Massachusetts House of
Representatives
Debate on Primary Enforcement of the
Mandatory Seat Belt Law
January 19, 2006
ROLLCALL VOTE
State House News Service
House Session - Thursday, January 19, 2006
[Excerpt]
CONVENES: The House convened at 11:02 am with Rep. Paul Donato of Medford
presiding. House Chaplain Father Robert Quinn offered the prayer and
lawmakers and guests recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
At 11:08 am, Rep. Petrolati took the gavel.
[ . . . ]
RECESS: The House recessed at 11:22 am, intending to return at 12:15 pm.
RETURNS: The House returned at 12:28 pm with Speaker Salvatore DiMasi
presiding.
QUORUM CALL: Rep. Jones doubted the presence of a quorum and the chair
ordered a roll call.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 145 LAWMAKERS PRESENT
PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY: The House adopted the referral of H 4575 protection
of public water supply to the Environment, Natural Resources and
Agriculture Committee.
Time was 12:42 pm.
PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAW ENFORCEMENT: Question came on ordering to
third reading H 229 establishing a primary seat belt law.
Rep. Rivera said why are we here today? We are here today to talk
about the seat belt law. In Massachusetts, you must wear a seat belt.
That's the law. If you don't wear one, you are breaking the law. All we
are talking about now is the level of enforcement.
H 229 would allow law
enforcement to stop a vehicle if the officer observes the operator or
passenger not wearing a seat belt. They may not search the vehicle. It is
a non-surchargable charge of $25 for each unbelted offense.
Every person
16 years or older who is not belted is fined. If the seat belt use for
Massachusetts drivers goes above the national average, then insurance
rates would automatically decrease. That's the bill.
When we first passed
secondary enforcement 10 years ago, we thought it was going to be
sufficient. We realize today, it is not working. That is why we are here
today. It is not working.
We now have more facts. Massachusetts drivers
buckle up at 64 percent compared to national average of 82 percent, rating
us third from the bottom. Roughly 22 other states that have passed primary
seat belt have seen a large increase in seat belt use. We are sending the
message that this is of secondary importance.
We allow officers to stop
you for a license plate light being out. For treads not being deep enough.
And for even having an air freshener hanging from a rear view mirror. But
for buckling up, we don't want to give them that.
Are we trying to give
the police more power? No. They already have 300 reasons to pull us over.
Her name was Amanda Decoteau. I'd like to introduce you to her parents, in
the gallery. Amanda was 18 years old. Just graduated from high school. She
was loved by everyone, a terrific athlete. She was driving a friend home
when she called her mom. She asked for permission to stay at a friend's
house. Her mom said yes. Before hanging up, she told her mom she loved her
and would see her in the morning. On her way to her friend's house, she
was in an accident and was ejected from the car and pronounced dead at the
scene. When police arrived at Amanda's house to inform her parents of the
accident, the trooper told them that if they could take anything away from
this tragedy, it would be to tell her friends to wear their seat belts.
Thank you for coming here today to put a face on this important piece of
legislation.
I guess the question should be how does this legislation
compare to what we have done in the past. We try to find a balance of the
rights of people and protecting people's safety. For example, carbon
monoxide. We passed a law saying you had to install detectors. Why?
Because it will save lives.
There are some officers out there who abuse
their power and pull people over just because of the color of their skin.
We have implemented measures that track racial profiling.
In California,
the issuance of citations decreased after passing the primary enforcement
law. These are my nephews. I know they don't look Irish, but they are. I
don't want to see them stopped because of the color of their skin. I do
want them stopped for not wearing a seat belt, because that means they are
going to live another day.
Before you take this vote, please go look at
this video outside that shows a man being thrown into the back seat. It
shows it all. I just want to say how sadly ironic that we granted that
trooper the authority to inform Amanda's parents that their daughter had
died, instead of granting him the authority to save her life.
Rep. Rivera requested a roll call and there was support. Time was 1:01 pm.
Rep. Donelan said I rise in support of this bill. Each of us in
this chamber has an opinion and we come to those by our own experience. I
can talk about being a police officer for 10 years and cleaning up the
carnage on the roadways. Or I could talk about being an accident victim.
But I want to talk about being a father.
My oldest son is turning 16 this
year and I get to teach him how to drive. I look at this as a tool in my
toolbox to go about my job as a teacher and protector. I want my son to
wear his seat belt. And I want him stopped if he is not. He doesn't take
the current law seriously, and he's not the only one. In their minds, it's
no big deal.
How many mornings have we turned on the news and seen another
tragic accident? Whether these accidents are caused by inexperience or
foolishness, do these kids deserve to die?
