Not my fault the cost goes to others. I didn't write or vote for that law. No one else should be responsible for my decisions and they're consequences.

so, i wasn't too far off the mark. thanks.

i am glad we aren't like china. in so many ways. that is just one of them.

i agree with you re the nanny state. however, not wearing a seatbelt can and does affect a lot of people, starting with passengers of the vehicle. when i see motorcyclists not wearing helmets (usually 40 and 50 something year olds around here) it bothers me very little: their head is not going to affect the outcome of an accident, except their own outcome.

Not a LEO but...

1) Tailgating. Shows a complete disregard for other driver's safety and disrespect for thier personal property. It's especially annoying in the Porsche since I know that if I have to brake hard for any reason, the car following me will not likely be able to out-brake me.

2) Excessive speed through residential neighbourhoods. There's no need to endanger people's lives in order to save one or two seconds leaving the neighbourhood.

3) Rolling stops at stop signs and intersections. See above.

There are far more but those are my top 3.

PS: Can anybody give me a good reason for not wearing a seat belt? And wrinkling your blouse isn't a valid answer.

to give the bird to the man.

Can't believe nobody has said this yet:

People who put on their flashers as soon as it starts raining.

I mean, WTF? It not only disables your turn signals but it makes you look like a moron. I know, I know..... it's legal in some states, but it still pisses me off.

Interesting thread.

1. tailgaters
2. driving in the left lane and not passing
3. drunk
4. kids or drivers not secure in the vehicle

Sounds like life is pretty cheap over there. They also work children in factories and dump toxic waste in their rivers like it's no big deal. Lose a few (thousand) people? Life goes on...:cool:

I agree with this all-in except that I would punish people more expensively for certain offenses. Running cross-walks w/ pedestrians in them should be expensive, IMO. How is a $25 fine going to stop anyone from just driving like an ass?

Feeling the love... Thanks!

I always, ALWAYS wear seatbelts. My choice. But I do not believe any government has the moral authority to insist that I always do everything I can to ensure my own personal safety. Again... Hang gliding, motorcycle riding, racing cars, kayaking. Where does it stop.

My 86 year old father who has survived 3 shootings and near fatal mortar wounds was recently ticketed for no seatbelt. He told the officer, "I'm 86 years old. Exactly what are you protecting me from, son?"

If you can not make a clear, statistically proven case that my behavior is putting others at risk, it's none of the state's business what I do. My freedom and liberty trumps your misguided attempt to protect me from myself. Everytime.

Should you be on the receiving team, you get points ADDED to your license.

Post of the year.

again, moses, seatbelts protect other people.

Show me the data. Your impressions are not a valid argument for policy.

that is going to be some pretty difficult data to come up with, and you know it. extrapolate from this: do you have better control in an accident wearing your seatbelt or not wearing it?

yep, that is the best i am going to be able to do. it is good enough for me. i've been in accidents both with and without a seatbelt. they were both very very violent. the ones in which i was wearing a seatbelt were pretty contolled, as those things go. the other one (in a 1965 olds f85 that didn't even have seatbelts) was a complete yard sale.

but you go right ahead and lament your loss of rights re seatbelts. we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

I suspect a driver who has allergies and sneezed habitually puts the public at greater risk while driving than a non-seatbelt wearer does. I have no data, of course. Let's pass a law that gives citations to all drivers with allergies who can't prove they have taken their Zyrtec.

And if protecting the public is your goal, epileptics, anyone with a history of heart disease, all teenagers and the elderly need to be barred from public roads.

Think of the children...

there is some truth there.

like i said, we can disagree. the sneezer probably does create more risk. that doesn't mean we should allow all risky behaviors. if you want to go down that road, what business is it of the government, if someone wants to drink and drive?

Loads of good data confirming that drunk drivers put others at risk. That's the difference. Interestingly, many years ago there was no law against drinking and driving in Washington state. You couldn't legally be intoxicated, but you could drink a beer while driving.

s_morrison57 said No, in fact the BC Supreme Court just struck down part of the new drinking and driving laws. Under the new law if you were between .05 and .1 you would get a three day suspension. But anything under .05 and you were fine. So 4 or 5 beers (canadian beers 5%) over two hours and you are fine. Seems like a lot doesn't it? And the law got struck down - yet since the law has been in effect in less than a year, alcohol related fatalities in BC have dropped from 113 to 68 - 45 ives saved by the law change.

Vinman said And Vinny, I thought you would jump in about the seatbelt thing. Most LEOs, firemen, and EHS workers will tell you about the effects of not wearing a seatbelt. The anti-seatbelt advocates have their theories about how it can be safer by not wearing your seatbelt in certain situations - sixteen years of policing and have not seen a single situation where I thought - poor bugger - not wearing his seatbelt would have saved him. But plenty the other way round.

