Posted on 02/17/2005 10:28:42 AM PST by freepatriot32
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) -- A Senate committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would require drivers and all passengers to wear seat belts in trucks, SUVs and cars.
After hearing emotional testimony from family members of those killed in crashes, the Senate's public policy committee voted 10-0 to endorse the bill. It now moves to the full Senate, which approved similar legislation last year before it was blocked in a House committee.
The bill requires people in front and back seats to buckle up in all vehicles with seat belts, with exceptions for trucks used on farms. People who cannot wear seat belts for medical reasons are also exempt.
The bill is being dubbed "Megan's Bill" after 24-year-old Megan Minix of Kokomo, who died last year when the pickup truck she was riding in flipped over. She wasn't wearing a seat belt because she felt safer in the truck, her father said, even though she always wore one in her car.
I wonder how different our lives would be if Megan would have had her seat belt on," a tearful Darrell Minix told the committee. "She was my little girl."
A group of high school students from Evansville told senators they also supported the bill. Adrian France said teenagers like herself would start wearing seat belts in trucks and as backseat passengers if Indiana's law was changed.
"We're afraid of getting a ticket, not of dying," France said.
Bill sponsor Sen. Tom Wyss, R-Fort Wayne, said the bill would likely face opposition as it moves through the legislative process.
"It's not without controversy," he told senators. "You're going to hear from constituents talking about their freedom and liberty."
Wyss said legislators should focus on public safety, not personal rights.
"We're talking about human life and human injury," Wyss said.
Rep. Bob Alderman, R-Fort Wayne, said adults should make their own choices on whether to wear seat belts without interference from lawmakers.
"There's a group of us who still understand personal freedom," Alderman said.
Alderman said if the bill was assigned to the House public policy committee, of which he is chairman, he might give it a hearing but would not guarantee a vote on the proposal.
Rep. Cleo Duncan, a Republican from Greensburg who heads the House's transportation panel, said she was undecided on what she would do with the bill.
"We're going to have to keep an open mind," Duncan said.
Minix said he would return to the Statehouse to testify if the bill gets a hearing in the House. He said his daughter was not standing up for her personal freedoms by not wearing a seat belt - she simply knew she didn't have to wear it.
"She wasn't trying to make a statement," he said. "This could happen to anyone."
It is not a "RINO" to demand seat belt usage. We should have laws with penalties for misuse of antibotics also. imo.
Sounds like something that Stalin or Mao would have said...
It would have taken a law for his daughter to wear a seatbelt? Wow. We are becoming a nation of sheep.
Yes, I found that attitude strikingly apalling (but honest) too.
Good point.
I like it..it's a good idea..because it can be reversed with a simple switch. Volvo has gotten away from their GREEN image..with the big muscular SUVs and now a V-8..the new ads stres power, performance..so I think they delayed this feature, becuase it woudl obviously attract a lot of attention, and thus detract from the new image they're cultivating..
I do know of a case years ago where teen-age driver lost control and went flying off into a field. Driver's door opens and driver falls out. He's injured and unconscious but survives. The driverless car then continues on and hits big rock or tree -- I forget which. Passenger is ejected through the windshield, lands in a creek unconscious, and drowns.
That's not an argument for mandatory seatbelts, but it is an argument for anybody with brains to always use seatbelts.
Indiana Constitution
Bill of Rights. (not to be confused with a bill of privileges)
Section 1.
WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the people;
What part of LIBERTY do you not understand?
And if there is federal constitution has jurisdiction within the boundaries of Indiana, then:
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to DENY OR DISPARAGE others (rights) retained by the people.
Surely the decision to wear a seat belt or not is a right "retained by the people."
They never saw a bad idea they didn't want to give the force of law.
Word to that. I still don't think any insurance companies would actually reduce premiums if it happened, but at least it would take out the only legs that this silly mandatory seat-belt nonsense has to stand on.
BTW, I drive a Volvo. I always wear my seatbelt. If someone wants to risk having themselves lauched through the windshield, fine by me. My insurer doesn't cut my rate for seatbelt wearing.
The switch is necessary...Too many problems otherwise..IT's triggered byu a pressure sensor in the seat..to tell if it's occupied..but a heavy package, or a large dog, or a baby seat would throw it off..you must have a way of disabling it..the queston Volvo initially dealt with was if the switch should be INSIDE the passenger compartment..say, in the glove compartment..or outside...so that it wasn't quite that easy to reach..it' s being described as a "convenience" switch, rather than a dissabling device..
Repubs are still statists. This is statism. Liberalism is our Republican governor raising taxes on the "rich." That's why I don't vote for Redemopublicrats anymore.
I am for seat belts being used however you shoudl do some research on the car seat companies lobbying these senators.
So, if we submit to this further creeping of big brother statism, then we can expect insurance premiums to go down, correct? I will keep a close eye on this if the bill passes. And when health and auto insurance premiums do not go down, I will ping you for an explaination. See you in two years.
That will be a hard question for him to answer because he uses the Constitution, but his class doesn't believe that's for all us serfs, so he may be stymied as to what to recommend.
Yes thats the argument the Insurance lobby used when they passed their seat belt bill. Funny though I am still waiting for my refund from all the money seat belts have saved. I do know seat belts and air bags have raised the price of automobiles, I wonder what the difference would be between money paid out by insurance companies and money paid out by auto buyers who have to pay more for cars so equipped.
Didn't some US products have this feature in the seventies, and it went away because it had the grocery bag problem then too? Besides, who are you to say that the life of a large dog is worth less than that of a human? After all "a pig is a dog is a rat is a boy"! ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.