Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/25/2004 11:26:40 AM EST
I got a ticket earlier today for not wearing a seatbelt. Does anyone have any information that would help me fight this ticket. I dont believe they really help that much and so i dont wear it. From my perspective it seems like the cops around here use it as a reason to pull people over to look for other infractions. Im not saying this happens everywhere just around where im at.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 11:41:54 AM EST
Pulled over for not wearing a seat belt.

You're not going to get out of the ticket. Either wear the seatbelt or accept the consequences. Get used to it.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 11:43:29 AM EST
why wouldn't you wear a seatbelt?
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 11:48:14 AM EST
Shit, I wish I got seat belt tickets instead of speeding tickets, cause they dont affect your insurance. But the way I drive, I always wear my seatelt.

Just pay it, you wont get out of it.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 11:51:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By vader17:
I got a ticket earlier today for not wearing a seatbelt. Does anyone have any information that would help me fight this ticket. I dont believe they really help that much and so i dont wear it.
From my perspective it seems like the cops around here use it as a reason to pull people over to look for other infractions. Im not saying this happens everywhere just around where im at.




You weren't wearing it and you want to fight the ticket? That's a tough fight to try and win.

I'm not commenting on the law itself here.

They don't need another infraction, the seatbelt violation is a big enough fine all on it's own to make the stop worth the tax collectors troopers time.

Seat belts do help. If nothing else they help to keep your head away from that bomb(the airbag) on your steering wheel.

I'd use a 5 point restraint system if I had the choice, they've saved me before.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:00:36 PM EST
The state statute relies on a federal one that doesn't exist, there is no enactment legislation so every seat infraction is a case of misenforcement of a nonexistant clause.

I deleted the iternet copy of the process I have but an asociate just beat a seat belt ticket last monday, the judge supressed the evidence and dismissed the case.

I know he has a hard copy of the paperwork I will try to get you a copy this coming work week.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:14:09 PM EST
Seat belt tickets are usually what other tickets are bargained down to .
Fighting it might not be the wisest choice .

If you were not wearing your belt your guilty , whether you like the law or not ( I Hate It )
Pay it and suck it up .
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:36:05 PM EST
Sad when the slaves see their chains as security.


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

--Samuel Adams

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 3:39:37 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 3:40:58 PM EST by STRATIOTES]

Originally Posted By chrome1:
Seat belt tickets are usually what other tickets are bargained down to .
Fighting it might not be the wisest choice .

If you were not wearing your belt your guilty , whether you like the law or not ( I Hate It )
Pay it and suck it up .




Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain
without thunder and lightning: they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never did and it never will. Find out what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice which will be imposed upon them. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.Frederick Douglass

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:22:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
The state statute relies on a federal one that doesn't exist, there is no enactment legislation so every seat infraction is a case of misenforcement of a nonexistant clause.

I deleted the iternet copy of the process I have but an asociate just beat a seat belt ticket last monday, the judge supressed the evidence and dismissed the case.

I know he has a hard copy of the paperwork I will try to get you a copy this coming work week.




Cool i would appreciate that
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 4:54:27 PM EST
Found it here is the info


“CLICK IT & STICK IT UP YOURS, OFFICER” – DO YOU WANNA GET SUED?

There is NO Three (3) Digit
Sec. “208” SEAT BELT LAW
in Existence in the Entire
CODE of FEDERAL REGULATIONS

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 cites a THREE-DIGIT number allegedly entitled “federal motor vehicle safety standard 208" that does NOT exist in fact or law in the entire Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter the “CFR”) or the United States Code hereinafter referred to as the U.S.C. There is a SIX-DIGIT Seat Belt code section, HOWEVER, the RCW does NOT cite it! See RCW 46.61.688 to wit:
RCW 46.61.688 Safety belts, use required‑‑Penalties‑‑Exemptions.
(2) This section only applies to motor vehicles that meet the manual seat belt safety standards as set forth in federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 and to neighborhood electric vehicles. This section does not apply to a vehicle occupant for whom no safety belt is available when all designated seating positions as required by federal motor vehicle safety standard 208 are occupied.

