MI seatbelt enforcement working

[rohan]

Click it or Ticket Information


The Click it or Ticket campaign was adopted as Michigan's enforcement and public information campaign as a result of an upgrade to the safety belt law in March 2000. The campaign focus is increasing awareness of and compliance with Michigan's safety belt and child passenger safety laws. Safety belts save lives!

The reality is that traffic crashes are devastating. We lose the equivalent of a fully loaded 737 airplane each day in this country on our highways due to traffic crashes. While America continues to wage a full-scale war against terrorism, both on our own soil and overseas, why do we continue to accept and tolerate the reality that traffic crashes claim lives everyday?

Safety belts can prevent serious injury and even death in a crash. 1,084 persons were killed and 80,576 persons injured in traffic crashes in Michigan during 2007. Of those killed, 37% were not wearing a safety belt.

The public knows they should buckle up for safety. But despite this awareness, research shows that many are not taking the steps necessary to protect themselves and their children on every ride.

Many people are under the mistaken notion that trips around home are safe, and they fail to make it a point that everyone buckles up. The truth is, most traffic crashes happen close to home - where people do the most driving.

Michigan law requires:

All front seat passengers to be buckled up
All passengers under age 16 to be buckled up, in all seating positions
All children under age 8 to be in an approved child safety seat or booster seat, in all seating positions, unless 4'9" tall.  


http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1593_3504_22774-11612--,00.html
______________________________________________________________


October 24, 2008 - Michigan Safety Belt Use Jumps Again in 2008; New Record High 97.2 Percent

A second safety belt observation survey at the end of the summer revealed belt use in Michigan has jumped yet again this year to 97.2 percent, according to a just-released direct observation statewide survey provided by the Wayne State University Transportation Research Group.  An earlier study, conducted after the Memorial Day weekend, showed belt use had increased to 96.2 percent.
Michigan's belt use rate far exceeds the national average.  While more Americans are buckling up than ever before, the national rate stands at 83 percent of vehicle occupants using seatbelts during daylight hours. In 2007, 82 percent of the U.S. used seatbelts.

The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning, which tracks belt use annually, will need the full report details to determine what may have led to the increase from last year's 93.7 percent belt use rate.  Belt use may have received a bump when Michigan's new booster seat law took effect July 1 this summer.

"Enforcing the state's safety belt law is about saving lives," said Col. Peter C. Munoz, director of the Michigan State Police.  "Michigan has seen a consistent decrease in traffic deaths as belt use has increased, and we expect that trend to continue in 2009."

Safety belt enforcement zones have made the enforcement effort far more visible to motorists.  The use of a sign announcing the zone alerts all passing motorists that officers are focusing on safety belt use.

In the last five years, belt use in Michigan has risen by 12.4 percent.  That translates to an 82 percent reduction in non-use: meaning four of every five people who were not buckled up in 2003, now wear safety belts.

In 2007, Michigan was one of 10 states with a safety belt use of 90 percent or higher.  Hawaii had the highest belt use at 97.6 percent last year.


http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,1607,7-123-1586-202330--,00.html

[James Young]

Because traffic crashes are so devastating, should we not apply the most effective public policy tools to the situation?  Should we not use those things that are scientifically sound and have shown that they work to improve the big three key measures [see #1] of traffic safety? 

Instead, we continue to use law enforcement as a collection and punishment tool rather than as an education tool.  Yes, I know that LE sees enforcement as the sine qua non of traffic control and that the law is the law is the law, ignoring what is likely its most effective function, education of drivers as a preventive measure. 

With that said, I support the use of seatbelts and taught my kids to use their seatbelts and their rationality.  As an aside, I wonder if much of the resistance to wearing belts is reactance. 

#1:  The three are crash rate, injury rate and fatality rate, each per 100,000,000 VMT.  The scientifically sound measures are setting speed limits at the 85th percentile or the 90th percentile on Interstate-grade roadways, keeping traffic moving by allowing right-on-red, encouraging better engineering of cars and roads, and concentrating on the few dangerous exceptions rather than the arbitrarily illegal many.

[S204STi]

James, I agree that driver education is fundamentally crucial, but until we implement and maintain a process of superior driver education and recertification there is still a need for the boys in blue to correct us when we screw up.  Most drivers on the road are fundamentally twats.  For example, during my MSF course one of our class mates found out for the first time in her very long driving career that it's not ok to maintain 2 car lengths distance behind someone at 75mph.

