Skip to comments.
Hillary Clinton Joins Fight for National Seatbelt Law
CNSNEWS.com ^
| 12/10/03
| Susan Jones
Posted on 12/10/2003 3:08:26 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has joined Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) in sponsoring a bill that would establish a national seatbelt law.
The motivating force behind the proposed law, an alliance called Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, said the states are not moving fast enough to pass such a "lifesaving law," and it issued a statement thanking Sens. Clinton and Warner for supporting a bill "which we know is fundamental to increasing belt use in this country."
According to the highway safety advocates, about 79 percent of Americans buckle up on a regular basis - not good enough, they say.
The Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety noted that only 20 states and the District of Columbia have "primary" seatbelt enforcement laws, meaning police may stop and ticket motorists simply for failing to buckle up.
Twenty-nine states have secondary seatbelt laws, meaning police may ticket unbuckled motorists only when they're stopped for some other reason.
New Hampshire, which has the slogan "Live Free or Die" on its license plates, has no seatbelt law, the group said.
The Senate bill co-sponsored by Sens. Clinton and Warner would give the states three years to enact a primary seatbelt law - or achieve a seat belt usage rate of at least 90 percent.
States that do not meet either goal would have a small percentage of their Highway Trust Fund monies withheld. This is the same approach Congress used to pressure the states to beef up their drunken driving laws.
Highway and auto safety advocates who are pressing for the national seatbelt law cite the cost associated with non-usage as a motivating factor.
"When people don't buckle up, all of society pays," said Phil Haseltine, president of the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS). "An estimated $26 billion is spent annually on medical and emergency response care, lost productivity and other injury related costs," he said in a press release announcing the introduction of the Senate bill.
But critics of seatbelt laws, including the Libertarian Party, see such laws, enforced with taxpayer money, as an infringement on limited government and personal responsibility.
Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety describes itself as an alliance of consumer, health, law enforcement and safety groups and insurance companies and agents working together to make America's roads safer.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: New York; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: busybodies; hillary; johnwarner; nannystate; seatbelts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
To: All
I had a friend who was involved in a crash, and was ejected out of the car. Had he been confined by a seatbelt, and stayed in the car, he most certainly would have died because of the damage done.
To: kattracks
Another step for the Nanny State. Maybe we should pass a national FatAss law? Anyone with a butt that big should not be allowed in Politics.....
22
posted on
12/10/2003 5:04:38 AM PST
by
theDentist
(Liberals can sugarcoat sh** all they want. I'm not biting.)
To: kattracks
Bush's fault
23
posted on
12/10/2003 5:12:49 AM PST
by
Liberty Valance
(Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
To: Ff--150
You're right. It is just one big party. Republicans vs democrats is just a football rivalry for us all to fight over while they destroy the Constitution. I'm really sorry to see this, but I'm not surprised.
24
posted on
12/10/2003 5:13:41 AM PST
by
mysterio
To: kattracks; azhenfud; Howlin; Constitution Day; mykdsmom
LOLOLOL!!!!!! Well we all know one Republican vote Senator Clinton can vote on.
The Senate bill co-sponsored by Sens. Clinton and Warner would give the states three years to enact a primary seatbelt law - or achieve a seat belt usage rate of at least 90 percent.
States that do not meet either goal would have a small percentage of their Highway Trust Fund monies withheld. This is the same approach Congress used to pressure the states to beef up their drunken driving laws.
Hmmmm, this sounds familiar.... ;)
25
posted on
12/10/2003 5:15:44 AM PST
by
billbears
(I've got my roadside seatbelt checker spot picked out. Call 1-800-DOLE-CARES to get yours!!)
To: Ff--150
Once again I'll be ignoredI hear you and I agree, Ff--150.
I hate seatbelt laws. They are symbolic of so many things.
27
posted on
12/10/2003 5:36:29 AM PST
by
biblewonk
(I must try to answer all bible questions.)
To: Dante3
At this point it may require a revolution to stop the politicians and various busybodies from coercing behavior "for our own good."
Big Brother is here. He just doesn't have total control -- yet.
28
posted on
12/10/2003 5:43:31 AM PST
by
Mackey
To: Ff--150
... there are NO TWO POLITICAL PARTIES IN THE UNITED STATES. That's a lie to believe there is, ...That's correct.
29
posted on
12/10/2003 5:52:25 AM PST
by
TigersEye
("Where there is life there is hope!" - Terri Schiavo)
To: kattracks
This is a patently states rights issue.
If we look at the agnda of leftists everywhere, it is to eliminate the ability of the states to abandon their state and local government bodies and just let the national government do it all. My question, is why does the Junior Senator from New York have so little to do that she has time to worry about this? Isn't there a pressing New York issue she can turn her attention to, or would that be too much like doing what she was elected to do?
To: DustyMoment
Let me try this again:
This is a patently states rights issue.