Cheers

so, its all a matter of data and none of it is common sense. check.

i think you can still get alcoholic beverages at drive up windows in texas.

There's a reason they have a medical history portion on DMV license forms.

What can DMV do about a person who may be unable to drive safely due to a physical or mental condition or disorder?
California law (Vehicle Code Sections 13800, 13801) permits DMV to investigate and reexamine a person's ability to safely drive a motor vehicle for a variety of reasons, including information coming to the department's attention that a person has a physical or mental disorder that may affect his or her ability to drive safely.


What types of medical conditions can affect a person's ability to drive safely?
Any disorder or condition that might interfere with the alertness, strength, physical coordination, agility, judgment, attention, knowledge, or skill necessary to safely operate a motor vehicle, is a concern to DMV.

Such conditions may be static (unchanging), such as the residual effects of a single stroke, or chronic, such as an uncontrolled seizure disorder or diabetic condition. It may be a progressive condition which gradually deteriorates over time, such as Alzheimer's disease or other form of dementia.

These are only a few examples of the many different kinds of physical or mental conditions or disorders that might cause DMV to reexamine a driver.

How does DMV find out about persons who may be unsafe to drive due to a physical or mental condition or disorder?
DMV receives information from many sources, including law enforcement, physicians and surgeons, judges, family members and acquaintances. Under the law, peace officers have the discretion to request a reexamination of any driver with whom they come in contact, if they observe or discover reasons to believe the person may be unable to drive safely. Court judges have similar discretion.

The law also requires physicians and surgeons to report to the local health officer certain conditions or disorders, and gives them discretion to report other conditions. These reports are forwarded to the DMV. DMV may consider information from any source when deciding whether to investigate or reexamine a person's driving qualifications. This includes information from a person's family members, relatives and acquaintances.

Absolutely. Safety policy should always be supported by data. "Common sense" is ridiculously subjective. If you want to make public policy based on "feelings", then it's time to let Oprah write the vehicle codes.

NON LEO here.

Distractions while driving and did someone mention seat-belts?



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1323218751.jpg

Say there Moses, you do realize that the more injuries there are in traffic collisions the more money it costs all other drivers in the from of higher insurance rates? Also, those nice ladies and gents that cut un-belted buffoons out of their cars and try to save their lives? They get paid by all of us. You know, together, with taxes. Wouldn't you rather have them ready and waiting to help you or someone you care about, than cutting some libertarian out of his or her car?

My order of driving peeves.

1) Drunks
2) Cell Phone
3) Gross polluters
4) No child seat
5) Not in a Porsche

Not a LEO, but used to drive ~50,000km annually.

People driving with their head up their rectal orifice.
This can cover a wide range of things from talking on the phone, to others in the car to just thinking about stuff other than where their two tons of steel and rubber is headed at the moment. I have been guilty of this. These days I try to drive when I'm behind the wheel.

Drivers who do things in the security of their vehicles they wouldn't dare do in a lineup. Acts which are simply rude and dangerous: cutting people off, obscene gestures, 'brake checks' unsafe overtaking on two lane roads.

Re the seat belt debate: I always wear mine, and have since the 60s. I have been in vehicles involved in extreme maneuvers on the track, in accidents and accident avoidance. I was glad for my belts every time.

I have been a responder to accidents involving people who have been ejected from their vehicle, one of which was partly caused by the driver not being belted in. Driver was leaning against the door in a right hand corner, the door opened and his attempt to stay in the vehicle by holding onto the steering wheel caused the truck to turn hard right and mount the guard rail. He ended up underneath the truck next to the rail, bruised, but alive.

I must ask though: In the US, where do hospitals get the money to treat those who cannot afford emergency treatment? Does that cost get spread out to the paying clients? In any case, there is a societal cost to looking after these folks.
(Sorry for the PARFy moment)

Best
Les

1. Children not belted in or car seats... Or being put in the front seat which has an air bag. (under 12)

2. Speeding, hooning. (reckless or dangerous driving)

3. Texting or using a phone.

That's the top three but Children being put in harms way is the biggest for me.

I could never be a cop... Too much angst but I admire the people that are on the job.

I will give some anecdotal information here. A friend of ours in his big bench seated Buick swerved to miss an animal in the road and slid over to the passenger side while still trying to hang onto the wheel which made the swerve even tighter. Ended up rolling the car in the field. I am reasonably sure that he would not have wrecked the car had he been wearing his belt. If you want to play the what if game, what if that had ben a yard with kids playing?