[rohan]

Yes james our enforcement practices are for revenue generation purposes only.   

And we as LE agree that better education is needed- but who's going to pay for it?  How are we gonna make already licensed drivers go to class?  And how are we going to force them to pay up?  Most departmetns are so stretched right now in both personnel and funding that it'ld be impossible to implement and teach- unless you want to raise taxes- which is exactly what forcing already licensed drivers to pay up is- and it's just what people in Mi need- more taxes. 

[James Young]

rohan writes:    {Yes james our enforcement practices are for revenue generation purposes only.}

I do not doubt the sincere motivation of some LEOs, including you; they truly believe that they are doing what is right.  OTOH, institutional LE behavior is much better explained by monetary considerations than by any other single factor.  One can predict with alarming accuracy what LE agencies will do and how they will react by examining the flow of cash (and political power).  Many jurisdictions are not even trying to obscure their real reasons for traffic  control now, openly touting such things as photo-radar and RLCs because they produce cash.  Why should we believe that their prior efforts have been for the public good?

{And we as LE agree that better education is needed- but who's going to pay for it?  How are we gonna make already licensed drivers go to class?  And how are we going to force them to pay up?  It's just what people in Mi need- more taxes.}

It isn?t about going to class or FORCING them to pay up [Wow!  Was that a Freudian slip or what?] nor is it about taxes, even the tax on driving that we call traffic fines.  No, it is about stopping the classmate of whom R-inge wrote and informing her of the illegality and the stupidity of her behavior.  However, that is not what LE does in practice.  My own Texas DPS issued more than twice as many speeding citations as all other combined (including commercial infractions) in 2000[?] so we know where their focus is.  We also know that they tried to keep this information from the public, calling it ?proprietary? but were forced to disclose it by a federal court.  If they have done nothing wrong, why do they feel the need to keep it secret?

It is about concentrating on the dangerous exceptions rather than the low-hanging fruit that the Texas DPS chose to concentrate on.  It is moving the impeder over to the right and keeping traffic moving.  It is finding the sleep-deprived driver ? the single most dangerous driver on the road according to independent studies ? and having him pull over to rest.  As so many of you have pointed out, driving sleepy is not illegal and that only solidifies my point about pursuing scientifically sound methodology rather than doing what we have been doing because that is what we do. 

   

[dazzleman]

Education is great, but enforcement of some type will always be necessary for acts deemed to be against the public interest (not sure if I'd put seat belts in that category but that's a different question).  Some people choose to do the wrong thing, even when they know what the right thing is.

[rohan]

rohan writes:    {Yes james our enforcement practices are for revenue generation purposes only.}

  OTOH, institutional LE behavior is much better explained by monetary considerations than by any other single factor.  One can predict with alarming accuracy what LE agencies will do and how they will react by examining the flow of cash (and political power).  Many jurisdictions are not even trying to obscure their real reasons for traffic  control now, openly touting such things as photo-radar and RLCs because they produce cash. ........................ My own Texas DPS issued more than twice as many speeding citations as all other combined (including commercial infractions) in 2000[?] so we know where their focus is.  We also know that they tried to keep this information from the public, calling it ?proprietary? but were forced to disclose it by a federal court.  If they have done nothing wrong, why do they feel the need to keep it secret?

How does the TDPS not wanting to give up info about speed citations have anything to do with enforcing seat belts and the direct correlations to the number people wearing them?  You're fishing - again.  If you look at our MSP's site about Click it or Ticket you'll see that they and those of us who work that program are interested in safety first- otherwise why would they devote a site and colelct info on it?  We're- my dept. and most in our county and surrounding us- actually pretty serious about belt enforcement and safety.

And thanks for the compliment.  It was honestly a pleasant surprise and it's appreciated. 

[rohan]

rohan writes:    {And we as LE agree that better education is needed- but who's going to pay for it?  How are we gonna make already licensed drivers go to class?  And how are we going to force them to pay up?  It's just what people in Mi need- more taxes.}

It isn’t about going to class or FORCING them to pay up [Wow!  Was that a Freudian slip or what?] nor is it about taxes, even the tax on driving that we call traffic fines.  No, it is about stopping the classmate of whom R-inge wrote and informing her of the illegality and the stupidity of her behavior.  However, that is not what LE does in practice. 