If we look at the agnda of leftists everywhere, it is to eliminate the ability of the states to OPERATE their state and local government bodies and just let the national government do it all. My question, is why does the Junior Senator from New York have so little to do that she has time to worry about this? Isn't there a pressing New York issue she can turn her attention to, or would that be too much like doing what she was elected to do?
To: laredo44
"Oh yeah, the unlimited power of a limited government, the frickin power to regulate interstate commerce." You bring up an excellent point about the abuse of the "commerce clause."
And I used to believe that there was no way to counteract the "commerce clause," short of electing Republicans to the Congress and the Presidency.
But I was always troubled by the thought of why my rights were subject to the polictical whims of the eletorate.
It was then I re-discovered the Bill of Rights. I also discovered the reason my rights were being denied, disparaged, and trampled was because I was not exerting them.
The "commerce clause" is always trumped and tempered by the Bill of Rights.
For example, our federal government can regulate the commerce of newspapers, but the First amendment prohibits the regulation of the content of newspapers.
So, even if the federal congress claims the constitutional power to mandate the use of seat belts via the commerce clause, the 9th amendment prohibits the implementation of such a law:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
The people have the retained right to wear or not to wear a seat belt when operating their automobile.
Now, go and exert your right.
32
posted on
12/10/2003 5:59:46 AM PST
by
tahiti
To: kattracks
OF COURSE her unroyal lowness, her hideous heinous--Bwitch Shrillery Antoinette de FOSTERIZER, DE MARX DE MACHIAVELLI DE STALIN
is EAGER to control EVERY INDIVIDUAL with greater and greater *FEDERAL* ***GLOBAL*** TYRANNY
. . . for the children, of course.
The only belt she needs is a big padded one across her cavernous flapping mouth and perhaps the same treatment Billdo gave Broderick's mouth--only maybe he could manage more umph this time as the recipient is exceedingly more warranting of said treatment.
Isn't there a street race somewhere in the rockies where she could test her contentions out by volunteering to be a test dummy without seat belts?
She'd certainly qualify for the testy
and
dummy
parts.
33
posted on
12/10/2003 6:13:24 AM PST
by
Quix
(Choose this day whom U will serve: Shrillery & demonic goons or The King of Kings and Lord of Lords)
To: kattracks
Airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones, telescoping steering columns, impact absorbing bumpers, padded dashboards, anti-lock brakes, MADD, and laws, laws, laws.
More people are getting killed in cars than ever.
Funny how all that crap is no substitute for learning to drive and not getting in an accident in the first place.
34
posted on
12/10/2003 6:16:06 AM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones..)
To: Adder
Back to the same basic questions we asked about motorcycle accidents. Does the helmet prevent injury or cause it?, are the survivors more expensive than dead folks would have been? Is the State really picking up the tab?
The problem begins when the assumption is made that accidents must occur, instead of focusing on accident prevention.
Turn off the DVD, quit fiddling with the stereo, fold up the newspaper, and hang up and drive!
35
posted on
12/10/2003 6:21:39 AM PST
by
Smokin' Joe
(The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their bones..)
To: Mudboy Slim
Lookee who has teamed up with Jawn Wahner to make sure we are all safe.
To: excalibur1701
That is a common statement. However, the research shows that children that are restrained properly survive a crash that totals the car 93% of the time.
If you love your child, put them in the proper seats.
If you don't, no federal law will help you.
I love my girls so will go through the trouble of seatbelts. And for someone who NEVER wore a seatbelt, I now wear it all the time. My fear is I will be killed in a crash and they will see it.
No one has to make a law about it. This is stupid.
37
posted on
12/10/2003 6:25:23 AM PST
by
netmilsmom
(Some minds are like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.)
To: kattracks
With all the money they steal from the taxpayers; a seatbelt law is all we get?
I demand a refund.
To: Quix
OF COURSE her unroyal lowness, her hideous heinous--Bwitch Shrillery Antoinette de FOSTERIZER, DE MARX DE MACHIAVELLI DE STALIN is EAGER to control EVERY INDIVIDUAL with greater and greater *FEDERAL* ***GLOBAL*** TYRANNY Don't blame this on Clinton. This was introduced in its first form by then Department of Transportation Secretary Elizabeth Dole back in the 1980s.
39
posted on
12/10/2003 6:34:10 AM PST
by
billbears
(I've got my roadside seatbelt checker spot picked out. Call 1-800-DOLE-CARES to get yours!!)
To: kattracks
States that do not meet either goal would have a small percentage of their Highway Trust Fund monies withheld. Some person with real gonads is going to get elected Governor of some state running simply on eliminating this egregious federal coercion. I would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to enhance my state's autonomy.
It would be interesting the court case which would follow some state's refusal to send collected gas taxes to the Feds on the grounds that the Federal government uses them in a coercive manner, a clear violation of state's rights.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson