of such laws, consider the recent news out of New Jersey, where the Democratic governor, John Corzine, was critically injured when his SUV, traveling at a brisk 91 MPH on the Garden State Parkway, was involved in an accident. The severity of his injuries was attributed to not wearing a seatbelt.

Gee, top dog in the state, and a Dem to boot, not wearing a seatbelt and simultaneously eclipsing the posted speed limit by nearly 40 MPH. But he's a big advocate now. On TV every night. Crutches! Lights! Action!

Personally, I'm all for seatbelts. Like motorcycle helmets and safety locks on guns, they just make sense. Speed limits are a different issue, because your actions -- namely, disregard for the limit -- can put others at risk. But if you want to cruise on your Harley sans a brain bucket, don't come drooling on me when you crack your noggin on the curb. Likewise, if you go for an unscheduled flight through your windshield because your seatbelt was under your fanny.

Stupid is as stupid does, and gene pool can always use a little chlorine. Problem is, a lot of this stupidity winds up costing us more in insurance, etc. You can't legislate common sense.

[Winnigirl]

Originally Posted by GWC...

The law saves the insurance companies money, not the taxpayers.
How about this...

You pay for all your injuries incurred while wearing a seatbelt and I'll pay for all mine. Let the insurance companies survive without our money.

We save money with lower insurance rates. Our country's insurance rates are sky high due in part to malpractice lawsuits, and the number of people in our country who do not take of themselves - whether they smoke or are addicted to alcohol or drugs, are overweight, or they go too long without checkups. IMO, not wearing your seatbelt is just another example of not taking care of yourself.

[Grant]

Perhaps we could curb the insanity by being a less litigious nation. Consider the British model, which actively discourages frivolous lawsuits.

Yeah, right, the lawyers would go for that...

[Winnigirl]

Originally Posted by Grant

Perhaps we could curb the insanity by being a less litigious nation. Consider the British model, which actively discourages frivolous lawsuits.

Yeah, right, the lawyers would go for that...

I agree with you there. So many people waste the courts time and money with these frivolous lawsuits, and everyone else ends suffering in the meantime.

[The Big Kahuna]

I like Woodsey have been in two very bad car accidents. First the car split in half and I was tossed out into the road, lucky enough to not get run over. Second accident I was not driving but in a car that rolled over 6 or 7 times. The driver all most died because he was thrown out of the vehicle. Neither of us had our seat belts on. "But for the grace of GOD", or my Gardian Angle, I sould have been badly injured or dead in both accidents. I do believe in seat belts now and think others should as well.

[Gavia immer]

A buddy begged a ride to the airport in my car.

I apologized that the passenger seatbelt had jammed and was not useable. His response was that it was more important that the driver is buckled in behind the wheel. A good point.

[MJM]

Originally Posted by Gavia immer

.....was that it was more important that the driver is buckled in behind the wheel.

Why?

And what if the car has a driver's side airbag, and not a passenger's side airbag?

[Kevin C]

I'm all for wearing seat belts but not mandating it by law. Just another reason to pull you over.....and raise some revenue to boot!

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by MJM

Why?

And what if the car has a driver's side airbag, and not a passenger's side airbag?

If you are driving without your belt and are in an accident, you can be moved from the driver's seat while the car is still in motion, leaving the car completely out of control. Airbags won't keep you from sliding sidways into the passenger seat or going into the back seat.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by Dave R

If you are driving without your belt and are in an accident, you can be moved from the driver's seat while the car is still in motion, leaving the car completely out of control.

I have seen others allude to the "control" aspect of a seat belt. I just don't buy it. An average car seat belt does not function like a belt in a race car that locks you in position as soon as you put it on. Car seat belts are designed to be loose until the inertial force of an impact locks them down. By the time they lock down you're already in the accident.

The function of a seat beat if to keep you alive and reduce your injuries. I believe the impact effect of even a low speed accident will make it almost impossible for the driver to focus on any "corrective driving action". Further, if the airbags go off you will be even more stunned and probably blinded briefly. Accidents are over in a matter of seconds. You are not going to have time to recover from the initial impact and then react in any meaningful way. It will be all over before you have a chance.

This is why I don't believe seat belts should be mandatory. Their function is to protect you, not allow you to "drive the car to safety". If I choose to risk my own life I don't think the government should be butting in. If that's the direction we take then we should outlaw all types of skiing, mountain hiking and climbing, sky diving, all contact sports, and all sorts of other "risky" personal behavior. Where do you draw the line. How could you enforce all these nanny actions? I don't need the government forcing me act for my own good. Make the case for the desired "good" behavior. Gather statistics to reinforce it. From there it's my decision.

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by jeffk

I have seen others allude to the "control" aspect of a seat belt. I just don't buy it. An average car seat belt does not function like a belt in a race car that locks you in position as soon as you put it on. Car seat belts are designed to be loose until the inertial force of an impact locks them down. By the time they lock down you're already in the accident.