The current law sends mixed
messages. I know it is not working. We are giving our kids an avenue to
avoid the law. Some say the insurance companies benefit from this. I fail
to see how, because this specifies that it is a non-surchargable offense.
The money is the money we will save. Auto insurance claims will go down.
Uninsured people get in car accidents, and then we taxpayers pay for their
care. If we are serious about dealing with the high cost of auto
insurance, and if we are serious about reducing the costs of health
insurance, and if we are serious about saving lives, then we need a
stronger law.
Rep. Scibak said I'm sure we'll hear from people who say they
always wear seat belts. It seems everyone knows that it does work. That it
can and does save lives. Despite the fact that we all know that, why is it
that we have such a low use rate? We're just ahead of Mississippi.
Interestingly, a week ago today, the Mississippi House passed a primary
seat belt law. The Senate did it just days earlier.
Data suggests seat
belt use will increase by 10-15 percent in the first year after a law is
passed. The increased use of seat belts in a primary seat belt state is
greatest among teenagers. In reality, what difference does it make? Five
studies looked at traffic fatalities. They found that the median decrease
was 5 percent after adopting a primary seat belt law. The latest study
found that when states strengthen their laws to primary, driver death
rates decline by 7 percent.
We'll hear that this is an individual
decision. The failure to wear a seat belt does affect every one of us. I
spent five years working in head injury rehabilitation. I saw individuals
who were not numbers, but were people. We have spent $5.9 million on 124
people spending less than a week at a hospital for traumatic head
injuries. How many of you know that 43 percent of people who sustain head
injuries do not come home from a hospital? They go into a long-term care
facility.
I have a question for you. How many of you were here last night
for the governor's address, and he pronounced various services and felt we
should do more for health care and services? How many believe we have
adequate funding? I have not heard one member say that we have adequate
revenue to solve our problems. If we don't, then how can you justify
spending $270 million a year on Medicaid costs for head injuries, when
you're not willing to take measures to increase seat belt use? The costs
are astronomical. But many of those costs could be eliminated and many of
those injuries could be prevented with this law. If we don't, I predict
Mississippi will have their usage rate increase and we will be at the
bottom.
Rep. Fallon said I rise in support of the proposal. As I told my
colleague: buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy afternoon. I'm sure that at
some point this afternoon, we're going to get around to cop bashing. I
can't wait for that to happen. I anticipate taking the microphone to
rebut.
To my colleagues, I say this: this is such a two-dimensional issue.
This legislation is overriding public safety concerns. How did this become
so multi-dimensional, when it's just about public safety and saving lives?
I've gotten calls from the media asking if I have been lobbied by
insurance companies to support this bill. I haven't been lobbied by
anyone. It's all about public safety.
Back in 2000, we passed a monumental
piece of legislation dealing with racial profiling. Don't forget the
impact that law created on our public safety agencies. This legislation
does not allow a police officer, when he pulls over a driver for not
wearing a seat belt, to conduct a full search and seizure. If they get
pulled over for not wearing a belt, that's all they can be cited for.
The
$25 fine remains $25 and remains non-surchargable.
But I can't wait to get
back up here and rebut my colleagues who are going to take on police
officers. I know my colleagues are aware that there are over 1,000 reasons
why a police officer could pull over a vehicle. Why give them one more?
Because this law is going to save lives. I challenge every one of my
colleagues who opposes this bill to come forward and tell me, tell the
proponents, that this bill will not save lives. The passage of this bill
will save lives.
Time was 1:27 pm.
Rep. Ross of Wrentham said I too rise in favor. Many of you know
that in my regular job, I am a funeral director.
One story that came to
mind as I reflected on this was the birth of my daughter. She was sleeping
between us and I awakened to my beeper. I learned that a trooper was
waiting for me on the highway. What I didn't expect to find was him
waiting for me next to an accident scene that could not be identified. The
young woman was on her way back from Norton, she drifted off the road and
was thrown into the middle of the highway. What we didn't know was that
her body was then dragged another quarter mile down the highway and hit
several times over until someone realized what was happening. If she had
been wearing her seat belt, there was no doubt in my mind that she would
have been saved. My only job that night was to transfer her body to
Boston. But my mind shifted to my daughter lying in bed. And I knew that
some funeral director was going to have to tell the dad of that young
woman that he would never see his beautiful daughter again.
I have many
stories like that. I never used to wear my seat belt. But we come from a
different age. Knowing what I know today, I'm mortified that my parents
jeopardized my life by allowing me to sit on the armrest in our family
car. We forget that the right to drive a car is a privilege. I think
today, as legislators, we really need to acknowledge how much we put
ourselves in jeopardy every time we get into a vehicle and do not belt
ourselves in.
