County's 'Click It or Ticket' patrols yield 31 seat-belt citations
Tuesday, December 30, 2008 7:01 PM PST
By The Daily News
Printable version
E-mail this articleWashington law officers wrote 2,792 seat-belt citations during the recent “Click It or Ticket” night-time enforcement patrols, according to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission.
The statewide emphasis patrols, which were funded by a grant from the commission, were prompted by studies that show a person wearing a seat belt has a 70 percent better chance of surviving a crash than an unbelted person. The fine for not wearing a seat belt, or for wearing the shoulder belt improperly, is $124.
In Cowlitz County, officers from several county law enforcement agencies wrote 31 seat-belt citations during the extra patrols, which took place between Nov. 17 and Dec. 7.
County officers also apprehended four drivers for driving under the influence of alcohol, issued six tickets for child passenger safety infractions, served one felony warrant and six misdemeanor warrants, cited 10 speeders, four uninsured motorists and five drivers with a suspended or revoked license, according to the Traffic Safety Commission.
Related articles:
Seat-belt patrols to begin Monday (Nov. 13)
'Click it or Ticket' includes at night (May 19, 2007)
rythymaxe wrote on Dec 30, 2008 5:58 AM:
" Only 4 uninsured motorists out of 2792? I can hardly believe that! This stat tells me the rest of the uninsured must be driving very carefully and buckling up. No matter how long I think about it, I just can't believe the vast majority of drivers can afford those insurance rates or simply don't care if they are insured or not. I could be wrong for the first time in my life, but, and that's a big but, I don't believe so. "
rythymaxe wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:00 AM:
" Ok, after rereading the article, they tricked me. The first number, the 2792, is statewide. The second, only 4 uninsured, is county wide. Still....... "
concerned wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:46 AM:
" So this is how our state and city police spend their valuable time..patrolling and writing tickets for safety belts..Hmmmm seems to me like they could be out taking a real bite out of crime like the druggies or the thiefs in the cities and towns in Wash. I mean really who is not wearing a safety belt hurting but the person not wearing them..shouldnt we have a say over our own bodies and what we do with them?? "
Roudyruss wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:56 AM:
" Remember when they said they would not pull someone over for just not wearing a seatbelt! "
kitten wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:30 AM:
" I would love to know the criteria for them "checking" to see if these people were buckled up. It would have been nice for the Daily News to do a little more reporting on this part of the "enforcement patrols". Sounds kinda militant doesn't it? So did they just randomly infringe on people's right of freedom or did a person have to be doing something wrong to get pulled over? "
Leslie Slape wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:50 AM:
" Kitten, this previous story has more information: http://www.tdn.com/articles/2007/05/19/area_news/news06.txt "
Im_not_saying wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:12 AM:
" A message to those who whine and complain about "taking away our rights," "a waste of police officers time," and "how can my not wearing a seatbelt hurt someone else?" - Lets say you get into a car crash. Seatbelts have been shown to REDUCE injuries sustained in major car accidents. So in other words - you walk away with a broken leg or arm instead of being in a coma for 10 days, ICU for 30 days, Total hospital time of 3 months. The people that DONT wear their safety belts? Well - they go to the hospital, and chances are that their insurance does not pay nearly enough of their bills, that is if they have insurance. So then when you or I go in, because the hospital, ambulance, tow company, Etc. all have to eat some expenses, our bills go up. By reducing injuries, we reduce hospital costs. By reducing costs, we reduce the amount of money that insurances have to provide, saving us money on OUR rates. By reducing hospital stays, we reduce OUR costs, and so when we go in with a heart attack - there might be a nurse and a bed for us. Those of you who think otherwise have a very narrow view of the world and how it works. Buckle up - The life you save may not be your own. "
erin_go_braugh37 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:17 AM:
" Hey Roudyruss and Kitten; they have to SEE a traffic infraction occur and would then be a secondary infraction. I do know that the seatbelt infraction law is only going to be secondary for a while and then they CAN pull you over for it, but not sure when that date is.