That's exactly what it's about by your own admissions both here and in the past- your an advocate of education and we agree on that one thing.  But someone has to do the training and someone has to pay for it and someone has to go to the classes.  You suggest solutions but you don't give a single bit of information on how to get it done- and the public would see that silence meaning tha tit would have to fall to our shoulders- and we don't have the money or people to get it done. 

Look my only point of this thread was to show doubting thomas's or in your case doubting james's that enforcement does have an effect.

[rohan]

my MSF course

Your what?

[James Young]

dazzleman writes:  {Education is great, but enforcement of some type will always be necessary for acts deemed to be against the public interest . . ..  Some people choose to do the wrong thing, even when they know what the right thing is.}

That?s reactance, again.  Much wiser would be to define with better fidelity to scientifically sound  theory just what those acts are.  Defining a speed of 66 mph on a road designed for 100+ mph and where the 90th percentile is 83 mph as ?against the public interest? is bad policy; vigorously enforcing it more so.  Not defining sleep-deprived driving as impaired driving is not sound public policy but the cure for it is sleep, not the extraction of cash from the perpetrator.

[rohan]

dazzleman writes:  {Education is great, but enforcement of some type will always be necessary for acts deemed to be against the public interest . . ..  Some people choose to do the wrong thing, even when they know what the right thing is.}

That’s reactance, again.  Much wiser would be to define with better fidelity to scientifically sound  theory just what those acts are.  Defining a speed of 66 mph on a road designed for 100+ mph and where the 90th percentile is 83 mph as “against the public interest” is bad policy; vigorously enforcing it more so.  Not defining sleep-deprived driving as impaired driving is not sound public policy but the cure for it is sleep, not the extraction of cash from the perpetrator.

You know it occurs to me that you keep calling out the police - we don't make laws we only enforce what's on the books.  If it's a "half assed" law and it's the only one we have then that's all we have.  We can't go out and make new ones to fit our- or your desired parameters.  They actually elect people to do that and if they aren't willing to change the system then we have to work within it.

[James Young]

rohan writes: {That's exactly what it's about by your own admissions both here and in the past- [you?re] an advocate of education and we agree on that one thing.  But someone has to do the training and someone has to pay for it and someone has to go to the classes.}

Yes, but the major thrust of education needs to come early in the process and must be done by experts and must impart sound information, techniques and skills ready for the real world.  Showing Signal 32-type films just doesn?t cut it.  Telling the entire driving community that excessive speed (i.e., above the posted limit) is the virtual singular cause of traffic crashes doesn?t cut it.  Having cops or the football coach teach according to an outdated and outmoded model does a huge disservice to our new drivers.  We already have a model for such effective driving schools in Bondurant and Barber.  Yes, they are very expensive but we can do three things about that: (1) utilize simulators (2) develop economies of scale and (3) have the insurance industry subsidize these schools.  They are always touting their devotion to traffic safety; now is the time for them to put their money where their propaganda has been.

{ You suggest solutions but you don't give a single bit of information on how to get it done- and the public would see that silence meaning tha tit would have to fall to our shoulders- and we don't have the money or people to get it done.}

I suppose ?our? and ?we? refer to LEOs.  I do not want cops teaching driving classes.  I do want them concentrating on behavior that is truly dangerous or impedes the flow of traffic, e.g., left lane bandits, driving while sleepy or those bent on suicide.  I do not want them handing out speeding citations willy nilly because that has zero effect on actual speeds or on key safety measures.

{Look my only point of this thread was to show doubting thomas's or in your case doubting james's that enforcement does have an effect.}

Measuring the efficacy of enforcement effort is difficult and inexact.  We do know that key traffic safety measures move independently of any measure of enforcement intensity.  If you know of any independent studies of a direct, predictable relationship, I?ll be very happy to read and analyze them. 

[James Young]

Yes, I do call out the police because your agencies keep supporting the extant bad ones and lobbying for ever more intrusive laws.  Ever so rarely does any agency act in the public interest by lobbying to remove poor law or to actually concentrate on existing laws that do measurable good.  It is the commanders and the LEOs in the field who decide to patrol for speeders and ignore the impeder, so, yes, that is your fault.  And, since working to change the system to a more scientifically sound one is non-existent in LE, even more blame falls on you. 

