Pulled over for seatbelt violation

[bing_oh]

Mustangfan, we want to know how this ends..

I thought it ended with a warning...

[NomisR]

Any publicity campaign is a gimmick. It's just an attempt to get people to wear their seatbelts...not a bad thing, considering they actually do save lives in crashes.

We don't have universal health care.. if they want to die... so be it..

[bing_oh]

We don't have universal health care.. if they want to die... so be it..

Hey, you don't have to scrape them up with a scoop shovel off the highway. I hate getting brains in the treads of my boots, damnit. That shit's worse than dog poop to get out.

[sparkplug]

I thought it ended with a warning...

oh yes, checked first post,       

[Raza]

We don't have universal health care.. if they want to die... so be it..

You're saying that now, but wait until someone is ejected through their windshield and into your face.

[Mustangfan2003]

I thought it ended with a warning...

If he wrote me a fine you bet your ass I would've fought it.  As for the click it or ticket ads or the ones about drinking and driving I think it's a huge waste of money.  So you're telling me that cops are going out to enforce laws that are on the books for the other days in the year as well. 

[Morris Minor]

If he wrote me a fine you bet your ass I would've fought it.  As for the click it or ticket ads or the ones about drinking and driving I think it's a huge waste of money.  So you're telling me that cops are going out to enforce laws that are on the books for the other days in the year as well. 

Seatbelt use rate in Georgia is 93%. Job done. Click it or ticket ads are unheard by the remainder.  The money would yield more saved lives saved if it went into fixing intersections that are set up so people can blast though stop signs & red lights.

[bing_oh]

If he wrote me a fine you bet your ass I would've fought it.  As for the click it or ticket ads or the ones about drinking and driving I think it's a huge waste of money.  So you're telling me that cops are going out to enforce laws that are on the books for the other days in the year as well.

The campaigns are about publicity. Enforcement doesn't change much, besides the fact that certain campaigns also come with grant money for directed enforcement efforts. All things considered, something is working...seat belt usage is up and DUI's are down (both significantly, if the anecdotal evidence is true) in the last 20 years. Does it have anything to do with these publicity campaigns? Not a clue. But something has definitely changed and the changes are for the better.

[dazzleman]

Seatbelt use rate in Georgia is 93%. Job done. Click it or ticket ads are unheard by the remainder.  The money would yield more saved lives saved if it went into fixing intersections that are set up so people can blast though stop signs & red lights.

The job is never actually done because the high rate of usage has to be maintained.

[r0tor]

The job is never actually done because the high rate of usage has to be maintained.

The high rate of usage should be maintained by common sense as an airbag will try to rip your head off if your not belted in.

[Soup DeVille]

The high rate of usage should be maintained by common sense as an airbag will try to rip your head off if your not belted in.

No, not really. Only for those who sit extremely close to the wheel. Most people are in no danger from the airbag.

[hotrodalex]

I feel weird without a seatbelt, so you don't have to tell me to put one on.

[Morris Minor]

I feel weird without a seatbelt, so you don't have to tell me to put one on.

The target audience of these campaigns is a group that is unaware of campaigns.

[Mustangfan2003]

The campaigns are about publicity. Enforcement doesn't change much, besides the fact that certain campaigns also come with grant money for directed enforcement efforts. All things considered, something is working...seat belt usage is up and DUI's are down (both significantly, if the anecdotal evidence is true) in the last 20 years. Does it have anything to do with these publicity campaigns? Not a clue. But something has definitely changed and the changes are for the better.

My home county needs a new jail or else it's going to be shut down by the DOJ and nearly all of the patrol cars are pushing near 200k miles.  Typically they can only buy one new car a year.  Maybe those grants can be used to directly help the police departments. 

[bing_oh]

My home county needs a new jail or else it's going to be shut down by the DOJ and nearly all of the patrol cars are pushing near 200k miles.  Typically they can only buy one new car a year.  Maybe those grants can be used to directly help the police departments.

Grant money is interesting stuff because it's limited to very specific use. The departments have to specify exactly what the money will be used for in the grant application and the uses have to conform with the guidelines for the grants. New facilities are almost never covered by grants...our fire department tried to get a grant for an expansion of our fire house and it was rejected. Equipment might or might not, considering the different grants, but many of the grants that would have covered equipment have been slashed dramatically. Most of the time, the equipment that would be obtained would be smaller stuff (in-car cameras, radar and laser units, patrol rifles, etc), not vehicles.

[Mustangfan2003]

It could be slightly different than what police departments get funding but a lot of the local fire departments have been able to buy new trucks with Homeland Security grants.  I do think the sheriffs department here is working on a grant for a dog and I want to say it would include an SUV as well, but I could be wrong. 

[bing_oh]

It could be slightly different than what police departments get funding but a lot of the local fire departments have been able to buy new trucks with Homeland Security grants.  I do think the sheriffs department here is working on a grant for a dog and I want to say it would include an SUV as well, but I could be wrong.

