Skip to comments.Stricter Seat Belt Law Goes Into Effect In Mississippi (Good Law or Just Big Brother)
Posted on 05/26/2006 9:23:51 AM PDT by WKB
Southaven - Not wearing a seatbelt will soon be enough to get you pulled over by police or state troopers in Mississippi. Saturday the state's new primary offense seat belt law goes into effect.
Right now the Mississippi has a secondary offense seat belt law. That means officers need another reason, like speeding, to pull you over. It's only after you pulled over that officers are allowed to ticket you for not buckling up.
Law enforcement officers can also pull a driver over if they notice that his front seat passenger or anyone in the vehicle is not wearing a seat belt.
Law enforcement officers throughout the mid south plan to beef up their patrols over the long holiday weekend. Troopers in Mississippi plan to set up road blocks in several parts of the state to check for seat belt use.
Mississippi is the 23rd state where officers can pull over a driver for not wear a seat belt. Tennessee passed a primary seat belt law back in 2004.
The new law in Mississippi carries a maximum fine of 25 dollars per vehicle.
Nonsense; your insurance costs are driven by ordinary inflation more than by driver habits which are obviously not about to change anytime soon.
Nanny laws for citizens and NO laws for illegals. I agree with you only I will never obey the seatbelt law. It is my business if I buckle up or not. That argument about other people's responsibility if I am in an accident is just BS and I don't even care. What about mountain climbers who want to be saved in emergencies and boats during storms? Do these people pay for the cost of their enjoyment? Ain't no different as far as I am concerned.
Boy you hit a hot button on #2. I am in a battle right now costing me $2,000 more in legal fees to get a general contractor and a sub-contractor to fix my roof after they screwed it up big time. Both admit the problem was theirs but the sub placed a lien on my house and threaten with his lower than whale poop lawyers to foreclose. Even though I am assured to win, unless the Senate grants contractor amnesty, I have to pay $2,000+ to get them to do it right. Boy a shot gun shell is so much cheaper. I just don't know who to fire it at. The contractors or the lawyers. Hell, buy 2 their cheap.
You might think you're being facetious - but you are right. Anytime some idiot who doesn't wear a seatbelt gets in an accident, then the rest of us have to pay (either through higher insurance premiums or taxes for Medicaid/Medicare) to keep their sorry brain-dead ass alive. Or we have to pay for extensive medical treatments or expensive rehab - etc.
I think that anyone in a car accident who wasn't wearing their seatbelt (or a motorcycle accident with no helmet) should give up any rights to insurance-paid or taxpayer-paid health benefits.
Obviously some people ARE stupid enough not to wear seatbelts without being forced to by someone. (And who else would that "someone" be - if not the government?)
The dangerous flying passenger is far less frequent than the occasional appearance of Jesus on a dirty window pane; however, it has become a legend.
Maybe a good little hall monitor like you.
For some time,we've had a seat belt law that says that cops can't *stop* you because you're not wearing your belt,but if you're stopped for something else (broken tail light,for example) they can cite you for not being belted as well as the broken light.
What was killed was a bill to give cops the right to stop you simply for not being belted which is what's called a "primary" seat belt law.
People get hurt with seatbelts as well, that's not a valid argument.
The truth is the people in the back seat are the one's that should be required to wear them, some countries do because of the head/neck injuries sustained by front seat passengers during collisions.
People who think these types of laws "don't affect anyone else" are idiots. When we all have to pay for your stupidity - then it does affect us all.
We have a government to enforce societal rules, so the rest of us don't have to.
Do you believe we might not need a "good little hall monitor" to stop people from murdering each other? Or from stealing from each other? Or from burning each other's house down?
Or should maybe the government do the job.
Isn't that why it exists?
Or maybe you are one of these people who think the "evil government" should not do any of these things?
If so, I bet you'd change your tune if your house was on fire and you wanted the fire department to come and put it out.
Gotta stop them international criminals, yezzir!
(Psssst! Besides, it brings in a lot of revenue.)
These are the arguments of a gullible boob who yearns for governmental control over every aspect of society.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt
If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains...
