Advertisement

Archive for Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Fine for not buckling up goes into effect today across state

This month, law enforcement officers started pulling over drivers simply for not wearing a seat belt. Starting tomorrow, they'll be able to assess a fine as well.

June 30, 2010

Advertisement

Diane McGee is among the 77 percent of drivers in Kansas who wear their seat belts, either while driving or as a passenger in the front seat of a vehicle making its way down interstate highways, major thoroughfares or county roads.

Whether a new $5 fine that takes effect today helps steer the other 23 percent into compliance remains an open question.

“Seems like if you’re wanting to enforce it, you should make it a little more drastic,” McGee said Tuesday, after exiting the driver’s license bureau in North Lawrence. “I’d make it more than $5. I don’t think it’s going to make that much difference.”

But the new fine — following up on the primary seat-belt law that took effect with warnings June 10 — will be looked upon to help boost the numbers of Kansas drivers using proper restraints.

According to information compiled by state departments of transportation, Kansas ranks 43rd among the 50 states in terms of seat-belt usage. Michigan, where the fine is $100 per offense, tops the list with 96 percent of drivers wearing seat belts.

The national average is 84 percent.

Kansas officials hope that imposing fines with the new law — one that allows law-enforcement officers to pull over drivers simply for not wearing a seat belt, instead of in conjunction with another violation — will make all the difference.

“This is going to help improve seat-belt compliance,” said Robert Eichkorn, who works in the Bureau of Transportation Safety and Technology at the Kansas Department of Transportation. “We have had a seat-belt law in the state of Kansas since 1985, but the ability to be pulled over for nothing other than not wearing a seat belt might persuade those other 23 percent that it’s not such a good idea.”

Also convincing: Proper use of safety belts reduces the risk of fatal injuries among front-seat passengers by 45 percent overall, and by 60 percent in pickups, SUVs and minivans.

“This isn’t the government trying to tell you what to do,” Eichkorn said. “This is simply an attempt to keep everyone as safe as possible on Kansas roadways.”

Comments

afcruchief 4 years, 6 months ago

Just another reason for the criminals to draw more revenue.Evereything that used to make this country great is almost gone.Like frogs in a pot with the heat being turned up slowly.Welcome to communism

boltzmann 4 years, 6 months ago

Seat belt law = communism?????????????????????

Wow.

Specifically can you name some specific things that "used to make this country great" that are now gone. I am curious.

Stuart Evans 4 years, 6 months ago

slowly turning the heat up on frogs is what used to make this country great?

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

If you turn up the heat and boil your mushrooms slow, then drink the renderings, that might seem to make this country great. I think you have to lick the actual frog to get the same effect from the amphibian.

In Communist Russia, frog licks you.

Also, seat belt laws are just another way way of dumbing down Americans. Why think about whether you need to wear your seat belt when the nanny state say's you need it all the time?

gr 4 years, 6 months ago

“This isn’t the government trying to tell you what to do,” Eichkorn said. “This is simply an attempt to keep everyone as safe as possible on Kansas roadways.”

Really? What is the real reason for the law? Do you think they really care about your safety? Nah. If so, they wouldn't allow people to drink. Or eat bad food. Or subsidize sugar. or. or.

Safety? Hah! They wouldn't be attempting to force poisonous substances to be injected into us. Don't give me, trying to keep people safe as a reason.

We ARE like frogs in a pot and the heat is being turned up. It is about power and control. In the past, people were willing to die for their and our freedoms. Now, people are willing to give up their freedom for pretending to be safe.
Let mother government take care of you. Outsourcing their safety. Or is it their brains.

By the way, I do wear a seatbelt. For my safety. Not because I think someone else has my safety in mind. In fact, I have have a notion to not wear it because they are trying to force it and whining about they have my safety in mind. Phtttht.

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

Good.

Don't wear it - pay the fine or suffer injuries in an accident. As long as I don't have to pay for your stupidity.

somedude20 4 years, 6 months ago

It is a $5 fine but will they tack on court costs and all that other bs that turn a small fine into a large sum? Last night on the KCMO ABC station they said that it would have all the added costs to it wonder if they are doing that in KS.

mfagan 4 years, 6 months ago

Hello, somedude20. No, court costs are not to be added. There are no additional fees. According to the folks at KDOT, it's a $5 fine -- no more, no less -- for folks 18 and older. A year from now, the fine goes to $10. Again, no court costs. - Mark Fagan Transportation Reporter (BTW: Like the profile pic. I'd say it goes to 11...)

grammaddy 4 years, 6 months ago

I've heard that after it goes to $10, it will be reported to the insurance company, with the probability of future violations causing an increase in insurance premiums.

