[snowsislander]

I think that it is a very safe assumption that, contrary to the confident assertions in this pap, that automobile insurance rates in South Carolina will not be reduced.

[FlingWingFlyer]

The number of people who have died on South Carolina roads so far this year hit 1,011 as of late Thursday.

Sounds like S.C. has turned into a quagmire.

[Froggie]

Please -- can someone explain to me why states have seat belt laws with a lot heftier fines than this one indicates for not having a belt on in a 3000 lb car, suv, etc - yet they allow people to ride motocycles which basically makes people a flying missle? I'm not in favor of outlawing motorcycles, it just strikes me odd that it's perfectly legal to sit on a rocket at 65 mph just holding onto handlebars but illegal to be seated in a 60 mph volvo without that strap keeping you on the seat...

[The Worthless Miracle]

Exactly right. We have to deal with this absurdity even in the red state of IN. Surprise, surprise, the police use it as an excuse to stop people and snoop around...

[unixfox]

This has NOTHING to do about them caring about lives. They could care less.

It's all about revenue enhancement and how many tickets can they issue to people not wearing seat belts.

When this first started in Texas they were saying you would only be given a seat belt violation if you were stopped for another violation. Total B.S. It soon escalated into a major revenue source. This in turn led to seat belt check points, which in turn led to ILLEGAL searches and seizures, which led to...well you get the point.

IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!

[cripplecreek]

Seat belts are a great idea and a really bad law.

[kingu]

I love the advertisements for insurance in California, where auto-insurance folks proudly proclaim that they give significant discounts to good drivers. 20%, the legal minimum in our utopia of nanny states. I can't find a single auto insurance company that gives any bigger discount for good drivers than that.

So yeah, insurance rates will not go down. It may actually go up. The ugly truth is that death benefits can sometimes be half or less than what a jury will award someone who sits before them in a wheelchair with obvious disabilities.

As for the whole concept; I've always worn a belt, I'd wear a belt if it was the law or not. I don't care to demand that others follow the same lead; I will for those in the car I'm driving, but if they're in someone else's car, no skin off my teeth. (Sorry, but seen far too many instances of people doing the aerial box-ballet, and I don't want to be a bumper for them.)

Then again, what makes driving on the wrong side of the street illegal? The US is the only country I know of that takes such a stand. If there's others on the opposite side, then that's reckless driving, not driving on the wrong side. If it is safe, say, pulling to the curb on the wrong side of the street in a residential area, why declare it to be illegal?

Bah, random ranting. Long and short: zero savings to auto insurers means zero savings to the consumer, legislative fixes will simply lead to higher insurance rates for possibly just a minority, and loads of police taken off the streets from fighting violent crime to write little old ladies up for not wearing a belt that they made it through 80 years of life just fine without.

[mugs99]

I think that it is a very safe assumption that, contrary to the confident assertions in this pap, that automobile insurance rates in South Carolina will not be reduced

The insurance industry always claims that mandatory insurance and seatbelt laws will reduce rates. They never have. This is just a money maker for insurance companies and law enforcement. When you get a seatbelt ticket, your insurance company raises your premium and the traffic court collects a fine.

It's all about the money.
.

[SC Swamp Fox]

South Carolina Ping

Add me to the list. | Remove me from the list.

[Perdogg]

More nannyism. Why not require people to walk around with helmets and kneepads and elbow guards?

[Barry Goldwater]

Seatbelt laws give authorities another chance to catch terrorists. If just one terrorist is caught and a side benefit is increased safety, especially for kids, how can anyone argue against such a law?

[jwpjr]

Personally, I would appreciate it if drivers I encounter would use their restraint system(s), not for their safety but for my safety. It doesn't take much of a collision to jar a driver loose from the steering wheel. In the event of a collision I would prefer the drivers remain in contact with the steering mechanism.

I know I will be flamed (again) but it's my humble opinion that my rights end where someone else's begin. And for the record, that works both ways. I try to be considerate of those around me. I consider it part of my obligation if I expect the same from consideration from others.