It is also undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 makes absolutely NO reference which volume of any set of books to even try to find a so called “federal motor vehicle safety standard 208"! Where to go?
“It is not the defendant’s burden to search the law for the legal elements of the offense which he is charged.” State v. Kjorsvik, 117 Wn.2d 93, at 102, 812 P.2d 86 (1991).

“Defendants should not have to search for the rules or regulations they are accused of violating. Auburn v. Brooke, 119 Wn.2d 623, 836 P.2d 212 (September 10th, 1992). And;
“It is unreasonable to expect an average person to continually search the federal register to determine what drugs are controlled substances.” State v. Dougall, 89 Wn.2d 118 (1977).

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 violates both of the Washington and the United States Constitutions which guarantee a criminal defendant “the right . . . to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him,” both Washington Constitutions [Vol 0, ©RCW Art. I, §22 (amend. 10), and 1878, Art V §13.]; &“be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.” U.S. Constitution, amend. VI.
It is clear that the plaintiff, STATE OF WASHINGTON, has violated the third prong of Washington Court Rule CrRLJ 2.1(a)(2) which reads: “The complaint shall state for each count the official or customary citation of the statute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated” The statute, RCW 46.61.688, failed to cite 49 USC / CFR part 571 §571.208. Finally, the plaintiff has failed to prove the existence of a THREE-DIGIT Section “208" Seat Belt Law by citing its title, and the days of its passage as required by subsection (j) of RULE 9 PLEADING PRIVATE STATUTES. Therefore, this court cannot take judicial notice of this case until the plaintiff can provide a “certified copy” citing the date of passage of any alleged THREE-DIGIT Section “208" Seat Belt Law. See CRLJ(9) or CR 9 to wit:
“CRLJ 9(j) Pleading Private Statutes. In pleading a private statute, or a right derived there-from, it shall be sufficient to refer to such statute by its title, and the day of its passage, and the court shall thereupon take judicial notice thereof.”

In Bowen v. Baumgardner, 6 Wn. App. 18, 491 P.2d 1301 (1971), the court refused to consider claimed applications of the Seattle Traffic Code Sections because they were neither pleaded nor included in any affidavit. Likewise, until controverted by substantive law, this honorable court is required by RULE 9 to refuse to consider claimed applications of some nebulous NON-EXISTENT THREE-DIGIT Federal Seat Belt Law Section 208 that are neither pleaded nor included in any Affidavit.
It would be contempt of court under ARLJ No. 7 to fail to dismiss my Seat Belt Ticket under the CrRLJ 1.1 DECISIONAL LAW OF THIS STATE WHICH REQUIRES AN AUTOMATIC DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO CITE ALL THE STATUTORY ELEMENTS under Washington’s Essential Elements Rule on the following authorities, to wit:
Charging documents that fail to set forth all of the essential elements of a crime are constitutionally defective and require dismissal, regardless of whether the defendant has shown prejudice. State v. Hopper, 118 Wn.2d 151, 822 P.2d 775 (1992); State v. Holt, 104 Wn.2d 315, at 320, 704 P.2d 1189 (1985); State v. Leach, 53 Wn.App. 322, 766 P.2d 1116 (1988), rev. granted, 112 Wn.2d 1017 (1989); State v. Ashker, 11 Wn.App. 423, at 426, 523 P.2d 949 (1974); Seattle v. Proctor, 183 Wash. 299, 48 P.2d 241 (1935); State v. Heath, 57 Wash. 246, 106 P. 756 (1910).
A conviction based on an insufficient charging instrument will be reversed and the charges will be dismissed without prejudice. State v. Vangerpen, 125 Wn.2d 782, 791, 888 P.2d 1177 (1995). It is permissible to dismiss criminal charges when all the elements of the crime are not set forth in the information. State ex rel. Clark v. Hogan, 49 Wn.2d 457, 303 P.2d 290 (1956). . The omission of any statutory element of a crime in the charging document is fatal to the information. Holt, at 320; State v. Bonds, 98 Wn.2d 1, 653 P.2d 1024 (1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 831, 78 L.Ed.2d 112, 104 S.Ct. 111 (1983).
RCW 46.61.688 omitted THREE-DIGITS rendering it null and void!
Signed______________________________ Dated___________200__ Case # _____________