Kontum1972 4 years, 6 months ago

i thought that fine was initiated a long time ago....? make it 300.00 and i bet u will see more seat belts buckled.

DebbieN 4 years, 6 months ago

They said they just started this well within the last year my Grandaughter got pulled over while leaving the school parking lot"Freestate" for not having her seatbelt on and got a ticket for no seat belt and it wasn't no five dollars it was $112.00

GardenMomma 4 years, 6 months ago

Should've buckled up then.

Takes 10 seconds to buckle your seatbelt. I don't feel bad. Maybe next time she'll take all that extra time to buckle up.

fan4kufootball 4 years, 6 months ago

I do not see how wearing a seat belt saves the lives of other drivers......doesn't it really only protect your own life? Does not sound like a good arguement for the law. However - I can see where wearing a seat belt reduces the cost burden of hospitalization & rehabiliation care granted that you live though an accident and the emotional stress placed on your family and friends for having to care for someone that lives though an accident.

Secondly - I am confused on why wearing your seat belt in an automobile is a law and you can still ride a motorcycle without a helmet.....? That makes no sense to me.

tomatogrower 4 years, 6 months ago

If you are driving without a seat belt during an accident you will probably go flying around or outside the car. If you are belted in you may still be able to gain control of the car and prevent further chaos.

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

You don't go "flying around" until AFTER you've hit something.

suzieq1216 4 years, 6 months ago

I also don't understand that, why are people allowed to ride on a motorcycle and not be strapped in or even be made to wear a helmet. You are way more likely to be seriously injured in a motorcycle accident then in a car accident.

Also why is there no seat belts on school buses. The little kids are allowed to ride on school buses, that go on highways, dangerous road conditions, and even over the speed limit without buckling up, so I don't see how they can make adults wear them and not small children on a bus it doesn't seem logical to me.

suzieq1216 4 years, 6 months ago

This is just a way for the state to make more money. As for the cost of medical care and insurance yes peoples actions may raise it to a certain extent but it's the medical personnel making $150,000 a year that's raising your medical costs. Also insurance companies don't care who you are, they will ripe anyone off while pocketing billions of dollars every year.

Yes wearing a seat belt is a good idea and it could save your life, but to force and adult to wear on is not right. It's like skydiving you know the risks and you make a choice to do it or not, same with wearing a seat belt there are risks not wearing one, but it should be your choice whether to wear one or not.

As for those of you saying not wearing a seat belt raises your medical costs, how many of you talk on the cell phone while driving, text while driving, eat, speed, drive drunk, run red lights, weave in an out of traffic, these are things that cause accidents which hurt people. If people would slow down, pay attention, and not do things while driving there would be a lot less accidents. There should me more of a focus on prevention of accidents since accidents are the reason people need to wear seat belts in the first place.

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

Your post contains multiple spelling errors.

And, I don't do any of the things you mentioned while driving, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that.

I agree, of course, that people should pay attention while driving.

suzieq1216 4 years, 6 months ago

I know I saw some of my mistakes, but I didn't have that much time to reply and it happens when you type about 60wpm. Once I submitted it I couldn't go back and edit it.

But while you may not do any of those things and others also don't do them, there are many people that do those sort of things. I can guarantee that the number of people that multitasks while driving weigh out numbers the people who don't multitask. People that do these things are the one's that are causing the majority of accidents and the need for seat belts. If they want to pass laws they should pass laws pertaining to the prevention of accidents ie. cell phone ban, better speed enforcement, aggressive driving enforcement, tougher DUI laws, ect.

The one's that are saying people who don't wear their seat belts are raising their medical costs and insurance are wrong. Blame the idiots who are yakking on their cell phone while driving on the highway, driving 60 in 30's, and who run red lights, because they are the one's causing accidents and taking lives.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

Well, they just banned texting while driving.

And, they periodically consider banning cell phone use, or requiring hands-free operation.

According to someone at the state I spoke with, they are also working on how to reduce DUI's.

