Not GS realated at all, but....

I was driving my car and got pulled over and ticketed for "improperly wearing" seatbelt. My seatbelt was on, attached, but the shoulder strap was across my chest under my arm rather than over it.

My fine: full pop as if I wasn't wearing a seatbelt AT ALL: $101.00

I'm contesting it. The cop even said when he pulled me over "I thought you weren't wearing a seatbelt, but now I see that you are. "

Ironic since I'm middle-aged Joe Law abiding citizen: don't speed, don't cut people off, don't talk on my cellphone while driving. I even get teased about it...and I get a $101 ticket because my seatbelt was 2" from where it shoud have been.

So my simple solution: stay on my GS   :nana:

Quote from: William MSo my simple solution: stay on my GS   :nana:

Here, here!

Sorry to hear about the ticket.

Umm.. Why were you wearing it like that?  The whole point of the three-point is defeated by that wearing position.


(Not to be pedantic, but - Hear, hear. )

I usually loop one of my legs through the seat belt, that way, if I am in a crash, it secures me by the crotch very sercurely.  I've found that is the best way.  There are many safety experts that agree.

well studies also show that the crotch pain caused by that method significantly reduces the attention you might pay to the fact that your head was smashed through the windshield...this, in turn, makes the accident seem less severe.   :mrgreen:

aparently those experts are women and don't understand what that would do to your junk.... jake... do you enjoy pain and not want to have kids?

Quote from: RoadstergalUmm.. Why were you wearing it like that?  The whole point of the three-point is defeated by that wearing position.


(Not to be pedantic, but - Hear, hear. )

ditto

although i must say that, while i never go without either, i find both helmet laws and seatbelt laws absurd.

Quote from: RoadstergalUmm.. Why were you wearing it like that?  The whole point of the three-point is defeated by that wearing position.


(Not to be pedantic, but - Hear, hear. )

I was wearing it like that because I had just left the ATM and couldn't reach over to the seat where I had left my ATM card with the belt in its original position. I admit, though, that I have sometimes done that on longer trips because the belt after awhile, digs into my neck. I didn't put it back because I was 2 blocks from the hardware store and was pulling into that parking lot when they cop pulled me over. For not wearing it properly, though, I confess guilt. No excuses why it wasn't 100% correct.

That said, I still hold to my position that a full "no seatbelt" $101.00 fine is absurd. Older cars ONLY have lap belts, legally I may add, and although having the shoulder belt as well IS an improvement, why am I being fined full pop for improper use of something that would not even exist on many cars?


Part of it too is that Seattle drivers really suck. People follow so damn close here, even the cops. Its  friggin absurd. The cell phone thing has gotten out of control. Drunk driving has gotten out of control. People drive, as  general rule, WAY too agressively....cops included on ALL the above. Fine, pull me over. Fine, cite me. But a full $101.00 fine? It just seems an insult considering the stuff that I see going on right in front of cops, or even done by cops, without any citations.

Just mitigate the ticket...

Wait until the 14th day (or do you have 10?) to mail it in.  Some courts will send you a court date and some will send you a notice that says, "If you want to mitigate to lower the cost of the ticket, we will drop the price to $xx.xx."  It's usually about 60% of the original.

If you get a court date, you can tell the judge exactly what was going on...  That you were wearing your seat belt, but had it under your arm, rather than over your shoulder (because of the ATM).

If they don't drop the price, I'd be SHOCKED.

I had a $480 ticket reduced to $240 AND they gave me 90 days to pay it...  That was about 6 years ago, but I'm pretty sure they still do the same stuff.

I agree that he should not have given you a ticket, buuuut...

-------------------------------
from the Revised Code of Washington Annotated, Title 46: Motor Vehicles, rule 46.61.688:  Safety belts, use required--Penalties--Exemptions

(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.

