Currently, Colorado law stipulates that a police officer may only write a ticket for not wearing a seat belt if the motorist is pulled over for another infraction. This is known as a secondary violation.
On Tuesday, February 14, the Colorado House of Representatives passed by one vote House Bill 1125, which if approved by the full House, and then the Senate, would make not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense. This means a police officer could initiate a traffic stop only because you are not wearing your seat belt.
Who has the right to make a decision regarding whether or not I choose to wear a seatbelt? If lawmakers have their way, that decision may be out of my hands (if I don’t want to risk a ticket). Those same lawmakers will also be receiving the sum of $12.6 million from the federal government. I’m not saying that a politician would trade a vote for money, but…
I don’t want my taxes, which are high enough already, to fund a national campaign for mandatory seat belt laws. Allowing an officer to initiate a traffic stop under these pretenses is unconstitutional. Fortunately, opponents to the proposed law were able to add an amendment requiring officers to actually witness a driver not wearing a seatbelt. In many other states, officers are able to pull someone over under a “reasonable suspicion” clause.
"You can see if someone is swerving," said Rep. Morgan Carroll (D-Aurora). "You can see if they're not using their signal. You can detect if they are speeding, but you cannot, you cannot really see if someone is or is not wearing their seat belt until you're right up on them. Folks, that is a random stop."
Now don’t get me wrong, I believe seat belts save lives, and I also believe it is a responsibility of someone to those about whom they care to take precautions regarding their own safety – but that’s where I draw the line. In my opinion, you are more than welcome to choose not to wear your seatbelt. Your decision does not affect my safety on the road. Should you become injured in an accident, or perhaps even be killed, that is unfortunate, but that is also your decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In a counrty that touts freedom as its greatest asset, we get crap like this. It's the top-down approach that the US usually takes. It's like they are trying to teach a child here. It's more of a "because I said so" answer than an educated explanation. I think mandatory wheel time (48 hrs.) and classes, coupled with the minimum age at 18, would solve many more problems than legislation.
read: helmet laws
marijuana laws
et. al.
Fiscally speaking, it may be helpful for the government...make more money from fines for this minor infraction, and cutting down on health-care expenses.
That's probably the argument people would use in terms of 'how does this affect anyone else?' When people don't wear seatbelts, they're more likely to have major injuries in a car crash, which will then lead to more money spent on health care, which affects Me negatively because I have to pay for your idiocy.
But, basically, laws should only infringe on a person's right to do harm to others, which is why it's dumb that suicide is illegal:-) and why it makes sense for smoking to be banned in most restaurants, and why McDonald's should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell.
Post a Comment