So they're working on all of those things as well.

suzieq1216 4 years, 5 months ago

Well good they need to, but it's not just about passing laws they need to enforce them. It does not do any good to ban texting while driving or any other laws pertaining to driving if they are not going to properly enforce it. I am not a fan of passing tons of laws but when someone is putting my life and the lives of other drivers at risk because they want to act stupid behind the wheel, then yes laws need to be passed and enforced.

Cell phones need to be banned, because I have seen too many people driving with phones up to their ears, not only that but arguing on the phone while driving. Texting ban needs to really be enforced, a steep fine needs to be given for repeat offenders. Serious speeding needs to be better enforced. As for DUI's, the first offense should come with probation, a fine, alcohol counseling, and a device the inhibits your car from starting if you have been drinking. Second time offenders need minor jail time and their licenses revoked in addition to probation and alcohol counseling.

jafs 4 years, 5 months ago

Agreed.

An interesting idea from my wife is to simply require all cars sold to come with ignition interlocks, if we're interested in prevention rather than punishment.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 6 months ago

An expensive and immoral law that denies thinking adults the right to make decisions about their own safety.

Helmet requirements for motorcyclists and outright bans on risky recreational activities such as skateboarding and snow skiing are conceivably next.

wmathews 4 years, 6 months ago

To Kontum1972 and DebbieN: Before today, not wearing your seat belt was a secondary offense. Meaning, if you were pulled over for speeding or any other primary violation, the officer could also ticket you for not wearing your seat belt. That fine was $30 vs. the $5 fine now. In 2011, the fine goes up to $10.

somedude20 4 years, 6 months ago

do you know if they will tack on the "court costs" and "ems" costs or if it just the fine and that is all?

wmathews 4 years, 6 months ago

That includes court costs for both the $5 and $10 (2011) fines.

yleecoyote 4 years, 6 months ago

“This isn’t the government trying to tell you what to do,” Eichkorn said. “This is simply an attempt to keep everyone as safe as possible on Kansas roadways.” And yet you can still ride a motorcycle with out a helmet. It's all about money and how much we can make in the name of saftey.Our goverment.. if we can't figure out how to charge ya for it we'll tax ya instead...and if God willling and we can find away we'll do both.

Randall Barnes 4 years, 6 months ago

since when does june have only 29 days in the month ?

Whether a new $5 fine that takes effect today helps steer the other 23 percent into compliance remains an open question.

today ? how about tomorow july 1st.

“This isn’t the government trying to tell you what to do,” Eichkorn said. “This is simply an attempt to keep everyone as safe as possible on Kansas roadways.”

let me decide if i want to be traped in my car or not..a seatbelt has no affect on how i operate my car.and i don't need for the government to well never mind i have a whole bunch of $5 bills in my wallet.

Randall Barnes 4 years, 6 months ago

since when does june have only 29 days in the month ?

Whether a new $5 fine that takes effect today helps steer the other 23 percent into compliance remains an open question.

today ? how about tomorow july 1st.

“This isn’t the government trying to tell you what to do,” Eichkorn said. “This is simply an attempt to keep everyone as safe as possible on Kansas roadways.”

let me decide if i want to be traped in my car or not..a seatbelt has no affect on how i operate my car.and i don't need for the government to well never mind i have a whole bunch of $5 bills in my wallet.

mfagan 4 years, 6 months ago

Hello, rando1965. As you know, June indeed has 30 days. As the story notes, the fines take effect today, June 30. That's in the law. Law-enforcement officers were to issue only warnings from June 10 up until June 30, when the $5 fine was to be implemented. Here's the text from the conference committee report on the bill, a bill ultimately signed into law by Gov. Mark parkinson: "The bill would set the fine for violations of safety belt requirements by adults at $5 from June 30, 2010, until July 1, 2011, and $10 starting July 1, 2011; both amounts would include court costs. ..." - Mark Fagan Transportation Reporter

notajayhawk 4 years, 6 months ago

I can't see how a $5 fine - even applied to every occupant of the typical vehicle - is going to cover the cost of enforcement.

ivalueamerica 4 years, 6 months ago

You do not buckle your seat belt, you increase my medical costs when you are in an accident because you raise health insurance rates. When you do not buckle your seat belt, I have to pay more taxes for welfare to care for your family, or you as a disabled person. When you do not buckle your seatbelt, my auto insurance rates go up because they have to pay out more.

Your rights end where my wallet begins, stop whining and buckle up.

somedude20 4 years, 6 months ago

Funny, I recall in the past that you have refered to yourself as a large man and if that is true, then sir you are no better! I would be willing to bet that obesity costs more (after all obesity is the #1 killer) in healthcare, disability, insurance (when you die an early death and your family gets the benefits which causes insurance premiums to go up) rates than not wearing a seatbelt does to car insurance. You have more of a direct cost towards insurance and health care costs than seatbelts do with insurance. Obesity is the #1 leader of preventable death, not a lack of seatbelts, Google it and see page after page of how being obese kills you and costs the rest of us tons of money

ivalueamerica 4 years, 6 months ago

So you agree with the point of my statement, thank you.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 6 months ago

If you don't want the government telling you to wear your seatbelt, then don't drive your car on the government's roads.

Problem solved.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 6 months ago

By calling our roads "the government's roads," Bob couldn't be more clear about how he views the rights of government over the rights of the people.

I'm sure that in Bob's mind, our national parks are not your and my national parks, their the government's national parks.

Jonathan Kealing 4 years, 6 months ago

$5 fine includes court costs. And I'm 99% sure it's not a moving violation. It's pretty cheap.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 6 months ago

Thank you for the clarification. I'd opine, however, that any fine is not "cheap" to a working family.

boltzmann 4 years, 6 months ago

Then they should wear their seatbelts. This is a pretty easy fine to avoid.

fan4kufootball 4 years, 6 months ago

If this offense is going to be considered a moving violation then you not only have the cost of the ticket and the court costs but also the increase in auto insurance premiums.

Beth Bird 4 years, 6 months ago

You are 100% correct! This isn't about wearing or not wearing a seat belt......It provides a way for officers to search your vehicle for no reason.....

avoice 4 years, 6 months ago

Finally someone gets to the point. For those who have pointed out, correctly, that a $5 fine (all fees/costs included) will not cover the cost of the police stopping the vehicle or the court processing the charge, here is where the real money is going to be made. Some pencil-pushers have already calculated how many additional charges they are going to be able to rake in from these stops. It IS about the money and it IS about the police being able to pull over more motorists. Some of you may be able to convince yourselves that you agree with this and its going to be a good thing when police pull over more people more often. After all, THOSE people are criminals and WE are not, right? Just wait.

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

Actually, the 4th amendment has been found to not protect those rights as stringently in an automobile as in one's house or on one's person.

I'm not saying I agree with that.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 6 months ago

SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) replies…

By calling our roads "the government's roads," Bob couldn't be more clear about how he views the rights of government over the rights of the people.

I'm sure that in Bob's mind, our national parks are not your and my national parks, their the government's national parks.

This is absolutely classic. Why do you hate the Constitution, STRS? Who, exactly, sets the rules for the national parks?

Here's a little secret for you - the government and the people are the same thing. The people, though their representative democracy, created a system of roads. The people, through their representative democracy, set the rules for those roads. You still have the right, if you don't wish to follow those rules, to not drive on those roads.

You are such a little anarchist. It is cute.

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 6 months ago

You cannot expect anyone to take you too seriously when you posit, "Why do you hate the Constitution?" Sarcasm and junior high name-calling also doesn't help your cause.

And, no, the government and the people are not the same thing.

"We" are not the government. "Society" is not the government. "The people" are not the government.

Finally, while I will obey the laws of the land - even an immoral one like a seatbelt requirement - that doesn't mean I don't have the right to argue against it or point out that it only enriches government at the expense of our liberty.

nonono 4 years, 6 months ago

The state of Kansas can go to hell when telling me to wear my seat-belt. It is my right to not wear it. I pay my car insurance, an umbrella policy and health insurance so if I get hurt then I will pay for it. I guess they will be issueing me tickets all day and night. I will just tear it up and throw it back at the cop. So therefore they can kiss my ass.

boltzmann 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, good luck with that.

If you are using health insurance and you get hurt not wearing a seat belt then we all will pay for it through higher premiums.

nonono 4 years, 6 months ago

no matter what anybody says I would rather die than wear a seatbelt

windjammer 4 years, 6 months ago

You need to check into a local drug rehab center.

windjammer 4 years, 6 months ago

You need to check into a local drug rehab center.

kernal 4 years, 6 months ago

Talk to your auto insurance agent about your wish not to wear a seat belt.

jafs 4 years, 6 months ago

issuing has 7 letters.