Rep. Canavan of Brockton said I rise in support of this bill and I
do so to much of the surprise of many of my colleagues who may remember
that I opposed many years ago the secondary law and the primary law. I'm
here in the opposite.
What's changed? One, my husband, driving his pickup
truck, was broad sided when someone else ran a red light. He no longer has
full use of his hand due to damage done when he was thrown around in the
truck.
But the second thing, I became a grandmother. I have four
grandchildren. To me, the safety of my grandchildren is paramount. And
when I buckle them in, I realize I also need to buckle myself in. I'm
asking you to consider, as I have, take a look at your past vote and
consider supporting this bill to protect all the children and
grandchildren of all the people who choose not to wear their seat belt.
It's to protect the other people in the car. I do hope that when this bill
comes up for a vote, you'll consider that. Perhaps primary seat belts are
the only way to put some teeth into the law.
Rep. Gifford of Wareham said it is not too long ago that I gave my
maiden speech. A speech I gave in support of the primary seat belt law. I
have a different perspective on this. My previous profession was as an
insurance claims adjuster. I have a firsthand understanding of what
happens to people when they don't wear their seat belts.
You'll hear from
a lot of people that this is infringing on my personal rights. Well I'm
here to tell you that you're wrong if that is your assessment of what a
primary seat belt law will do.
Two years ago I told you about a case I
handled of a young woman traveling to work with her child in the car. On
her way to work, another man hit her vehicle. She was not wearing her seat
belt, and the force of the impact forced her through the door and into the
street where she was struck and killed by another motorist. The driver of
the car who hit her was absolutely at fault. But it can be said that her
injury and death may not have resulted had she been wearing her seat belt.
The family sued the man because of the economical damage caused by the
accident, due to her death. They were going to suffer.
This man ended up
having to sell his business, his home; his liveliness was lost because he
had to pay everything he had to this family. Now tell me how this man was
not affected by that woman's decision to get behind the car and not wear
her seat belt.
I would ask my colleagues: do you honestly believe that our
law enforcement officials, facing budget cuts, have nothing better to do
with their time than search for reasons to pull over people? They have
plenty to do. They are busy. Please consider all the arguments to this
very important legislation before you vote.
Time was 1:44 pm.
Rep. L'Italien of Andover said I don't come up here often. I am in
favor of this law. I feel it is fiscally responsible, not just a question
of personal choice. I'd like to focus on the long-term care costs.
I
worked at a facility in North Andover that had a floor with traumatic
injured coma patients. Many of them were young men, in their teens or
early 20s. They might have gone out for a night on the town, had a crash,
and yet were left in a vegetative state. I used to have to look at the
family members, and I can't even begin to describe what it's like to look
at a parent who is dealing with the fact that their child is still there,
but will never be able to interact with them.
11.1 percent of people who
survive crashes are Medicaid enrollees. That facility I worked at closed
quite abruptly about 60 days ago and the residents had to be transferred.
I'm sure we'll be hearing from the most forceful opponent of this law, he
happens to also be a major advocate for spinal cord injury patients. I
find it difficult how he connects the two. I truly feel like this is a
preventable injury and it comes at a cost to our state. I'd also like to
mention that one of our former representatives, Rep. Reed Hillman, was
also leading this fight for this law.
Rep. Kaprielian of Watertown said I'll be very brief to speak in
hopes that this is adopted. I see the work that the House does, and I've
taken note that year after year fire officials and first responders have
testified in favor of this. They see the carnage. Far beyond the human
cost, which is the most compelling reason, there is also a fiscal cost.
Right in our own towns and how we decide to staff our local police
departments.
At 1:54 pm, Rep. Petrolati, in the chair, called a brief recess.
QUORUM CALL: Rep. Rivera doubted the presence of a quorum and the chair
ordered a roll call.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 148 LAWMAKERS PRESENT
Rep. Eldridge said I rise in support of this bill. This bill is a
public safety bill. In determining my support, I consider the degree of
public safety value versus the impact on a person's life. This measure
would decrease the number of people impacted by people injuring someone
else when they are not wearing their seat belt. It would apply the highest
law enforcement standards to ensure a decision by this Legislature in 1994
is carried out.
We already decided that a person must wear their seat
belt. But today, this is about applying the same standard. Let's think
about other violations - a broken headlight, changing lanes without a
signal. Yet, somehow, seat belt usage is an exception.
I want to address
one matter that has been raised in editorials, and that is that
Massachusetts does have a low fatality rate. Massachusetts is a small,
congested state. There are fewer accidents that result in deaths. But, the
statistics used to determine the fatality rate are usually just from a
police report filed at the scene of the accident, and not those filed
after the death at a hospital. If you add those in, our fatality rate
would likely be higher. This isn't about just fatalities. This is about
all the individuals that are injured or disabled. All this is saying is
that we want to apply the highest enforcement standard.