(5) A person violating this section shall be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW. A finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction under this section shall be contained in the driver's abstract but shall not be available to insurance companies or employers.
-------------------------------

I agree that the cop was a jerk for giving you a ticket, but he wasn't wrong, per se.  Were you rude to him/her, or did the officer just drop the ticket on you for no good reason?

Quote from: raylarrabeeI agree that the cop was a jerk for giving you a ticket, but he wasn't wrong, per se

...or did the officer just drop the ticket on you for no good reason?

:dunno:  

the only ticket i've ever gotten was a no seatbelt also. I was in baton rouge coming back from the campus lakes where I had just run 5 miles. this is louisiana mid day during the summer HOT! So I had my shirt off and no seatbelt cuz i wanted to cool off and not get it all sweaty, i mean i was drenched. And of course the most random motorcycle cop goes past me in the other direction and stops turns around and comes after me. As usual it did no good to explain my rational. I mean where were they all the times I've done burn outs or wheelies or triple digits on interstate....
:lol:
-ash

Quote from: raylarrabeeI agree that he should not have given you a ticket, buuuut...

-------------------------------
from the Revised Code of Washington Annotated, Title 46: Motor Vehicles, rule 46.61.688:  Safety belts, use required--Penalties--Exemptions

(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.
.[/i]
-------------------------------

OK, just what consitutes properly adjusted? Can tickets be passed out if the belt is too loose? Too tight? Arguably, the answer is yes. If that's the case, and $101 tickets are going to come out of it, that's just too vague to me and results in a free for all.

> Were you rude to him/her, or did the officer just drop the ticket on you for no good reason

No, I was the pillar of polite. Had all my info in order to hand to him, yes sir, no sir blah blah   I had just been driving 25mph in a 25 zone (who else actually does that?) and had waited until the pedestrians in the crosswalk had stepped off on the other side before I turned...with my blinker on.

Again, what is really bugging me about this is that compared to what I see tolerated on the road every day, its absurd, even laughable, to pass out $101 citations for wearing a seatbelt slightly "improperly".

take it to court
your belt was locked around your waist hence in use on your person, some older cars Dont even have shoulder belts just lap belts, middle section of my truck is just a lap belt, rear of many cars are just lap belt.

lets see.


FLORIDA LAW



316.614 Safety Belt Usage

(1) This section may be cited as the "Florida Safety Belt Law."

(2) It is the policy of this state that enactment of this section is intended to be compatible with the continued support by the state for federal safety standards requiring automatic crash protection, and the enactment of this section should not be used in any manner to rescind or delay the implementation of the federal automatic crash protection system requirements of Federal Motor Safety Standard 208 as set forth in S4.1.2.1 thereof, as entered on July 17, 1984, for new cars.

(3) As used in this section:

(a) "Motor vehicle" means a motor vehicle as defined in s. 316.003 that is operated on the roadways, streets, and highways of this state. The term does not include:

1. A school bus.

2. A bus used for the transportation of persons for compensation.

3. A farm tractor or implement of husbandry.

4. A truck of a net weight of more than 5,000 pounds.

5. A motorcycle, moped, or bicycle.

(b) "Safety belt" means a seat belt assembly that meets the requirements established under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, 49 C.F.R. s. 571.208.

(c) "Restrained by a safety belt" means being restricted by an appropriately adjusted safety belt which is properly fastened at all times when a motor vehicle is in motion.

(4) It is unlawful for any person:

(a) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless each passenger of the vehicle under the age of 18 years is restrained by a safety belt or by a child restraint device pursuant to s. 316.613, if applicable; or (b) To operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt.

(5) It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to be a passenger in the front seat of a motor vehicle unless such person is restrained by a safety belt when the vehicle is in motion.

(6)(a) Neither a person who is certified by a physician as having a medical condition that causes the use of a safety belt to be inappropriate or dangerous nor an employee of a newspaper home delivery service while in the course of his or her employment delivering newspapers on home delivery routes is required to be restrained by a safety belt.