And, if you don't like my little corrections, you can easily scroll past them.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 6 months ago

"We" are not the government. "Society" is not the government. "The people" are not the government.

----submitted by your friendly neighborhood anarchist and opponent of our representative democracy

If "we," "society," or "the people" did not pass this law, who did? And before you respond, remember that under the Patriot Act you might end up in jail...

SettingTheRecordStraight 4 years, 6 months ago

(sigh) Nonsense doesn't deserve a thoughtful response.

Bob_Keeshan 4 years, 6 months ago

You are one strange dude, friendly neighborhood anarchist.

kernal 4 years, 6 months ago

Dang. It's not even worth a smart-ass retort.

nonono 4 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

nonono 4 years, 6 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Janet Lowther 4 years, 6 months ago

I suppose with air bags loose seatbelts might be survivable.

But back in the days of cars having only a lap belt, a friend of mine was called out to investigate a fatal one car accident. It was far from his first fatal accident investigation, but this one darn near turned him inside out: A young lady had missed a corner and hit a tree, and been bisected by her seatbelt, leaving her legs and pelvis in the car while the rest of her was ejected from the car, with the two halves connected only by a streamer of intestines.

My heaviest winter coat is such thick down that I can't properly secure myself with the seatbelt. As tight as it goes is way too loose, so I've taken my chances, since being ejected can sometimes be survived. Being ripped in half on the seat belt can't.

Now, I guess I'll just have to hope the air bags work.

Nothing is worse than those who consider their tyranny as being "For your own good!"

feeble 4 years, 6 months ago

Was your friend also a physicist? Perhaps they could have provided a calculation explaining the amount of force necessary to sever the human torso, when that force is equally distributed over a 2' x 1.5" surface area. I would posit that the impact would not have been survivable, even with a belt.

That and the belt should be worn against the hips/pelvis, which from your story, was not done. Safety devices tend not to be safe when not worn as intended.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 4 years, 6 months ago

And just how, pray tell, does this get enforced?? I drove home this evening with the specific intent to see if I could tell if drivers coming towards me or in the car next to me were wearing their seat belts. I could only vaguely see one or two seatbelts over the shoulder, no way to see if they were actually attached to the car and "clicked in". How does an officer tell if the driver is indeed not belted in?

I would imagine that there will be a lot of people who will be stopped and discovered to indeed have their seat belts buckled. It is a very difficult thing to see clearly what with tinted windows, glare, driving at night, etc, etc.

This is a stupid and ignorant law that is virtually on the word of the police officers, and frankly, I know that there are some damned liars on the police force.

50YearResident 4 years, 6 months ago

I was driving when I saw the flash of a traffic camera. I figured that my picture had been taken for exceeding the limit even though I knew that I was not speeding. Just to be sure, I went around the block and passed the same spot, driving even more slowly, but again the camera flashed. Now I began to think that this was quite funny, so I drove even slower as I passed the area once more, but the traffic camera again flashed. I tried a fourth and fifth time with the same results and was now laughing as the camera flashed while I rolled past at a snail's pace.

Two weeks later, I got five tickets in the mail for driving without a seat belt.

independant1 4 years, 6 months ago

the moral of this story?

Don't wear a light colored shirt.

Did you smile for the candid camera?

riverdrifter 4 years, 6 months ago

Salient points. I think this law will be inforced in widely differing fashion. If a LEO sees a rural mail carrier driving from the middle of the seat he ain't a gonna stop them, especially if he lives on a mail route. I predict the biggest enforcers of this stupid law will be local cops in sleepy little towns with nothing else to do -and they aren't going to ticket farmer Brown for not wearing a seatbelt while on his way to the elevator with a load of wheat.

parrothead8 4 years, 6 months ago

Yawn. Same response to everything. Everything we can't do is the government's fault.

A government is supposed to look out for the welfare of its people. Seatbelts have been around for over 100 years and are proven to save lives, yet some people are still SO friggin' dumb they can't figure it out. When it takes you more than 100 years to figure out something so obvious, maybe it's time for someone else to start looking out for your welfare.

parrothead8 4 years, 5 months ago

Dude, you're hilarious...in a delusional sort of way. Nobody is trying to control us, unless you count the aliens who dropped you off. Tell me one federal law that has passed since Obama was elected that took freedom away from me.

