[DJ Frisat]

While I am a big believer in seat belt use, I'm very against these laws, because they are glittering examples of incrementalism.

Michigan lawmakers made the same assurances many years ago -- that this would be a secondary offense only, and that you couldn't be stopped simply for not wearing a seat beld.

Guess how long that lasted? If it says (D) or (R) after their names, they can't be trusted.

[sionnsar]

While I am a big believer in seat belt use, I'm very against these laws, because they are glittering examples of incrementalism.
Michigan lawmakers made the same assurances many years ago -- that this would be a secondary offense only, and that you couldn't be stopped simply for not wearing a seat beld.
Guess how long that lasted? If it says (D) or (R) after their names, they can't be trusted.

Agreed (my life was saved by a sealtbelt once). But we've seen the incrementalism here in WA.

25 years ago the signs read "Buckle Up: We Love You". (yeah, right)

Years later, the signs read, "Buckle Up: It's the law". (secondary offense)

Now the signs read: "Click It or Ticket." Primary offense, which they assured us would never happen.

Liars.

[luckystarmom]

I understand your reasoning, but I think I am for seat belt laws for this reason.

If there are no seat belt laws and for some reason you are in an accident with another car, and it is your fault. If the other person is not wearing a seat belt and dies, I would be worried about being sued or going to jail for manslaughter.

By having the laws on the books, then I wouldn't be worried about that if the other passenger was wearing their belt.