For help beating your tickets, call Luis Ewing at (253) 226-3741 or write him at: <rcwcodebuster@hotmail.com> or to hear Luis speak, go to: www.theotherradionetwork.com> or <www.VeritasRadio.com> or <www.truthradio.com>
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:15:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/25/2004 5:16:22 PM EST by Phil_in_Seattle]
Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.688 cites a THREE-DIGIT number allegedly entitled “federal motor vehicle safety standard 208" that does NOT exist in fact or law in the entire Code of Federal Regulations (hereinafter the “CFR”) or the United States Code hereinafter referred to as the U.S.C. There is a SIX-DIGIT Seat Belt code section, HOWEVER, the RCW does NOT cite it! See RCW 46.61.688 to wit:
RCW 46.61.688 Safety belts, use required‑‑Penalties‑‑Exemptions.

Errrrrrrrrrrrrr

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/import/FMVSS/#SN208

That was a quick Google Search.

Now is that the basis for the judge deciding in his favor or is there another reason? Don't tell me that the claim about 208 not existing is based on something silly like it's not 208 it's 571.208.


CHAPTER V--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS

I see, they are all 571. X

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

CHAPTER V--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC
SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 571--FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARDS--Table of Contents

Subpart B--Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards

Sec. 571.208 Standard No. 208; Occupant crash protection.

I'm sorry but I in my non-legal non-judical opinion find that Standard 208 does exist.


FEDERAL
MOTOR VEHICLE
SAFETY STANDARDS
AND REGULATIONS

Standard No. 208 - Occupant Crash Protection This standard originally specified the type of occupant restraints (i.e., seat belts) required. It was amended to specify performance requirements for anthropomorphic test dummies seated in the front outboard seats of passenger cars and of certain multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses, including the active and passive restraint systems identified below. The purpose of the standard is to reduce the number of fatalities and the number and severity of injuries to occupants involved in frontal crashes. Generally, the requirements are as follows:
Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-68)
Lap or lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies for each designated seating position. Except in convertibles, lap and shoulder seat belt assemblies are required in each front outboard seating position.
Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-72), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses - Options A and B only (Effective 1-1-72)
Passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less, and buses (driver's seat only) shall have:
A. A complete passive protection system, or
B. Lap belts, belts warning and meeting 48 km/h (30 mph) crash test requirements, or
C. Lap or lap and shoulder belts, seat belt warning; outboard seats shall have a single-point pushbutton release and emergency-locking or automatic-locking seat belt retractors.
Passenger Cars (Effective 1-1-73)
Requirements same as above except upper torso restraints shall have an emergency-locking retractor.
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 9-1-95)
The lap portion of each seat belt in a forward-facing seat or a seat that can be adjusted to forward-facing shall have a lap belt portion that is lockable.
Front, outboard designated seating positions for Passenger Cars and Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses as listed below with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 3,856 kg (8,500 lbs.) or less and Unloaded Vehicle Weight of 2,495 kg (5,500 lbs.) or less:
Passenger Cars (Effective 9-1-86), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 9-1-94)
Shall meet passive restraint phase-in requirements.
Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 9-1-91)
Shall meet 48 km/h (30 mph) crash test requirements with seat belts fastened.
Passenger Cars (Effective 9-1-89), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and Trucks (Effective 9-1-97)
Shall meet passive restraint requirements.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 6-22-95 until 9-1-2000) Vehicles with no rear seats or rear seats too small to accommodate a rear-facing infant seat may be equipped with an air bag cut-off switch for the right front passenger air bag.
Passenger Cars (Effective 9-1-96), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 9-1-97)
Shall meet phase-in requiring air bags.
Passenger Cars (Effective 9-1-97), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 9-1-98)
Shall be equipped with air bags.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 2-25-97)
Shall be equipped with a warning label.
Passenger Cars, Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles, Trucks and Buses (Effective 3-19-97)
For the unbelted dummy test condition, manufacturers have the option to certify vehicles using the sled test specified in the standard versus the 48 km/h (30 mph) vehicle-into-barrier crash test.
All outboard designated seating positions:
Passenger Cars, except convertibles (Effective 12/11/89), Convertibles (Effective 9-1-91), Multipurpose Passenger Vehicles and Trucks with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating of 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs.) or less
(Effective 9-1-91)
Shall be equipped with integral lap and shoulder belts at every forward facing, outboard designated seating position.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 5:19:50 PM EST
This is not fool-proof, if you allow the judge to swear you in they can gain jurisdiction under another venue, also the way my associate did this he served the DA, and filed an affidavit with the court clerk and served one other gov official.