Seatbelts DO save lives and so I think it's great that they are enforcing the law, no matter how frivilous some others think the enforcement campaign might be! Keep up the good work! "
Seatbelts DO save lives and so I think it's great that they are enforcing the law, no matter how frivilous some others think the enforcement campaign might be! Keep up the good work! "
DEH wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:19 AM:
" They pull you over if they suspect you are not wearing a seatbelt but are doing nothing else wrong. My husband got pulled over twice because I was wearing a lap belt and the officer couldn't see the shoulder belt (because there wasn't one; it was an old truck). They can't ticket you for that, and it wasted both our time and the officer's. I always wear my seatbelt anyway. If someone else doesn't want to, that's their problem. Talk about government intruding into our lives. They think it's their job to protect us from ourselves. It's not. It's their job to protect us from each other. Big difference! "
swan wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:53 AM:
" Im_Not_Saying: I believe that this constitutes the quotations you site - unnecessary and costly; however, you make good points. The current system of health care supports your arguments. I do not buy into the current system though. People shouldn't subsidize uninsured; if they didn't have to, then I would hope that everybody would believe this is a waste of time and money for the policing efforts, because there would be no impact to everybody. Because there is an impact to people and the system, your argument is defensible, but only as long as there are actual benefits to offset these fundamentally ridiculous expenses we are incurring. If the system were different this whole law falls apart. Cops policing for seatbelts is a waste of time/money, and infringes on our rights to inflict self harm and opens the door for the law to intrude where it doesn't belong. Having laws like this on the books allows police too much power to begin using this as a tool to enforce other laws such as misdemeanors, warrants, et al, without necessarily having due cause to prompt their involvement. They are probing laws that blanket us all by enforcing justice with broad sweeps instead of focused efforts. An analogy would be fishermen and net fishing versus pole fishing. You inevitably end up catching innocents in a net that do not belong there because they should be entitled to legal protection (ie sovereign rights) "
country gal wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:10 AM:
" Seat belts may save lives. Wearing it is not only a discomfort, but personally, seat belt law is a load of crap! I wear it anyway because I can't afford the fine! #$@!! "
Proud Teacher wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:35 AM:
" My husband and son (on his way to work) recently went into the ditch due to our winter storms. Even in 4 wheel drive, low gear and top notch tires, accidents can't alayws be prevented. What saved them not even having any bumps or bruises were their seat belts. As a child, I was in an accident where seat belts weren't worn, and ended up with a nasty broken shoulder. Go to the St. John's ER and ask the fine doctors, nurses and other medical personnel if seat belts save lives. After our recent weather, anyone who won't wear a seat belt deserves the ticket they will get. Kudos to our fine state police officers for doing their job. "
Don Keyhotay wrote on Dec 30, 2008 10:59 AM:
" Hey Erin, last time they had one of these saturation patrols in Lv, they had an officer standing on the corner at 9th & Hudson with a radio. When he saw a motorist stopped at the light without a seatbelt PROPERLY worn, he'd radio ahead to the waiting patrol car that would pull over the offending motorist and ticket him/her. So much for their old rhetoric about "only pulling a car over for a different infraction". "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:29 AM:
" I could be wrong, but I believe it has been a couple of years now since the seatbelt law was considered a secondary infraction. "
Leslie Slape wrote on Dec 30, 2008 11:52 AM:
" Seat-belt violation has been a primary infraction since 2002. "
kitten wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:42 PM:
" Thanks Leslie! Didn't realize that. I still think the police have better things they could be spending their time on than policing stupid people who chose not to wear a seatbelt when they have access to one. You can't help stupid people. Ticket them and get them back out on the road so that maybe next time they can kill someone while reckless driving or driving while intoxicated. I'd rather see them dead or in the hospital than someone else. Let them take their chances. "Stupid is as stupid does". Buckle up if you have a brain. "
Maddog20/20 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 12:43 PM:
" Im not saying......you have convinced me, heck Im going to start wearing a helmet now too, fire protective suit and the HANS device they use in NASCAR. Spending tens of thousands of dollars on this is doesnt make me feel any safer. Target the agressive drivers instead, they are the reasons most accidents occur in the first place. "
