Click It or Ticket campaign heats up for summer Around Town, posted by Editor, Danville Weekly Online, on May 16, 2012 at 7:02 am
Police will be enforcing seat belt usage by drivers and passengers, but will also be issuing citations for those who do not have children under the age of 8 properly buckled into an appropriate child safety seat.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, May 15, 2012, 6:56 PM
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 16, 2012 at 1:36 pm
If your choice didn't affect me, I might agree. But, if I have to pay for the EMTs to scrape your brains off the road after you've been thrown from the car in an accident, then it does affect my wallet.
Bottom line: driving is a privilege, not a right -- so, it comes with certain conditions. Wearing a seat belt is one. Stopping at red lights is another (no matter how much you might want it to be your "choice").
Posted by Derek, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 16, 2012 at 3:05 pm
As with motorcycle helmets, Sam has a certain point regarding the uninsured and the expense of fire departments & other emergency responders.
In this case though I still tend to agree with "Tired" for the simple reason that the police will save FAR more lives (and write far more tickets and make far more money) by agressivley ticketing those on cell phones.
Posted by Sam, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 17, 2012 at 10:37 am
No reason that police can't enforce both, and go after the idiots going 60mph on Camino Tassajara and Sycamore Valley Road.
Seat belts save lives, pure and simple. Sorry to hear about the sorority sister who died. But, the statistics show that that is the very rare case. the evidence is overwhelming that seat bealts save FAR more lives that are ever lost because someone was wearing one. Not even a close call.
Posted by Aubrey, a resident of the Alamo neighborhood, on May 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm
It's amazing how big the nanny state has become and personal responsibility has faltered.
While seat belts, helmets, and cell phones ARE NOT stupid, the state laws governing their use definitely ARE stupid. Another case of tax dollars at rest.
I pay taxes and health/auto insurance premiums. If I choose NOT to wear a seat belt sometimes, my monetary contributions more than cover the cost if I'm injured during those times, no one else is monetarily affected...
Posted by Citizen Paine, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 19, 2012 at 9:45 am
1 -- does your objection extend to legal requirements that seatbelts be included in all cars sold? Costs money, after all. What about red lights and stop signs -- aren't they an expensive incursion on your liberties?
2 -- would it surprise you to know that NHTSA studies, verified by many others, demonstrate that between fully 40-50% of occupant fatalities are avoided by seatbelt use? There Is another study that reduces that number by less than half, because it corrects for the fact that the idiots who fail to wear seatbelts are Much more likely to be crappy drivers who get in catastrophic accidents from which there are no survivors, regardless.
With all due respect to the statistically unlucky, dont you have to play the odds in these matters? Seatbelts put the odds dramatically in your favor. Frankly, it's remarkable to me that this is a matter of debate -- I blame our education system, I guess.
Posted by bz, a resident of the Danville neighborhood, on May 19, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Amusing...Just after I wrote my comment about not really "appreciating" our police focusing on the WAY a person elects to wear a seat belt, I passed a patrol car driving in front of an elementary school. Interestingly, the officer was holding a phone to his ear! Guess the logic doesn't "go both ways!"