(b) The number of front seat passengers of a pickup truck required to wear a safety belt pursuant to this section shall not exceed the number of safety belts which were installed in the front seat of such pickup truck by the manufacturer.

(c) An employee of a solid waste or recyclable collection service is not required to be restrained b y a safety belt while in the course of employment collecting solid waste or recyclables on designated routes.

(d) The requirements of this section shall not apply to the living quarters of a recreational vehicle or a space within a truck body primarily intended for merchandise or property.

(7) It is the intent of the Legislature that all state, county, and local law enforcement agencies, safety councils, and public school systems, in recognition of the fatalities and injuries attributed to unrestrained occupancy of motor vehicles, shall conduct a continuing safety and public awareness campaign as to the magnitude of the problem and adopt programs designed to encourage compliance with the safety belt usage requirements of this section..

(8 ) Any person who violates the provisions of this section commits a nonmoving violation, punishable as provided in chapter 318. However, except for violations of s. 316.613, enforcement of this section by state or local law enforcement agencies must be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of another section of this chapter, chapter 320, or chapter 322..

(9) A violation of the provisions of this section shall not constitute negligence per se, nor shall such violation be used as prima facie evidence of negligence or be considered in mitigation of damages, but such violation may be considered as evidence of comparative negligence, in any civil action..

i see Nothing about shoulder belt. now i will admit its safer and your acting a git for not wearing it properly but you were wearing it. perhaps your state says shoulderbelt too BUT, IT IS A FACT you were wearing it not an Opinion.  

Adjusted meaning not too loose, as to let you slip out of restraints in the event of accident.     was the lap belt tight?

Quote from: Blueknyt

i see Nothing about shoulder belt. now i will admit its safer and your acting a git for not wearing it properly but you were wearing it. perhaps your state says shoulderbelt too BUT, IT IS A FACT you were wearing it not an Opinion.  

Adjusted meaning not too loose, as to let you slip out of restraints in the event of accident.     was the lap belt tight?

Washington state law does not make mention of a shoulder belt either.

Yes, the lap belt was "properly and securely fastened".

A bit of a git.....? Yeah, I confess that. I'm not going to weasel out of taking responsibility. I just see offenses that put OTHER people in danger on a different standard-like the "accepted" 1/4 car lengnth following distance on Seattle 70MPH  freeways. It just seems hipocritical to cite someone full pop for not wearing a seatbelt  "correctly", then look the other way, even participate, in absurdly dangerous tailgating. If things are going to be tightly enforced, then great, make it so universally, especially on things that put OTHER drivers at peril.

If personal safety is the yardstick, then ALL of us are guilty for riding motorcyles since I wouldn't be surprised if riding in a car with NO seatbelt is still safer. But its not illegal to ride a motorcycle, you say? So what is the logic in a law that cites someone $101  for not properly wearing a shoulder belt, yet doesn't require ANY seat belts on school buses?

well if I was to take a guess at it with the click it or ticket campaign going on, he was probably required to issue the ticket regardless of what he thought.

They're out to get you for seatbelts. My friend got one the other day - $95. And she was the passenger  :guns:

I can understand your frustration with the ticket, William. I would definitely be pissed off because of it. To their defense, a improperly worn seatbelt can be more dangerous than not wearing any seatbelt. Bottom line, if you're in a vehicle and not wearing a seatbelt, you should be ticketed.

I disagree with that last statement.  Kids are now taught in school/driver's ed about how much of a difference wearing a seatbelt makes in your chances to live.

If you are too stupid to wear it, I say Darwin HO!!

It all about the money.  The insurance companies want you to wear the seatbelts to keep you from receiving a very serious injury or from dying.  Since the insurance companies have very strong lobbies, you now have laws mandating seat belt use.  The insurance companies want to keep their profits up.  If they charge the same BUT have everyone wearing a seatbelt, there are less injuries to pay claims for and they keep more of the premiums for themselves.  Get it?

Things are rarely as they seem and never as simple.