Florida signs new primary seat belt law, gets $35 million from gov't
Drivers and front-seat passengers in Florida may be cited for not wearing seat belts when a new law takes effect on June 30. Known as a "primary" seat belt law, the law allows enforcement officers to pull vehicles over solely for a belt violation (a "secondary" seat belt law requires another infraction to take place before a ticket may be issued). Florida is only the 28th state to enact a primary seat belt law, while the remainder have secondary laws and New Hampshire has no seatbelt law whatsoever.Signed into law by Gov. Charlie Crist earlier this week, the legislation makes Florida eligible for up to $35 million in federal grant money created in 2005 as an incentive for states to establish seat belt laws. While Florida's fine for the nonmoving seat belt violation will be a mere $30, studies show that drivers are 13% more likely to fasten their belts if they can be pulled over for it. While the millions in federal money and ticket revenue are both incentives to the state, that's not the primary motivation behind it. "This bill will save lives," the governor said. "That's what is important."
[Source: Palm Beach Post]
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
chineyz954 2:03PM (5/08/2009)
Good! If your not wearing a seatbelt in this day and age you dont need to be driving.
Now bring back the helmet law in florida so I can stop picking up peoples faces off of the road.
Reply
Farmboy 2:57PM (5/08/2009)
Yeah. That's how it is in IN. Zero tolerance for seat belts. Not too many problems, except they don't tell you trucks now have to wear belts. haha
LMBVette 3:10PM (5/08/2009)
Yeah...gotta love FL. If you are a child riding a bike on training wheels you have to wear a helmet. If you are an adult on a motorcycle you don't. Go figure!
Joe 2:07PM (5/08/2009)
I always felt people who didn't wear seatbelts were just accelerating natural selection...
But of course it's not about that. It's about ticket revenue.
Reply
Epyx 2:11PM (5/08/2009)
Actually it is about reducing insurance premiums and gaining federal aid.
BoxerFanatic 2:13PM (5/08/2009)
The government doesn't collect nor pay insurance premiums. Car owners do.
Why should the government enforce a matter of law regarding the business activities of the insurance industry?
Oh, they do that for EVERY industry, and has their micro-management fingers into everything. That is what government is for, to get in a man's way.
Caz 2:30PM (5/08/2009)
It's about uninsured motorists!
You don't have health insurance, don't wear a seatbelt then get in a bad wreck.. guess who pays- me and everyone else who pays out the you-know for insurance! As a medic it's disgusting to me how many people out there don't have auto or health insurance.
Epyx 2:43PM (5/08/2009)
Boxer,
This is a worthy law - even as a libertarian I can agree with this one. It is not a my body, my choice issue.
Libertarians believe one should be able to do as they wish as long as their actions do not infringe on anther's liberty.
Well, Joe Shmo not wearing his seatbelt DOES infringe on my liberty. He gets into an accident and dies. Causing MY insurance premium to rise. Not to mention the wasted resources attempting to save his life. I dont give a crap about Joe, I am worried about ME and my insurance. More fatalities + higher premiums...PERIOD. Seat belts reduce fatalities.
Furthermore, driving is not a right - it is a licensed activity. The goverment is within thier scope of control on this one.
Private road - fine no seat belt needed, Government has no authority there. You can drive all day long on your backyard track with no personal protection. Surf on the roof Teen Wolf style if you want, fine with me.
Public Road - Maintained and owned by the government - they make the rules.
Joe 2:55PM (5/08/2009)
You know, I didn't think about the uninsured driver issue. It is a good point. So the real question is how to solve the issue of responsible people paying for idiots.
I don't have a good solution for that. Looks like we need to live with it until we're ok with leaving someone who can't pay on the side of the road.
Carguy 4:44PM (5/08/2009)
A real libertarian would instead deny Joe access to hospitals and paramedics at the accident scene and therefore he would not be able to effect your rates. It was his choice to not have insurance, after all, a choice I believe he should be able to make. This would not be too smart for him in a true libertarian world, but he should be able to make that choice. The problem is that people don't truly have to pay for the consequences of their actions...they know they can get hurt and you will be the one that pays, and that is why they do it. The day no one responds to someone hurt in an accident because they have no insurance, that will be the same day that everyone signs up for insurance before they drive a car.
Back seat libertarians bug the hell out of me....
Joe 4:57PM (5/08/2009)
So, some kid gets hit by a stray bullet from a drive-by. Death is imminent if you don't call for help. You say, "Are you on your parents' policy? No? Oh, then you have to die."
This was obviously an intentionally extreme example, but is that what a true libertarian would do?
Polly Prissy Pants 6:13PM (5/08/2009)
"Well, Joe Shmo not wearing his seatbelt DOES infringe on my liberty. He gets into an accident and dies. Causing MY insurance premium to rise. "
You're no true libertarian then. What about motorcycles If a rider dies is that infringing on your liberty? What about sky diving? Rock climbing? Scuba diving? Eating hot dogs? Smoking cigars? Having kids? Drinking beer? Mowing the lawn barefooted? Boxing? Climbing a ladder? Where does it end? All these things ultimately cost you money when things go wrong. How much is the liberty of these things worth?
That's the problem with legislating behavior - it's just one big slippery slope.
xtasi 6:50PM (5/08/2009)
@joe
it's more of money saving. If you die, we (taxpayers) have little cost (relative). If you survive, we end up paying your medical bills, should you be conscious, we also give you disability for life.
BoxerFanatic 2:11PM (5/08/2009)
Or people could be expected to take on their own responsibility, without a nanny-state overlord.
Of course seat-belts are good, and of course it should be rote memory to put them on.
But government using it as a way to generate funds, and micro-manage the population is just heavy handed government, that further solidifies the premise that government should be heavy handed.
I don't hold to that. I'll wear my seat belt, thanks, but I don't need the police messing with me about it.
Or my tinted side windows, for that matter. >:-(
Reply
JB 5:14PM (5/08/2009)
You do realize that this law ENCOURAGES personal responsibility.
Matt B 2:12PM (5/08/2009)
Just another tax in the name of false safety....
Reply
MikeofLA 2:25PM (5/08/2009)
False Safety? Really? Seatbelt have saved more lives then any other safety invention this side of brakes.
The point of making it a law does two things, it helps cover the taxpayer cost associated with uninsured (medically) injuries as well as the civil (ambulance costs) burden brought about by being ejected from a car. It also helps to (theoretically) lower our own health insurance premiums. If less people are injured, less money is paid out and thus the insurance companies (again, theoretically) can lower everyone's premiums and still make a profit....
I think anyone who is not wearing a seat belt is a complete fool, and the other side of it is this... they may not buckle their children either.
bdan 2:12PM (5/08/2009)
im glad the FL police have found a way to get through the recession.
last i checked i was supposed to have the choice of wearing a seatbelt or not, apparently the govt has decided to make that choice for me.
they have no place in this, i would give them more leeway if it only applied to minors.
Reply
Joe 2:19PM (5/08/2009)
Agreed. I always wear a seatbelt. But if someone is dumb enough to not wear one, it affects no one's safety but their own. Children, like you said, are a different story.
Caz 2:36PM (5/08/2009)
Check again bdan
"Florida Statute - XXIII - 316.614 - Safety belt usage
(4b) It is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle in this state unless the person is restrained by a safety belt."