It's possible to get vehicles, but not as likely as with other things. The biggest grants for LE were COPS grants, but those got cut way back after 9-11 and replaced by Homeland Security grants. Those grants are used, in the words of the federal government, in the "implementation of state Homeland Security Strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events." It's easier to justify a million dollar ladder truck for a FD under the "response to catastrophic events" section than it is a drug K9 or a cruiser for a PD.

[r0tor]

No, not really. Only for those who sit extremely close to the wheel. Most people are in no danger from the airbag.

Yes really.  The airbag deployment size and speed are dependant upon the passengers being restrained.  Not wearing a seatbelt can result in the bad situation where your head goes flying into an airbag which is flying back towards you resulting in serious amounts of g forces to your head.

[GoCougs]

Don't wear your seat belt = deserving of "serious amounts of g forces to your head."

[Soup DeVille]

Yes really.  The airbag deployment size and speed are dependant upon the passengers being restrained.  Not wearing a seatbelt can result in the bad situation where your head goes flying into an airbag which is flying back towards you resulting in serious amounts of g forces to your head.

Actually, airbags were designed primarily with unbelted occupants in mind, although in principal I agree with Cougs here.

[bing_oh]

Actually, airbags were designed primarily with unbelted occupants in mind, although in principal I agree with Cougs here.

Airbags are actually designed for a belted occupant, as it keeps the person in the optimal position for the airbag. However, I'd say rotor is overstating the dangers of an airbag to an unbelted occupant (I've never seen a person killed by airbag deployment alone in my career, and statistically it would appear that a great many deaths due just to airbag deployment is primarily infants and children for whom airbags were never designed). In the end, the best combination is belted + airbag.

[Soup DeVille]

Airbags are actually designed for a belted occupant, as it keeps the person in the optimal position for the airbag. However, I'd say rotor is overstating the dangers of an airbag to an unbelted occupant (I've never seen a person killed by airbag deployment alone in my career, and statistically it would appear that a great many deaths due just to airbag deployment is primarily infants and children for whom airbags were never designed). In the end, the best combination is belted + airbag.

The primary test done for certifying frontal airbags is a 30 MPH impact with an unbelted dummy. I'm not saying "don't wear your belt," I'm just saying what they're designed around.

[r0tor]

The primary test done for certifying frontal airbags is a 30 MPH impact with an unbelted dummy. I'm not saying "don't wear your belt," I'm just saying what they're designed around.

So what happens if you crash at 50 mph unbelted?  The timing just changed...

[Soup DeVille]

So what happens if you crash at 50 mph unbelted?  The timing just changed...

The inflation timing of the bag is so quick, what you're worrying about happening wouldn't happen regardless; unless you sit within about three inches of the wheel; which some people apparently do, but the vast majority of us don't

[bing_oh]

The problem with an unbelted airbag-only impact is that the person doesn't swivel at the waist because of the lap belt, putting them into the airbag. People have a tendency to move around during impact without a seatbelt. Many times they will move to the side or lift up, making striking the roof, side window, or getting around the airbag to strike the windshield much more likely. The airbag simply works better (ie, works as designed) when you're belted in.

[Soup DeVille]

The problem with an unbelted airbag-only impact is that the person doesn't swivel at the waist because of the lap belt, putting them into the airbag. People have a tendency to move around during impact without a seatbelt. Many times they will move to the side or lift up, making striking the roof, side window, or getting around the airbag to strike the windshield much more likely. The airbag simply works better (ie, works as designed) when you're belted in.

Quite likely true.

It does not however, become an additional risk factor

[bing_oh]

Quite likely true.

It does not however, become an additional risk factor

Like I said, I don't agree with rotor in saying that an airbag is increasingly dangerous to an unrestrained passenger.

[dazzleman]

Like I said, I don't agree with rotor in saying that an airbag is increasingly dangerous to an unrestrained passenger.

Bing_oh, do you ever write tickets for failure to wear a seat belt?

[bing_oh]

Bing_oh, do you ever write tickets for failure to wear a seat belt?

Occasionally. It's not a big ticket for me, but pure traffic isn't really my thing either...I work midnights so DUI's, drugs, criminal stuff, etc is more what I look for. Alot of guys will write seatbelts as a lower offense ticket and give a warning for the primary reason (speed and such), since seatbelt doesn't carry points...that's common with the troopers around here.

[dazzleman]

Occasionally. It's not a big ticket for me, but pure traffic isn't really my thing either...I work midnights so DUI's, drugs, criminal stuff, etc is more what I look for. Alot of guys will write seatbelts as a lower offense ticket and give a warning for the primary reason (speed and such), since seatbelt doesn't carry points...that's common with the troopers around here.

Would you write one on its own merits that was unconnected to another violation, such as speeding?

This is one thing I've never gotten a ticket for.  I was pulled over twice and ticketed for other violations while not wearing a seat belt, and not ticketed for the seat belt violation.  Now I wear my seat belt anyway as a matter of habit.