You're kidding me....MA doesn't have that already? This is truly shocking! CT had it 11 years ago! How can its ultra-lib neighbor not have same?
(OK, you meant it killed a BILL - not a LAW - which is less exciting. Don't worry, it will be passed some day.)
IMO a poor argument, the federal Gov't back when Dole was transportation Sec. tried to stop the insurance industry's push to require air bags in cars.
They attempted to do this by requiring automakers to equip cars with automatic seat belts or air bags by such and such a date.
The Insurance agency won out and car were required to have airbags.
How did they win? If you die in an auto accident they write a check, done deal.
The largest costs were paying for cosmetic surgery for those who faces didn't come out so good, airbags took care of that.
My buddy is a paramedic and refuses to wear seat belts, he says he'd rather die in an accident then end up a veg because a seat belt kept him alive but brain dead.
He might be wrong but he's been one for 20 years so he's seen a fair share of accidents.
I always wear my seat belt but I'm sick and tired of the government treating people like children, makes me sick.
I repeat again....
Where does it end?
MURDER is the equivalent of NOT WEARING SEAT BELT? Absurd.
MURDER is DIRECTLY VIOLATING THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER. So are all the other capital crimes you cite.
This trickle-down effect rationalization is utter nonsense - it means we can make laws on EVERY SINGLE THING WE DO. Because IT ALL AFFECTS SOMEONE SOMEHOW DOWN THE ROAD!
"If you're happy and you know it, clank your chains..."
This is all about money.
There's no money in getting bad drivers off the road.
"Every aspect of society"????
Where on earth do you get that from? Because I think the government's job is to protect citizens from murder, theft and fire? That is "every aspect of society"?
Talk about strawmen!
Go ahead and drive without a seatbelt. When you go flying through your windshield and smash your empty head against the pavement - don't ask the rest of us to subsidize your medical care.
Some folks here remind me of the folks at DU - everything is "all or nothing". Guess what? There is a happy medium. The goverment is not "all evil" or "all Nanny-state".
Because I don't want to foot the bill for idiots - you somehow construe that into: I am a "gullible boob" and think that I "yearn for governmental control over every aspect of society."
Great logic there buddy.
Aren't you also tired of the condescending statements on local TV news of accidents making sure they tell you the dead or greatly injured were "not wearing their seatbelts"?
Boy, what a campaign! Yet notice sometimes they make no such statement at all - gee, all were wearing their seatbelts yet somebody died and somebody lost a leg? Not possible!
And when you cost me money because you failed to wear a seat belt - you have VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.
That is much different from something happening to you through no fault of your own. But your conscious decision NOT to protect yourself with a seatbelt VIOLATES THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER.
Your STRAWMAN was comparing REAL crimes - against natural law - that actually VIOLATE OTHER'S RIGHTS, to a stupid non-issue that tenuously minimally trickle-down affects many thousands by maybe raising their rate by $1.
And who says you should be forced to pay for others? Guess what - that's a violation of your natural rights, too! So, GET RID OF FORCED INSURANCE.
Then what's your argument?
It is completely absurd to start worrying about trickkle-down effects on every person in society. That is why that poster said your logic leads to nit-picking bullying on every aspect of living - because guess what?
EVERYTHING YOU DO AFFECTS EVERYONE ELSE, SOMEHOW.
Albeit maybe only down to the 10th or 20th rung.
So, by your logic, you must regulate and enforce every single thing you do in your waking life.
Such as, not eating candy? You don't want to pay for dental or even heart disasters through "shared" insurance?
The scum suckers promised us here in Indiana that it wouldn't be made a primary offense. It took like five years. Watch out, because now they have the jackboots out stopping cars in Indianapolis and outside the other major cities.
What I don't get is the 10 handicapped parking places in front of 24 hour Fitness!
I saw a handicap parking spot at a
"Sonic Drive Up" in Vicksburg Ms and to top it
off it was the one farthest from the front door.
Conflating murder, arson and robbery with not wearing a seat belt isn't a strawman argument? Where did you take your logic courses, Sophist U?
Accusing others of "reminding you of DU" is just a classic sign of running out of logic, Skippy.
Your love of government incrementalism marks you as a statist who believes all good emanates from gooberment. Loosen up that sphincter and enjoy, enjoy, enjoy your reaming.
When you come out of the ether with a sore rectum and a quarter in your hand, it'll be a government agent with his hands on your shoulders, not your proctologist or the tooth fairy.
"The new law in Mississippi carries a maximum fine of 25 dollars per vehicle.
Annette M. Jordan, 4213 Will O'Run Drive, Jackson - Improper parking (handicap), $200.50 fine."
Apparently, improper parking in a handicap space is far
more dangerous and deadly than driving without a seatbelt.
I should have read the comments.
You made the same point I did, but
you made it a lot sooner than I did.
If You do Nothing Wrong, You have Nothing to Fear.
We are At War Now.
It's for The Children.
Fine or no fine, law or no law, I use my seat belt faithfully.
"Keep people safe" implies ownership.
I don't belong to the state.
I have been in two serious accidents with no seatbelt. In both cases with a seatbelt I would have been seriously injured or killed. I wear a seatbelt now because of the law of averages and the law period.
Not to hijack the thread, but about handicap parking, I have been told that you cannot be ticketed in a handicap zone on private property, as in Walmart parking lot as opposed to a space on the street or the courthouse lot. Is that correct? Also the design of the logo has to meet certain specifications to be valid.
If you think its bad now, wait until fully socilialized healthcare gets implemented. It will be every nanny-stater's wet dream as every concievable activity will come under their regulation because, hey, 'Society has to pay for it'.
The fact that even on FR, people are arguing that because of socialism we need more socialism tells me it is a foregone conclusion.
Freedom, we hardly knew ye.
Poignant, and true.
Collectivism has gained the upper hand, so we must all be collectivists.
Stunning how Americans have become so sheeplike so fast.
People ought to wear their belts. Police checkpoints are an awfully high price to pay to make them do it. It's a lose-lose scenario.
This is impracticable. When the ambulance shows up at the scene of a wreck and there's a pretty blonde girl screaming with a shattered pelvis, you're going to tell the paramedics that she failed the breathalyzer so just leave her there?
"Obviously some people ARE stupid enough not to wear seatbelts without being forced to by someone. (And who else would that "someone" be - if not the government?)"
Since when in a free society, do you, as a private citizen, have the right to tell me what to do?
You don't, and because you don't, neither does the Government.
If you want to live in a country where the Government makes your decisions for you, then carry your ass to China.
I'm sure they will accomodate you.
" And when you cost me money because you failed to wear a seat belt - you have VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER."
Money? That's all you are worried about? I guess it was a good thing that Rich Successful men back in 1775 didn't have your world view.
We'd still be shouting "God save the King"
Well, the son of a friend from our kids' old school died in a car accident last summer. He'd only just gotten his license, and was breaking the law by having a passenger who was only 16, and didn't have a license. Neither were wearing their seat belts, and BOTH were killed when they were ejected from the car.
BS to the infinity power. This straw man argument doesn't fly. Treat the precious little girl then send the fricken bill. What is so hard about that?
Fricken socialist will create any kind of straw man argument to force us all to be responsible for every idiots actions. Maybe a little chlorine in the gene pool is a good thing. Stupid people multiply faster than we can create laws to make us responsible for them.
By the way your straw man argument is racist like we would only care about some little blonde girl not a black girl with black hair.
The dangerous flying passenger is generally understood to be bouncing around inside the vehicle, did either boy injure a third party in the flight?
I don't analyze things by personal incidents; I was thrown from a 1962 Corvair that flipped from a crosswind and was ejected only to come to my senses hours later around dawn almost 500 feet from the final rest point for the vehicle.
I was told later in the hospital that the car had burned completely after it stopped skidding and rolling.
Had I been belted in, I would have likely died in the flames but that doesn't make me go around arguing that seat belts are dangerous.
My point is that belts don't prevent injuries and often increase them; the notion that all crash injuries are an added burden on society assumes that responders are only on the clock when repairing the damaged victims.
What happens is the fixed costs end up being counted twice when those sort of arguments are made.
Mass. just had a similar bill in its congress and it was shot down.