I refresh the process and add it when I have it.

Link Posted: 9/25/2004 6:38:50 PM EST
There are no magic bullets and believing you can beat the injustice system without education and experience is a sure way to heart ache and misery.

It doesnt take a silver bullet it takes copper jacketed ones. haha

There isnt anything that is not heavily regulated anymore, there is a black market in high flush toilets, people have gone to jail for trying to smuggle high flush toilets into the country from canada, the low flush toilets do not work with just one flush so not only are they worthless but they waste water as well, how far are you going to go into slavery before to you resist?

as quoted above this is a struggle, it is not easy or without risk.


Ambrose Redman

"Courage is not the absence of fear but rather the judgment that something else is more important than one's fear. "



A man without force, is without the essential dignity of humanity. Human nature is so constituted, that it cannot honor a helpless man, although it can pity him. Frederick Douglass
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 6:42:15 PM EST
You could decide to drive a car from the 40's that didn't come from the FACTORY with seat belts. The cops can't do anything about that. Otherwise it's the local gendarmes current EMPHASIS patrol to cite non wearing citizens.

Cars prior to Jan 1968 are exempt anyway... according to this: www.cbs.state.or.us/external/osha/interps/1993/seatbelts.pdf


Railgun....
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:13:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By STRATIOTES:
Sad when the slaves see their chains as security.


"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

--Samuel Adams



That's such a good quote, I'm gonna drink one of those beers named after him!

Additionally, your information on high-flush toilets is timely for one of my threads I started today...I wasn't aware that our freakin' crappers were regulated, too!
What's next? Crappers with seatbelts?!
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 9:35:12 PM EST
Here in Utah, not wearing your seatbelt is considered a secondary offense. They can't pull you over for just that. Unless you don't have your children (under 18) in a seatbelt. I wear mine in my car all the time, but I don't as often in my truck (18 wheeler). I think the only persons that should be required to wear them is children. They aren't old enough to know better. As for the rest of us, it should be your choice. You can't regulate stupidity. But what do I know, I drive a truck for a living.
Link Posted: 9/25/2004 10:29:13 PM EST
The seatbelt thing used to be a secondary offense in Washington. As predicted, once they got it on the books it was pretty easy for them to turn it into a primary offense a few years later.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 3:03:29 AM EST
IIRC, it has been found unconstitutional more than once here in WA state. Google is your friend, follow that path.

And do what I did. Get a Dr.'s note that says:

"Little Johhny doesnt have to wear a seatbelt.

Doc. Melfi
CavVet's OBGYN"

I havent been asked once since getting my freedom from my Doc.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:49:55 AM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:
IIRC, it has been found unconstitutional more than once here in WA state. Google is your friend, follow that path.

And do what I did. Get a Dr.'s note that says:

"Little Johhny doesnt have to wear a seatbelt.

Doc. Melfi
CavVet's OBGYN"

I havent been asked once since getting my freedom from my Doc.




www.theolympian.com/home/specialsections/Legislature/20040123/20007.shtml


Washington's seat belt law has been declared unconstitutional by judges in several lower courts.



The law is working, but several courts have found it unconstitutional because the law makes a direct reference to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 208. Judges say that code is too difficult for the average person to find and to understand, thus nullifying Washington's law.

The constitutional question is making its way to the Washington Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court justices agree with the lower court rulings, Washington won't have any seat belt law, Lind warns. Traffic fatalities and costs could rise again.

Lawmakers must adopt a simplified, mandatory seat belt law that ignores the federal standards -- a law that clearly applies to all vehicles manufactured after 1973, when safety restraints were required. South Sound residents should encourage lawmakers to pass a bill requiring seat belt use so the trends that began two years ago can continue.



If that's really the reasoning behind the WA seatbelt law being found unconstitutional by some courts then I don't see how it has any chance of being found unconstitutional by the WA Supreme Court.

It took me 2 seconds to find it via google and the attorney for the state wills simply say "If it may please he court, people are stupid, 208 is simpler than the 1994 assault weapons ban and the 922(r) 1989 Import Ban but the fine folks over at Arfcom certainly understand those"

Imagine what would happen if any law that is hard to find and is too hard to understand were to suddenly be made null and void by a court decision.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:02:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By vader17:
I got a ticket earlier today for not wearing a seatbelt. Does anyone have any information that would help me fight this ticket. I dont believe they really help that much and so i dont wear it. From my perspective it seems like the cops around here use it as a reason to pull people over to look for other infractions. Im not saying this happens everywhere just around where im at.



First, if you want to fight it, go ahead, it is certainly part of the legal process. It will allow you to whine to the only person who gets paid to listen to it: The Judge. Used to have a local judge who would dismiss the last ticket he heard every day, just to be able to say that the last person he dealt with he let go. Maybe you'll get him. He doesn't work around here anymore.

1. Wear your seatbelt. I've seen enough results of people getting ejected for not wearing them. They DO, as a whole, reduce injuries from crashes.

2. Generally speaking, we don't pull people over for not wearing seatbelts just to go on a fishing expedition for "other" infractions. However, when I see known gang members or druggies not wearing a seatbelt, I stop them. (Not to fish, but because we're zero-tolerance on known frequent offenders) And that's exactly what the citizens want us to do. BTW did your officer get you out of the car to "go fishing?" All I do is explain why they got stopped, and write the ticket. Paying the $55 fine enough times sometimes gets people to start wearing them. That's why we write the ticket.

3. If you don't want to wear them, there are other options: Motorcycle, Bicycles, Walking, Roller Blades, Skateboards. Or if you keep not wearing it while driving, the future potential of a wheelchair is always available.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 7:11:11 AM EST
npd233 seems you need some education on what law is, law is force, it's only legitmate use is for justice !

Justice is the act of correcting a wrong, aiding the injured party.

Crime is injury to persons or property, no injury no crime.

Who is the injured party when I do not use a seat belt?

Here is Washington state a seat belt infraction is 101$ BTW.



Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:50:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By npd233:

Originally Posted By vader17:
I got a ticket earlier today for not wearing a seatbelt. Does anyone have any information that would help me fight this ticket. I dont believe they really help that much and so i dont wear it. From my perspective it seems like the cops around here use it as a reason to pull people over to look for other infractions. Im not saying this happens everywhere just around where im at.



First, if you want to fight it, go ahead, it is certainly part of the legal process. It will allow you to whine to the only person who gets paid to listen to it: The Judge. Used to have a local judge who would dismiss the last ticket he heard every day, just to be able to say that the last person he dealt with he let go. Maybe you'll get him. He doesn't work around here anymore.

1. Wear your seatbelt. I've seen enough results of people getting ejected for not wearing them. They DO, as a whole, reduce injuries from crashes.

2. Generally speaking, we don't pull people over for not wearing seatbelts just to go on a fishing expedition for "other" infractions. However, when I see known gang members or druggies not wearing a seatbelt, I stop them. (Not to fish, but because we're zero-tolerance on known frequent offenders) And that's exactly what the citizens want us to do. BTW did your officer get you out of the car to "go fishing?" All I do is explain why they got stopped, and write the ticket. Paying the $55 fine enough times sometimes gets people to start wearing them. That's why we write the ticket.

