Seat Belt Laws: Primary Vs. Secondary
Seat belt laws have changed rapidly over the past decade and the laws are different depending on which state you’re in.
There are two different types of seat belt laws: primary and secondary.
Primary enforcement laws allow law enforcement officers to pull over drivers and ticket them if they are not wearing their seatbelts. Secondary enforcement laws, on the other hand, only allow an officer to pull over drivers for a separate violation (speeding, headlight out, etc.) and then ticket them if they are not wearing their seatbelts.
New Hampshire is the only state without a seat belt law for adults. All other states have either primary or secondary enforcement laws on the books.
As of April 2010, the following states have primary enforcement laws:
Alabama
Alaska
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Washington
Wisconsin
And these are the states that have secondary enforcement seat belt laws:
Arizona
Colorado
Idaho
Kansas
Massachusetts
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Ohio
Pennsyvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
The NMA Position on Seat Belt Laws
The NMA has always supported the contention that individuals should retain the freedom and responsibility to make choices affecting their own safety and the safety of their families. While the NMA encourages seat belt use, we do not support mandatory seat belt laws and the intrusive and punitive policies they spawn.
For more information, check out the seat belt laws section of our website.
More goverment control. That's what all need. This is what it all boils down to. Seatbelt should be encouraged not made into a law. Every year we have more stupid goverment control laws. I'm 44 years old and I certainly don't need big brother telling me I have to wear a seatbelt. Are we going to continue to let them control us more? Maybe we could hook the seat belt to a sensor that would go to the computer and travel through our crappy onstar system so that every time we're not buckled up, we can get a ticket in the mail.
Excuse me but could you tell me where my post is? I guess it was a little antiseatbelt for you.
We continue to debate whether seat belts save lives. Whether they do or don't is not the issue. The real issue is the fact that the goverment is continuing to dictate more and more control over us. Wearing a seat belt should be encouraged but not be a law, just like a helmet on a motorcycle. I'm a grown adult and should have the right to make this choice for myself. The only reason this stupid law made it in to effect was to make more ticket money for the townships that need to make a little extra cash. I've watch Burlington township in NJ, personally pulling people over for not wearing seatbelts. They sent the whole force down to 541, stand in the middle of the street and pulled over drivers left and right. This is a criminal act but it happens once a year in the spring. People really do need to speak out against this. Even if you are for wearing seatbelts, it should still be a choice and you can't argue with that.
We continue to debate whether seat belts save lives. Whether they do or don't is not the issue. The real issue is the fact that the goverment is continuing to dictate more and more control over us. Wearing a seat belt should be encouraged but not be a law, just like a helmet on a motorcycle. I'm a grown adult and should have the right to make this choice for myself. The only reason this stupid law made it in to effect was to make more ticket money for the townships that need to make a little extra cash. I've watch Burlington township in NJ, personally pulling people over for not wearing seatbelts. They sent the whole force down to 541, stand in the middle of the street and pulled over drivers left and right. This is a criminal act but it happens once a year in the spring. People really do need to speak out against this. Even if you are for wearing seatbelts, it should still be a choice and you can't argue with that.
Randy100 is a cop. He works for the gov't. Not for us, though WE pay him. His opinion doesn't count.
schwinn8 you are an ignorant fool. The only reasons why we did not get thousands of more deaths after the repeal of the national-55 was because of seat belt laws and air bags and crackdown of drunken driving and more regulations on car design. All of these things NMA is and have been against. You are a stupid fool.
Insurance Companies were the primary driving force behind seat belt laws. I use a seat belt and think it is a great safety aid but I do not support laws that mandate their use.
If you follow that logic to its zenith then the government should also issue laws
on what you can eat and disallow some sports in the name of safety.
Airbags are a safety hazard for smaller people and are allowed to be turned off.
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson-Honorary NMA member.
George we do need to get a seat belt exception for NMA members. It would help the world a lot.
The braking system has two functions: dissipate heat to slow/stop vehicle. This is where trucks are vastly inferior to cars. The second function is to hold the vehicle. Trucks have satisfactory function here, have you ever seen what happens if the trailer brakes are locked on?
Also semis have a very low, low gear. So they can accelerate loaded uphill, with minimal clutch slip.
The NMA Position on Seat Belt Laws
The NMA has always supported the contention that individuals should retain the freedom and responsibility to make choices affecting their own safety and the safety of their families. While the NMA encourages seatbelt use, we do not support mandatory seatbelt laws and the intrusive and punitive policies they spawn.
That is nice George that you are up so much on Trucks although I do not know why you are explaining truck braking but I will let you go on about such things. I think you also need a posting about fluid capacities since you are an expert on that also. I can only guess that your truck braking explanation is to tell us that trucks need to be driving a lot slower than cars and need a lot more spacing. I would also guess that you would say that the 5 feet spacing of the semi behind a car and driving 65+ mph was not quite enough.
You still do not get seat belt laws. Before laws were put into place most of the people under 25 would not wear a seat belt. The seat belt use increased tremendously when laws were put into place. I guess you want to get rid of the young people that will be paying for your social security benefits.
I posted that because you made a non-argument about being behind trucks on an uphill grade.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v57K1WW41K8
Ideally trucks should drive slower, but that creates anti-flow problems, which is a greater potential danger than faster trucks.
I never signed up for the 'social security' Ponzi Scheme. There is no US law requiring you to do so.
If you are not in the social security system then you must be in another system that does not take out social security which are mostly government jobs. I know of no other way that social security benefits were not automatically removed from any paycheck.
@Randy100,
You can opt out of SS for religious reasons. There may be other ways to opt out, but this is one way.
========================================================
I personally think seat belt use should be optional. The information I have seen seems to indicate that seat belts have more positives for the individual than negatives.
Yes you are right M1THRAND1R about employees of churches are not always in SS. Actually what George may have been saying is he never applied for benefits. He may not need the money. You are also right that there is a great benefit to wearing seat belts. The problem with seat belts being optional is exactly why laws were put into place, many people, thousands of them, particularly young ones were dying because they decided they did not need to wear them.
@Randy100,
Even though I may think seat belts are a good idea, I am willing to let people have the choice regarding seat belt use.
I do not think we could (or should) legislate to cover every possible situation to make sure that people make the right choice. Some times people must be able to take the consequences for their choices.
M1THRAND1R I understand where you are coming from. You and others here could care less if someone dies or is injured the rest of their lives. At least I do not think the laws are going to change on this because what person in their right mind looking at the figures would allow thousands of more deaths and millions of injuries just with the voting out of a law. If there are enough warnings going off in newer vehicles with people not buckling up that may be a mute point because people wear them just to shut off the alarms.
AFter all NMA policy is that a person has more of a right to drive drunk than someone else having their life or free from injuries.
If life and injuries have no value to NMA, why would they even mention any firgues of fatalities, accidents or injuries in any of their articles.
@Randy100,
Can any law guarantee a life free from injuries?
=============================================
In my opinion, laws need to be reasonable. Otherwise people in general will not be inclined to follow them.
Case in point: The prohibition of alcohol did not work as intended. (Regardless of how well meaning it may have been at the start.)
===========================================
I do care if others die or get injured needlessly.
I just do not think that we should force everyone to always do the right thing for themselves. People should have the freedom to decide somethings for themselves.
I think that through education and knowledge of the consequences people will tend to make better and more informed decisions.
=============================================
"AFter all, NMA policy is that a person has more of a right to drive drunk than someone else having their life or free from injuries."
Kindly show me where the NMA has this policy.
=============================================
Just a small excerpt below. http://www.motorists.org/dui/
The NMA does not support, encourage, or condone drunk driving. The NMA supports constructive and effective solutions to the drunk driving problem that are fair, equitable, and respective of fundamental rights.
M1THRAND1R you are wrong about NMA and drunk driving. NMA wants to make anything under .15 as a very minor offense. Kind of like a parking ticket. It has been proven that over .05 that a persons driving declines and at .08 it is about like someone texting and driving. That kills people. That tells me that NMA supports someone's right to drive drunk/under the influence more than the person that they may run into and kill or injure. As for you want laws that are reasonable. Are you saying that the seat belt law is unreasonable? Would you prefer kids flying through the windshield if they are in an accident? Would you prefer to have a teenager dead or in a wheelchair for life? Do you think that education will make more people put on seatbelts than the seat belt laws? Why is it that there have been commercials and many other things and people still did not put on seat belts? If you have the answers how to improve seat belt use and other safe driving practices like stopping at stop signs then we need to put you in charge. We will not need any of those laws then.
@Randy100,
Regarding the amount of the fine depending on the level of BAC, I will leave for another time.
"Are you saying that the seat belt law is unreasonable?"
I think it is unreasonable.
I am willing to give people freedom to decide somethings for themselves.
I think that through education and knowledge of the consequences people will tend to make better and more informed decisions.
Besides self interest and easier to use seat belts I do not have any "magic bullet" for having 100% seat belt use.
Stop sign is another issue that I will leave for another time.
M1THRAND1R I understand you and others here. You say let the people decide if they should put seat belts on themselves or their kids. YOu say let the people decide if they are too drunk to drive. Let the people decide if they need to stop at a stop light. let the people decide how fast and reckless they should drive down the highway. Let the people decide if they should tailgate. Let the people decide if they should pass in a no passing zone. Let the people decide if they want to run into another car if they are mad at them for driving too slow.
Believe it or not people make decisions all the time that are harmfull for themselves and others on the highway. I guess you are fine with that.
@Randy100,
"You say let the people decide if they should put seat belts on themselves or their kids."
Yes I do. Seat belt use affects the individual person.
"YOu say let the people decide if they are too drunk to drive."
I did not say this.
"Let the people decide if they need to stop at a stop light. let the people decide how fast and reckless they should drive down the highway. Let the people decide if they should tailgate. Let the people decide if they should pass in a no passing zone. Let the people decide if they want to run into another car if they are mad at them for driving too slow. "
I did not say any of this.
==================================
Believe it or not people make decisions all the time that are harmfull for themselves and others on the highway. I guess you are fine with that.
Depends on what decisions they made.
Reckless and/or careless driving affects other people. Seat belt use does not.
==================================
I tend to value individual liberty. With that liberty there is responsibility.
M1THRAND1R what do you say about people that do not wear seat belts costs us all BILLIONS of dollars because of early payouts of life insurance and incrased health care costs and care for the injured and some for the rest of their lives.
One of the reasons for seat belt laws is that kids can not make the decision for themselves and there were thousands of kids that were killed without seat belts. You are saying that is fine because that was the parents decision to make it more dangerous and kill their kids..
@Randy100,
Ins. Co. could have a rider on policy.
Don't use seat belt, then you are responsible for any injuries due to lack of seat belt use.
M1THRAND1R I would have no problem with your plan except for kids and young drivers it still shouild be required and the ability to require insurance for the others and verify that they have it. I am afraid it is like it is today that many would not be getting the insurance and the only way of knowing is showing proof of insurance during a traffic stop.
"I am afraid it is like it is today that many would not be getting the insurance . . . "
In many states, ins. is mandatory.
In the scenario I was describing:
If you don't use seat belt, then your ins. will not cover you for your injuries. Even if you have a policy you are on your own for your injuries.
M1THRAND1R you are stupid. There are dozens of things said against insurance companies and most of them are false on this site. This is only a fraction of things that were written about insurance companies. Do a lot more reading and educate yourself. You can start by reading all of the articles that NMA has and you can see for yourself how biased and wrong NMA is about things. Then when you read all of that go on the internet and search for facts that you are looking for. Take a computer class and educate yourself.
http://www.motorists.org/insurance/
Sorry, but I don't understand. I'm not computer savy so I'll continue reading and posting in the way I always have.
Full Face helmets could save even more lives.
Guadalautern a helmet may save a few more lives if combined with seat belts but they would only make a minor change compared to what seat belts do.
Electronic stability assist programs, that is why they are mandated.
That is fine that NMA wants to have thousands of more deaths each year and cost us BILLIONS of extra dollars if people are not buckled up. The facts are in multiple reports that show with seat belt laws the use of seat belts are up tremendously and the number of deaths is down tremendously with the added seat belt laws. NMA encourages more people to die and be injured with all of their policies. NMA and its members can pay for all the extra expenses for those people that make a decision not to buckle up.
The last time this type of propaganda was said, was when the national 55 limit was repealed. People like you said there would be thousands more deaths if we did that. Well, we did that… and what happened? Did we get thousands more deaths when the national-55 was repealed? So, how do you explain that lack of "Armageddon" on the streets?