Addendum:  I strongly support higher pay, protecting LEOs and a higher level of professionalism in LEOs but there is a quid pro quo:  LEOs and their agencies have to act more professional and must base their behavior on scientifically sound public policy.  Further, they have to actually advocate such policy.  No longer can you hide behind the puerile mantra, "we don't make the law, we only enforce it."

[rohan]

Yes, I do call out the police because your agencies keep supporting the extant bad ones and lobbying for ever more intrusive laws.  Ever so rarely does any agency act in the public interest by lobbying to remove poor law or to actually concentrate on existing laws that do measurable good.  It is the commanders and the LEOs in the field who decide to patrol for speeders and ignore the impeder, so, yes, that is your fault.  And, since working to change the system to a more scientifically sound one is non-existent in LE, even more blame falls on you. 

Addendum:  I strongly support higher pay, protecting LEOs and a higher level of professionalism in LEOs but there is a quid pro quo:  LEOs and their agencies have to act more professional and must base their behavior on scientifically sound public policy.  Further, they have to actually advocate such policy.  No longer can you hide behind the puerile mantra, "we don't make the law, we only enforce it."

News flash james- police agencies aren't lobbying for anything other than to keep our heads above water.  We don't have the manpower or resources to lobby in any manner- maybe the NYPD's and the LAPD's and so on but the rest of us can barely hold our departments together.  You're woefully misinformed about who's lobbying and for what.  And you're even more misinformed about what police departments and officers really do.  But I don't expect you to care or want to understand. 

And for the record I don't hide.  I'm not hiding behind anything that includes your "mantra" throwing- the facts are pretty simple- do you understand the differences in the various arms of government?  Last I knew LE didn't fall into the judicial or legislative branches so that leaves us pretty much out of the law making areana.

[hotrodalex]

You know, if you want to educate people, just a little bit, change the way officers talk to people they pull over. If they are pulling over a car that isn't suspected of anything dangerous (like having a weapon or something), they shouldn't treat the person like they are "bad". Treat them like they did something wrong and then try to teach them the right thing. Simple as that. If they were tailgating, tell them how many car lengths they should be behind the next car. And use a "teaching" type tone of voice, not an annoyed or "I'm right your wrong" tone.

[rohan]

Completely agree.  They don't teach that much anymore in academies it's all about the "image" but the image is that we're assholes.  I'm all for treating people rough when you need to but these guys coming out of school have no idea how to talk to people.  It's something our FTO's try to teach but the guy has to want to do it once he gets off FTO.  You get far more flies with honey. 

But I know why it's done the other way- most people we stop will lie and say anything they can think of.  And then if you're too nice to them they try to walk on you- it's a fine line and it's hard to learn for some.  Buit still that's not what we're talking about mostly.   The point is that enforcement seems to be working here for seatbelts.

[S204STi]

Your what?

Motorcycle Safety Foundation

[S204STi]

I don't see why it would be such a bad thing to make driver's ed a mandatory deal (i'm talking actual professional training, not just 50 hours with your mom getting groceries and then a written/driving test).  It would make driving a bigger financial obligation from the get-go, you could certify private companies to do the training and sign off of their certification, etc. sort of like motorcycle courses, but far more in depth and with higher standards to pass.

Then, require every 5th year each individual recertify with a driving and written test. 

Onerous?  Yes, but there are many people who need it.

[Soup DeVille]

I have a hard time buying the idea that seatbelt enforcement is about anything other than money. Speed/traffic enforcement? Sure: because if I drive like an asshole, I'm possibly endangering others.

If I don't wear a seatbelt, I'm endangering only myself. I own my car, I pay for my own insurance: both for property damage and medical expenses. If I choose not to buckle up, I'm the one that takes the consequences.

(FWIW, I do wear my seatbelt religiously, my objection is an academic one)

[MX793]

I have a hard time buying the idea that seatbelt enforcement is about anything other than money. Speed/traffic enforcement? Sure: because if I drive like an asshole, I'm possibly endangering others.

If I don't wear a seatbelt, I'm endangering only myself. I own my car, I pay for my own insurance: both for property damage and medical expenses. If I choose not to buckle up, I'm the one that takes the consequences.

(FWIW, I do wear my seatbelt religiously, my objection is an academic one)

What happens when you get in an accident and become a vegetable and your own insurance and personal funds are expended to cover your extensive, life-long medical needs?  Who foots the bill?

[Soup DeVille]

What happens when you get in an accident and become a vegetable and your own insurance and personal funds are expended to cover your extensive, life-long medical needs?  Who foots the bill?

The same thing that happens when I become a vegetable after I fall down the stairs at home, but at least I don't have to worry about police coming into my house and ticketing me for not using the handrails.

[Soup DeVille]

Let's put it this way:

Almost every action or decision I ever make has the potential to effect other people: for good or bad.

If I eat bacon and eggs for breakfast instead of local harvested organic muesli, I'm not only increasing my chances of heart disease, I'm supporting the methane producing animal industry instead of clean repsonsible local farmers.

If I choose to live 40 miles away from my job instead of moving next door so I can walk, I'm increasing pollution, foreign oil dependance, and overburdening the road system while exposing myself to the possibility of being in a car accident.

Does that mean that its right for government to regulate those or even make those decisions for me? No, we have to draw the linme somewhere, and seatbelt enforcement like this is just simply over that line.

[GoCougs]

What happens when you get in an accident and become a vegetable and your own insurance and personal funds are expended to cover your extensive, life-long medical needs?  Who foots the bill?

Or, if it's a relatively minor accident, and rather than a few bumps and bruises, the result is some some broken bones and surgery; and though medical costs would be covered by insurance, rather than $2,500 it's $50,000.

This law is essentially a symbolic "education" tool. I don't know how an LEO could spot an unbuckled driver save for a traffic stop (and you'd think that said driver would buckle up in the process of pulling over). But the academic of enforcement vs. education? "Education" is overrated. Compliance is ultimately only achievable via consequences.

The detriment of wearing a seat belt is nil. The detriment of not wearing a seat belt is profound. I'm really all about bucking down modern statism, but this law easily slides in under the rule of law tenet upon which the country is founded owing to the pervasive nature of the automobile (and accidents) and the resulting financial toll on the system.

[James Young]

I will have more to add tomorrow (we have a location shoot in the desert coming up today and tonight) but just so we all recognize that, yes, jurisdictions do enforce for revenue:

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081117/METRO/811170333

This must hit our Michigan posters with a double whammy because their economy is particularly hard hit and now the agencies want to add to the misery by taking traffic fines from them and even the LEOs are once again being asked to prostitute themselves to the almighty citation dollar.

[James Young]

Go Cougs writes:  {Compliance is ultimately only achievable via consequences.}

Utter bullshit.  Compliance is achievable only when the regulation is reasonable

[GoCougs]

Go Cougs writes:  {Compliance is ultimately only achievable via consequences.}

Utter bullshit.  Compliance is achievable only when the regulation is reasonable

Not at all - there is no single underlying precedent to the human condition than that consequences dictates action.

Watch the increase in seat belt compliance should the penalty be a year in jail.

[hotrodalex]

The same thing that happens when I become a vegetable after I fall down the stairs at home, but at least I don't have to worry about police coming into my house and ticketing me for not using the handrails.

You never know, that could happen one day...

[Tave]

I don't know how an LEO could spot an unbuckled driver save for a traffic stop (and you'd think that said driver would buckle up in the process of pulling over).

You just look at the driver to either side to see if he's wearing a seatbelt.

Do you know what the Click-it or Ticket law is? It means you can be fined for having your sealtbelt off but committing no other infraction.

Most places that had seatbelt laws on the books only allowed a LEO to fine someone in addition to whatever fine precipitated the stop. They couldn't cite someone for simply not buckling up.

[GoCougs]

You just look at the driver to either side to see if he's wearing a seatbelt.

Do you know what the Click-it or Ticket law is? It means you can be fined for having your sealtbelt off but committing no other infraction.

Most places that had seatbelt laws on the books only allowed a LEO to fine someone in addition to whatever fine precipitated the stop. They couldn't cite someone for simply not buckling up.

Confused? The vast majority of traffic enforcement is from a stationary position, and plenty of traffic doesn't move on multi-lane roadways, doesn't move during the day, and seat belt usage is otherwise undetectable owing to anything from vehicle ride height to tinted windows to dark clothing.

Even if not - even if they patrol it like hawks and nail every non-complier so be it.

[Tave]

Confused? The vast majority of traffic enforcement is from a stationary position, and plenty of traffic doesn't move on multi-lane roadways, doesn't move during the day, and seat belt usage is otherwise undetectable owing to anything from vehicle ride height to tinted windows to dark clothing.

Uh-OK. This law was specifically made to allow officers to stop and cite for seatbelt infractions.