3. If you don't want to wear them, there are other options: Motorcycle, Bicycles, Walking, Roller Blades, Skateboards. Or if you keep not wearing it while driving, the future potential of a wheelchair is always available.



The officer that wrote my ticket seemed only interested in giving me a ticket. He didnt ask for my registration or insurance he got my liscense wrote me a ticket and came back and gave me the ticket. I thought it was kind of odd but thats just me. It was $101 instead of 55.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 2:50:12 PM EST
I see nothing in Section 208 requiring a person to wear their seatbelt. Rather, it looks like it merely mandates what automobile manufacturers are required to equip their vehicles with, WRT passive restraint systems.

Build standards, in other words.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 3:00:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By bri26064:
Here in Utah, not wearing your seatbelt is considered a secondary offense. They can't pull you over for just that. Unless you don't have your children (under 18) in a seatbelt. I wear mine in my car all the time, but I don't as often in my truck (18 wheeler). I think the only persons that should be required to wear them is children. They aren't old enough to know better. As for the rest of us, it should be your choice. You can't regulate stupidity. But what do I know, I drive a truck for a living.



You apparently have more sense than the majority of state legislators.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 3:03:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Imagine what would happen if any law that is hard to find and is too hard to understand were to suddenly be made null and void by a court decision.



We would have a free country. Free from .gov interference in our day to day lives. We would have a budget surplus. The .gov wouldnt have a backlog in the court system, and we would have room in prisons for violent serious criminals.







Link Posted: 9/26/2004 3:38:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Phil_in_Seattle:
Imagine what would happen if any law that is hard to find and is too hard to understand were to suddenly be made null and void by a court decision.



We would have a free country. Free from .gov interference in our day to day lives. We would have a budget surplus. The .gov wouldnt have a backlog in the court system, and we would have room in prisons for violent serious criminals.




www.nyclu.org/images/constitution_flag.jpg





I'm sorry CavVet that document is obviously far too difficult for most people to understand thus it's null and void.
See where that ends up at?
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 4:36:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/26/2004 4:36:45 PM EST by Evil_ATF]
As a general rule, I fight every ticket I get.

My most recent happened to be a seatbelt violation while I was travelling between Salt Lake City, Phoenix, northern CA and southern CA (been a busy summer).

If you show up for court with nothing other than a "You got me. I'll work on addressing the problem in the future", hen you'll typically see the fine dropped in half, or more.

Unfortunately, I'll not be driving back to southern CA anytime soon to fight an $85 ticket, so I'm going to have to eat this one.

For what it's worth. I'll show up and give the court 5 minutes of my time to save $50+.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 4:57:58 PM EST
One way to address this issue, which is so similar to others where individual rights are mixed with control is issuing a law that says a person is waiving State reponsibility by not wearing a seat belt.

That is: if a person is injured in a traffic accident because he/she was not wearing a seat belt there's no need to spend tax money with ambulances or hospitals. That is, the person is on his/her own. Completely free. Only way to get an ambulance there is if the person can pull a credit card and tell to bill it to that account. Of course credit limit would be verified first.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 5:26:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By Rossi:
One way to address this issue, which is so similar to others where individual rights are mixed with control is issuing a law that says a person is waiving State reponsibility by not wearing a seat belt.

That is: if a person is injured in a traffic accident because he/she was not wearing a seat belt there's no need to spend tax money with ambulances or hospitals. That is, the person is on his/her own. Completely free. Only way to get an ambulance there is if the person can pull a credit card and tell to bill it to that account. Of course credit limit would be verified first.



So under this argument we shall also ban motorcycles, parasailing, etc. unless you have same said CC preapproved. The same, if not more danger is easy to see.

Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:07:21 PM EST

Originally Posted By CavVet:

Originally Posted By Rossi:
One way to address this issue, which is so similar to others where individual rights are mixed with control is issuing a law that says a person is waiving State reponsibility by not wearing a seat belt.

That is: if a person is injured in a traffic accident because he/she was not wearing a seat belt there's no need to spend tax money with ambulances or hospitals. That is, the person is on his/her own. Completely free. Only way to get an ambulance there is if the person can pull a credit card and tell to bill it to that account. Of course credit limit would be verified first.



So under this argument we shall also ban motorcycles, parasailing, etc. unless you have same said CC preapproved. The same, if not more danger is easy to see.




Nope... no bans. Please do not get me wrong. It's a matter of Choice. I think a person has the right to do whatever it pleases him/her as long as it does not infringe another person's rights.

If it's true that a person, by exercising his/her right of choosing not using a belt, can cause thousands of dollars of taxpayer money then his/her right to taxpayer money medical assistance should be forfeited.

Also, if a motorcycle had such safety device it should also be enforced, such as helmets. As for parasails, sky diving, etc. it's also a choice since these are sensitive subjects with insurance companies.


Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:14:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Evil_ATF:

For what it's worth. I'll show up and give the court 5 minutes of my time to save $50+.



That's great if you have the 5 minutes to spare without having to miss the rest of that days' work. It wouldn't make sense for me to lose $600+ just to go to court to save $50. I've also NEVER spent only 5 minutes in traffic court.
Link Posted: 9/26/2004 8:22:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By npd233:
1. Wear your seatbelt. I've seen enough results of people getting ejected for not wearing them. They DO, as a whole, reduce injuries from crashes.



I agree that wearing a seatbelt is the smart thing to do. That is an entirely diiferent subject that whether or not we should be legally coerced to wearv them.



2. Generally speaking, we don't pull people over for not wearing seatbelts just to go on a fishing expedition for "other" infractions. However, when I see known gang members or druggies not wearing a seatbelt, I stop them. (Not to fish, but because we're zero-tolerance on known frequent offenders) And that's exactly what the citizens want us to do. BTW did your officer get you out of the car to "go fishing?" All I do is explain why they got stopped, and write the ticket. Paying the $55 fine enough times sometimes gets people to start wearing them. That's why we write the ticket.




Originally Posted By Boomer:
What a bunch of crap. Not long after I had merged onto US2 well ahead of a State Patrolman the blue lights came on and he stopped me. Couldn't figure out what I had done wrong. Not speeding, driving erratically, Jeep is completely street legal, lights were on even though it was day, etc. After he approached my Jeep, I opened the door to talk to him and he immediately noticed and commented about the lap belt I was wearing. He said he stopped me because he had seen that I wasn't wearing a shoulder belt. I informed him that my Jeep was older and not originally equipped with shoulder belts (1983 was the first year that light trucks were required to have shoulder belts). He checked my license, asked where I was going (to work), where I work (the railroad), and then showed interest in railroading and we proceeded to discuss that for about 10 minutes. All in all, it wasn't a bad encounter, just pisses me off that they can pull us over for stupid shit like that. I still remember when they first passed the seat belt law back about circa 1986 and they swore up and down that it would never be a primary offense. Now they use it as a reaon for fishing expeditions. Guess you really never can trust a damn politician.





3. If you don't want to wear them, there are other options: Motorcycle, Bicycles, Walking, Roller Blades, Skateboards. Or if you keep not wearing it while driving, the future potential of a wheelchair is always available.



Link Posted: 9/27/2004 3:26:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Boomer:
That's great if you have the 5 minutes to spare without having to miss the rest of that days' work. It wouldn't make sense for me to lose $600+ just to go to court to save $50. I've also NEVER spent only 5 minutes in traffic court.



I hear you. Not sure how it is in your jurisdiction, but down here you can pretty much set your own court date and time, within reason.

While you only spend 5 minutes in front of the judge, I'll concede that you spend a fair amount of time waiting to get your 5 minutes.

However, until someone convinces the Powers That Be to stop taking our wages at every turn through legislative or more direct means, these conversations are just a wasted vent of perfectly good rage.

Let it build up to the point that it'll do you some good.

Works for me!
Top Top