Posted on 07/18/2004 12:16:52 PM PDT by Copernicus
Another Triangle woman tells of being stopped by two Raleigh police officers, one apparently in training, who contended she wasn't wearing her seatbelt.
Shown it was fastened, the officers retired to patrol car for a conference before returning 10 minutes later.
One handed her a $75 citation because, he said, the shoulder belt was "too loose".
(Excerpt) Read more at 216.239.41.104 ...
Mrs. Manning bought a triangular shoulderrestraint seatbelt aduster at Wal*Mart for $9 which slips over the buckle, snaps, and leaves the shoulder strap crossing over at her sternum; she says that's much more comfortable. The picture on the cardboard package for this adjuster shows a toddler, but ladies might want to try it for themselves.
I pay pretty good attention, actually. Its more likely that I'm a plant, here to lull you all into giving up your rights, while the government secretly controls your mind using fluoridated water...
"Resistance is futile, prepare to be assimilated" (Borg Cube Assault Advisory)
Best regards,
People should be allowed not to wear a seatbelt, but their insurance companies should also be allowed to double their premium.
the statement is misleading ... it was likely across her chest but rather than going past the neck, she slings it under her left arm, but it still goes across her chest ...
from the outside, the shoulder harness might not be visible in this method ... I know a short lady who does this because it rubs against her neck ... I told her I considered it potentially dangerous, but it is still across her chest and would restrain the chest, but the left arm would be lifted during decceleration and impact ...
Nice idea, but the problem with that is too often it would result in so much extra expense for lawyering and expert testimony and court time to prove what did what damage--or even how much more damage might have been done if person were belted--that it would probably be cheaper just to pay.
Thank you for your honesty.
I use those too - they're called 'safetyfit', designed for young children. At 5' even, the shoulder strap crosses my throat, which is also dangerous...
BTW, a co-worker of mine was cited about two years ago in San Angelo for "not wearing his seatbelt" when he had the shoulder strap underneath his left arm.
It was the other thread and the fact Mr. Snow is a "mainstream"(ie leftwing propagandist)journalist.
For him to issue a muted protest about a topic that drives ordinary people insane is nothing short of remarkable.
Even the lefties amongst us seem to believe we may have gone too far (about some things)
Best regards,
That is how I always wear my seatbelt. I am very short and, um, anyway, it is very uncomfortable to wear it across my shoulder and downward. I am wearing the stupid thing, that is what the law said, I thought. Hope this woman fghts the ticket and wins. Doubtful, but I can hope.
Thanks for identifying it. Mrs. Manning is very uncomfortable if she is not using that adjuster. We found it in the automotive section of Wal*Mart. There were some cheaper plastic clips, but those things looked like they would break sooner or later. The nice thing about the "Safety Fit" is it's made out of that highly durable metallic fabric and once it's on the seatbelt, there's no way it will come undone during the ride. Very safe.
You may be right, but the responsibility for that rests with the legislatures and the courts. The purpose of contract law is to clarify responsibilities and reduce litigation. It was never intended to obtain "fairness", however that might be defined.
The statute of frauds concerning real estate dictates that all real estate transactions must be in writing. This may not be fair to those who rely on verbal agreements, but it serves the purpose of keeping these cases out of court without written contracts to enforce. Unfortunately, laws have been passed and judgements rendered in an attempt to be "fair" to people without such written contracts and thus the benefit of reducing litigation has been significantly reduced.
There are many ways that the legislatures could reform the tort system so that it is more "fair" to those who are not parties to litigation but it would require pre-judgements to eliminate the courts latitude. The lawyers will not allow this.
I understand the problem, it is not one size fits all. My hope is that you are safe in your automobile. I think seatbelts are a benefit most of the time, but one time I took mine off to get out my wallet for a traffic stop and the cop said he was going to give me a break but I should wear my seatbelt. I calmly explained that I took it off first, that I took out my wallet to give him my driver's license when he walked up.
Bottom line, in a non-accident situation, keep your belt on until they see it. Aye carumba. I've been wearing seatbelts religiously since I was 15-1/2 (driver's ed films made a believer out of me).
Let's just make everything illegal, then the lawyers will really get rich!
Hold it...they are already. [Just to remind you WHO makes our laws and WHY]
You have put your finger squarely on the exact problem: Seatbelts are an ENGINEERED solution for CERTAIN, SPECIFIC situations.
In all other situations outside the design parameters they may become a liability and a hazard to their users.
It is not something that can be mandated in a top-down fashion from central government regardless of the desired good intentions.
My favorite example: Ted Kennedy might not be with us today if he had worn a seatbelt on his drive in Chappaquidick.
Best regards,
Do you know that in most later model cars the upper anchor point of the shoulder strap is adjustable?
if it is like my friend's, the one in her Buick did not seem adjustable ... it was an '89, I might have to look at it again ...
Not behind her, but not up to her neck. IN FRONT of her but under her arm. She needs to buy one of those seat belt adjustment products. Government needs to quit telling us how to live our lives. And lawyers need to be stopped from suing the state to pay for people who are injured as a result of not wearing their seatbelts. And we'll all live happily ever after... :)
That's is exactly right.
Insurance rates are also driven up by those who decide not to wear their belts or motorcycle helmets. They say it is their right not wear the safety equipment while at the same time they demand it is their right if injured to hold everyone else responsible for paying their bills/damages.
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.