Louie wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:06 PM:
" So when are they going to start pulling drivers over and ticketing them for holding a cell phone to their ear and talking, not to mention texting, while driving. Every day I see numerous people doing thin in spite of the fact is illegal. These people have no regard for safety and only think if themselves. What in the H&!! can be so important that you have to use a cell phone when you should be concentrating on the road and traffic? "
Im_not_saying wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:45 PM:
" Listen - if you want to go out and cause harm to yourself, go right ahead. No it shouldn't be allright for helmet/seatbelt laws to exist. But as long as people get injured and demand to see a doctor, they will be there. Until there comes a time when you can wear a bracelet that says "Don't render care" and it is legal for everyone to do so regardless of training, it will continue. Everyone complaining that "I don't need to wear seatbelts" should take a ride over to the fire department and ask about the injuries sustained from people not wearing their seatbelts. As far as the aggressive drivers go - Aggressive drivers are not the danger here - It's the inattentive, sleepy, or impaired drivers who cause the majority of accidents. And to those of you who refuse - next accident you have, refuse any care offered to you and see how you do. When that liver laceration from the steering wheel, head injury from the dash/headliner, knee dislocation/broken leg from the dash starts to bother you, think about how smart it would have been to take the 5 seconds to put your seatbelt on. The phrase "our rights to inflict self harm" sounds like the nuts running the psyche ward "
golfer wrote on Dec 30, 2008 1:58 PM:
" country gal...Your thinking about only wearing a seat belt because you can't afford the ticket is, well, just not thinking. My wife has been an EMT for over 22 years & has been to accidents where the occupants were wearing seat belts & not wearing seat belts. Guess which ones were injured more. On one call she was on there were 2 people in the vehicle, one was killed the other had minor injuries. The person who was killed did not have a mark on them. The air bag when deployed ( at over 100 m.p.h.) broke this persons neck because they were not wearing their seat belt. This was a front end crash, & the force of this person going forward & the air bag deploying out caused this horrible death. My advice to you is to wear your seat belt at all times & think of it as maybe someday saving your life. "
swan wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:24 PM:
" Im_not_saying: I forgot about those "Do not render care" bracelets. I'm glad you brought that up. I would favor an exemption to the seatbelt requirement if you had one of these bracelets on; that is, if you had a bracelet on, you couldn't be written a ticket for this infraction. Sounds reasonable to me, even though it is sheer stupidity to not wear a seat belt. "
Maddog20/20 wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:27 PM:
" Anyone who chooses not to wear a seatbelt is a fool, but I would rather our police chasing criminals rather than sucking up easy OT in these "enforcement patrols". Whats next, congress looking into what Roger Clemens injected into his buttocks...oh nevermind. "
ex longview resident wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:42 PM:
" This is a great law! I am glad that they can finally enforce it! The cell phone law is too a great law. But I dont think it should be enforced until all police officers hang up their phones when driving. Talk about do as I say but not as I do... I see so many officers driving and talking on cell phones. Its obsurd!! "
concerned wrote on Dec 30, 2008 4:59 PM:
" RE: ex longview resident.....have you ever thought that the while the police officers may be on the phone its to take someones call concerning a crime or domestic violence incident? Im sure they dont just get on their phone to talk or text their friends..just some food for thought!!! "
allbeefnobull wrote on Dec 30, 2008 6:24 PM:
" concerned- if you think cops don't screw off texting and talking to friends your crazy. There just the gang in blue. No different than anyone else. They do the same stuff. Probably worse stuff. the only difference is they can, w/o worry of getting in trouble. And I'm fine with that. I wouldn't be a cop even if I got 20% raises like the city employees or PUD staff. Who would want to pull someone over for a petty crime like seatbelt violation, knowing that there could be a nut waiting to kill them. Not just that, but could you imagine the people they deal with on a daily basis. Actually.. thank you local law enforcement people, I really mean that. Even though I really don't like cop's.. thank you thank you thank you. "
argoman wrote on Dec 30, 2008 7:12 PM:
" We have been slowly loosing our rights to make decisions for ourselves for years. This is only the begining, and we let this happen to ourselves "
a person wrote on Dec 30, 2008 8:27 PM:
" It cracks me up how people think that this is a waste of time. Don't we pay police officers to keep us safe? If people would just wear their seatbelt and follow the laws of the road, then our officers wouldn't have to "waste" their time watching those people who believe they are above the law. A lot of routine traffice stops lead to arrests of wanted people...think about it. "
Thought wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:51 PM:
" It always amazes me that people yell lock em up or deport them but when it comes to a law that effects them its dumb , stupid,useless etc. Shut up and buckle up...... Its the law and supposedly adults set the example.. I know I would rather teach my children the law then bury them. How about you??? "
viper wrote on Dec 30, 2008 9:53 PM:
" what it really gives them is a reason to pull you over for using your cell phone while driving so the seat belt tickets not that bad compared to the cell phone ticket thats a biggie , as people still thumb there noses at the law on that one
I expected the law to go after a lot of people in 2009 to make up lost funds and budget shortages plan on it . "
I expected the law to go after a lot of people in 2009 to make up lost funds and budget shortages plan on it . "
montana wrote on Dec 31, 2008 6:34 AM:
" Police ENFORCE the law that you, the COMMUNITY, make. Give the cops a break. If you dont like they law then work to change it. "
swan wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:30 AM:
" If seat belts are necessary to enforce, at what point does enforcement become worthless? We are near a 100% seat belt wearing rate; according to the TDN, the current rate is between 94% and 96%. If enforcing this law is a priority for police, then we assume that we need to dedicate that percentage of police resources towards this problem. After the problem goes away, ie as the rate approaches 100%, we should be able to do away with that dedicated police resource. The problem is that we won't do away with them. They will then go on enforcing other laws. The police are effectively managing our budgetary resources, not as intended when we originally passed the laws. This is the very problem. By maintaining the same level of resources, we are creating the aura of a police state. They are solely to enact the laws we set forth for them, not to balance our government budgets. They should already be dedicating their resources towards more important problems, not the easy money maker which they so often do. "
country gal wrote on Dec 31, 2008 8:50 AM:
" golfer: I do wear my seat belts at all times. You don't need to give me advice. Like I said, it may save lives but still a load of crap. I do respect the law and the officers that enforce them for our protection but I believe there are other priorities for the officers to be on the lookout for. "
ex longview resident wrote on Dec 31, 2008 10:44 AM:
" concerned - maybe the officers should have bluetooth headsets as required by law instead of holding a cell phone up to their ear all the time! Just a thought! "
kitten wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:11 AM:
" aperson-We pay police to maintain order, not persecute us for making choices that only involve ourselves. I get the cell phone law. A driver on their phone may be distracted. DUI's are a no-brainer. They should be a felony. Helmet and seatbelt laws infringe on our rights period. I don't care about the insurance costs I would rather have freedom to make my own decisions involving myself without persecution. I don't even see how an officer can write this ticket in good conscience. If you say "by saving lives" then they should be out there regulating people's eating habits as well. Way more people die each year from complications due to obesity than people not wearing their seatbelts. Where do we draw the line? "
dude wrote on Dec 31, 2008 11:12 AM:
" In 1925 there were 179 fatalities per million vehicular miles traveled. Today the number of fatalities per million vehicular miles traveled is 18. As we keep improving our cars, roads, and laws we’ll see the rate go down even more. We have anti lock brakes, airbags, seat belts, and many more safety devices. Our roads are wider; we have more guardrail, more delineation, more lighting, and rumble strips. Laws have decreased fatalities due to drinking, speeding, and seatbelt. People say they don’t want government to be intrusive but at the same time when something happens they say someone (government) needs to do something about it. When they do you complain. "
vikingtwin5 wrote on Dec 31, 2008 1:21 PM:
" While seatbelts save lives and can reduce injuries, I believe the primary reason they have these crackdowns is that they are legal "fishing expeditions", the same as pulling someone over for having a license plate light out or some other ticky-tack "offense". The article says they issued 31 citations for seatbelts but add up all the other things they found(36). I'm glad the drunks, uninsured, etc. were caught but why not admit they do it because it's like shooting fish in a barrel and safety concerns are just a scondary by-product. Why do them at night, wouldn't it be easier to see someone's seatbelt in the daytime? "
Past Month's Most Commented Stories