The function of a seat beat if to keep you alive and reduce your injuries. I believe the impact effect of even a low speed accident will make it almost impossible for the driver to focus on any "corrective driving action". Further, if the airbags go off you will be even more stunned and probably blinded briefly. Accidents are over in a matter of seconds. You are not going to have time to recover from the initial impact and then react in any meaningful way. It will be all over before you have a chance.

This is why I don't believe seat belts should be mandatory. Their function is to protect you, not allow you to "drive the car to safety". If I choose to risk my own life I don't think the government should be butting in. If that's the direction we take then we should outlaw all types of skiing, mountain hiking and climbing, sky diving, all contact sports, and all sorts of other "risky" personal behavior. Where do you draw the line. How could you enforce all these nanny actions? I don't need the government forcing me act for my own good. Make the case for the desired "good" behavior. Gather statistics to reinforce it. From there it's my decision.

I am against a seatbelt law too, but I can see how some parameters of an accident could possibly dislodge someone from the driver's seat and still leave them mentally and physically capable of controlling the car, but in the wrong place to do so. It's obviously not going to be a common occurance, but it's the only reason I could think of that the driver's seatbelt use is more important than the passenger's. That was the question...

[Mink Islander]

OK, let's remember the original point. NH is the only state in the country without a mandatory seat belt law for adults. Only one. That includes all those other "rat hole" blue states like utah, texas, etc. etc. ad nauseum. This isn't a MA vs. NH issue (duh). A lot of very very conservative states have approved these laws -- uhh, maybe because they make sense?

[fatlazyless]

As anyone knows, if you want to click-it, that's up to you.

It lost in the senate because Gov Lynch simply did not want it to become an issue in the next election. He would rather 'switch than fight.' It was not worth giving the Republicans another piece of political ammunition. Let's see, recent hot button Democratic victories include the domestic partners law and the no smoking restaurant law. For many people neither is any type of a big deal and does not effect them much, at all. Seat belts, have a much more wide spread like/dislike and the Gov just wanted the issue to go away. Not worth losing the next election for a seatbelt law.

You have my permission not to wear your seatbelt.......you're welcome!

[Irish mist]

Mink, Massachusetts......a rat-hole, yes IMO. Please keep your income tax & your sales tax & your capital gains tax & your seat-belt laws & your nasty know-it-all attitude in Massachusetts. I loath being lectured by the likes of you. The population of your state has some of the most grim, unhappy individuals I have ever met.

You're just another in a long line of people who come up here to "fix" NH. I could care less what Texas does about seat-belts, I care about this state. What part of local, and state control do you not understand ? NH makes laws for the citizens who live here. Certainly we don't make laws on the faulty logic that just becaue everyone else does it we need to do it too.

This is not really about a seat-belt law for you anyway......it's the joy you get in climbing up on your moral high-horse, and educating the locals on your wisdom. After all, everyone wants to live in a place like "Massachusetts".
________
EXTREME VAPORIZER

[ApS]

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...I have seen others allude to the "control" aspect of a seat belt. I just don't buy it. An average car seat belt does not function like a belt in a race car that locks you in position as soon as you put it on...Car seat belts are designed to be loose until the inertial force of an impact locks them down. By the time they lock down you're already in the accident...This is why I don't believe seat belts should be mandatory. Their function is to protect you, not allow you to 'drive the car to safety...'"

Seat belts are designed to be comfortably snug—not loose. If you've waited to put on your seat belt when braking or in a turn, you'll find that seatbelt inertial locks are engaging at the slightest motion of the vehicle. From the reel end, try a slow draw on your seat belt when driving on our bumpy secondary roads.

Many modern automobiles are equipped with a "seat belt cinching device" that automatically tightens the belt under extreme yaw, roll, pitch, or braking circumstances. (Before a collision/rollover).

When you seat yourself in a race car, you tug on those five (or six) seatbelt straps "til it hurts".

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...even a low speed accident will make it almost impossible for the driver to focus on any "corrective driving action".

Expressions trainers use in race driver training are:

"Don't be a passenger behind the wheel."

If you're securely belted in when "stuff happens"...

"Keep the rubber side down."

The lazy driver in YouTube's seat belt video posted previously by Island Life will only take 19 seconds to watch: http://youtube.com/watch?v=42e_0pzcLkw He has several seconds to correct for his about-to-be-rollover but, being unbelted, is unable to control the car.

Originally Posted by jeffk

"...If that's the direction we take then we should outlaw all types of skiing, mountain hiking and climbing, sky diving, all contact sports, and all sorts of other "risky" personal behavior..."

This "all or none" argument keeps making pointless reappearances: where is the threat? Seat belt advocates just want to keep "the other guy" behind the wheel. Traffic scant inches away on the other side of that double-yellow line is too close to me!

New Hampshire's singular inaction reminds me of those proud parents watching their son in a military parade, "Look! Johnny's the only soldier in step!"