Reuben Turner 4 years, 6 months ago

yeah! i think they ought to raise the fee too. $5.00 is only going to make repeat offenders. you make the fee $30 maybe $40 even $100.00 and see if you don't get some sho' nuff seat belt wearing folks in lawrence, ks.

matahari 4 years, 6 months ago

So, a question, is this for shoulder straps, lap belt or both? I think the only way folks get busted for not wearing their seat belt, is when they confess to not wearing it. And of course, most people are honest..

It's all about taking the thinking out of the minds of the people and putting the thinking, basic cognitive decision making into the hands of "higher ups."

I feel that if I want to send my face thru a windshield, I should be able to make a decision on my own.

I also believe there are many underlying reasons behind this. Do we not have enough laws? Should we let our gov't make all our decisions for us, so we don't think at all? It would should make their jobs easier, and more resourceful.

It would be interesting to see how many other driving related offenses and fines increase as a result. I don't imagine it will make front page news.I am going to assume there will be more revenue increases than a $5 fine.

austind88 4 years, 6 months ago

so how will they enforce this law in classic vehicles that only have a lap belt and no shoulder strap, as they would have no way of seeing if the lap belt was buckled while the car is in motion

silkiner 4 years, 6 months ago

Those against seat belts will die off and be gone .....why argue with the fading?

silkiner 4 years, 6 months ago

Unless you are Mormon and have special under-garments! GO BYU!

independant1 4 years, 6 months ago

Why didn't anyone go down this path?

This new law provides yet another reason for police to pull over a driver.

Prosecutor: Officer, why did you stop the defendant? Officer: It appeared he wasn't wearing a seatbelt. Prosecutor: And was he wearing a seatbelt? Officer: Yes. Prosecutor: And why did you arrest the driver? Officer: The operator could not produce proof of citizenship/no drivers license.

and

I think one can get just as drunk on 3.2 as 5.0, 3.2 just causes more trips to officers head to reach the desired effect.

Ah the days of the dollar a (glass) pitcher nite in the beer joints. Those were the days

Kontum1972 4 years, 6 months ago

thx whitney...muah!

i think texting while your driving is the next issue.... last week while i was outside mowing my lawn up on kasold there was a guy stopped at the 4 way stop sign and this guy rear ended the car at a complete stop....the driver was text messaging....no one was hurt....but that driver in front lost his rear bumper...

slang4d 4 years, 6 months ago

Didn't realize there wasn't an ordinance already in place!. My Dad was a cop and I heard enough horror stories to understand the consequences of not buckling up. Guess what? Saved my life when I was 16 and hit by a Bronco I. I was driving a 1980 Honda hatchback, not exactly a car loaded with airbags and safety features. It did however have seat belts and I was serious about buckling.

Personally I would like to see a higher seat belt fine and also a helmet law. Sunglasses aren't exactly protective gear...god forbid one is safe instead of "cool." Why not wear a seat belt? How is it so difficult to do this? How can people be so whiny about something that keeps them safe? Maybe you don't appreciate that the law is providing a consequence if you don't make the safe choice- I'm sure though your friends and family would be grateful if you survived an accident.

bopro 4 years, 6 months ago

Is it not true that all fines include a court cost, (how much will that be.)

George_Braziller 4 years, 6 months ago

Only $5.00 for driving without a seatbelt yet the fine for and expired parking meter at KU is $20.00. Hmmmm. Something is screwed up here.

Robert Rauktis 4 years, 6 months ago

"I suppose with air bags loose seatbelts might be survivable"

The air bags require a stable body to be effective. No seat belt...SOL.

Every accident article with a tossed body means that said body wasn't strapped.

But, it's Darwinian.

JayCat_67 4 years, 5 months ago

Get rid of the violation altogether. Simply relieve insurance companies of all claims if it is determined that a person injured or killed in an accident was not wearing a seatbelt. If the companies wanted, they could sell a rider to a policy for those who choose to not wear their belts. This way, if you want to risk leaving your family with a financial burdon, it's on you.

independant1 4 years, 5 months ago

We need a law for every good idea and a fine for not taking good advice..

Commenting has been disabled for this item.