Time was 2:09 pm.
Rep. Smizik said I consider myself a civil libertarian. But today,
I am in favor of the seat belt law before us. This is a personal issue for
me. I have daughters. They have been taught to wear their seat belts. If
they don't, I don't mind an officer stopping them. If your daughter were a
passenger in a car, I would like the officer to stop that car. The result
if they didn't could be someone is severely injured if they were in an
accident.
I drive every day. Some of the drivers in Massachusetts are some
of the most aggressive in the nation. I see someone running a stop sign or
trying to be the last person through a red light. I see people drifting
through red lights on their cell phone. Drivers around here are pretty
lousy. I'm not sure why. But in this circumstance, I cannot understand why
people do not wear seat belts. It's incontrovertible.
My aide today
received a call from a constituent who opposes this bill. She said Rep. Smizik may care about his family, but he has no right to care about me. My
aide said Rep. Smizik will probably be in favor of this. She replied that
Rep. Smizik is an idiot and I can't wait until the next election. This
bill is necessary for Massachusetts.
Rep. Evangelidis said I rise in
opposition to this bill. I believe that when I come to the State House
every day, I ask myself, do we need this legislation? Is this something we
really need?
This is not an argument about personal safety. I'm not coming up here to
argue that. We all agree that not wearing a seat belt is crazy. We all
know that.
The question is where do we draw the line with government intervention in
people's lives? This is an opportunity to say that we're going to draw the
line right here in the sand. Many people are very cynical of us here.
In the past, we have not been very consistent. Every few years we go a
little further. When we passed the secondary law, we said that'll be as
far as we go. We won't go to primary. No one in that room ever had any
intention of taking it further.
Then we get to 2000 and we had a primary bill in front of us. I thought it
was one of the most fascinating debates we ever had up here in 2003. But
it failed.
And here we are back again, considering this because some people have not
gotten what they want. People have gone back on their word.
I base my opposition on personal liberty. You have the right to be foolish
in this country, and to do it to the detriment of your own safety. I don't
want a law that's going to tell me I have to do it.
We all know that certain things aren't good for us, but we're not going to
say you can't do them. Maybe we should start banning Whoppers. Where do we
draw the line? We all know fast food isn't good for you. They cause
hospitalization and heart attacks. Smoking, for example. Why not ban
smoking outright. I think that costs us more. What about drinking? What if
we outlaw liquor?
Where do we draw the line? If there's one bottom line for you to consider,
it's if this is going to be effective. Twenty-two states and D.C. have
primary enforcement. Only Connecticut is among the five safest states.
Massachusetts is the second safest, based on fatality rate. There's no
proof that if we pass this bill that it will be effective. This is a step
we do not need to take.
Time was 2:23 pm.
Rep. Loscocco said I used to share the sentiments of the gentleman of
Holden. I initially voted no for the legislation. Even though I have three
children and we never pulled out of the driveway without wearing our seat
belts. But I felt strongly that we didn't need government coming in and
telling us what to do.
My father was in an accident and the police told me
that if he had been wearing a seat belt, he would have died. He was alive
because he wasn't wearing it. But in 2003, when the issue came up, I was
contacted by a lot of people and started looking into the issues in
greater detail.
Two years ago, a speech by someone who was an opponent was
the final straw in pushing me over to the other side. Racial profiling is
a different concern and the courts are looking at this. There are over 300
reasons why an officer can pull someone over. If an officer was going to
profile, they don't need this bill to do it.
To drive a car is something
that is a heavily regulated matter. We should decide this on the merits.
Anyone who has read all the materials can say, yes, this saves lives. This
seems like one that we should be on the side of promoting.
We see the
traffic accidents. How many of those people could be saved if they were
wearing their seat belts? We all make choices.
This debate ties in closely
with the health care debate. It's not lost in me that under the governor,
speaker and senate president's plan, it is mandated that everyone to go
out and get health insurance. I haven't heard anyone talk about civil
liberties. But you're going to be told that you have to go out and get
health insurance. We are going to be losing millions of federal dollars if
we do not go along with this. I urge you to consider the issues. I respect
that this is a difficult decision.
Rep. Balser said I rise in support of this bill. The argument against this
bill is always couched about liberties and rights. I reject that argument.
No one feels more strongly about protecting the rights and liberties than
I do. No one loves this country and this Commonwealth more than I do. But
I reject the argument that this has anything to do with those rights and
those duties.
Nowhere in the constitution does it say there is a God-given
right to put one's self at risk in an automobile. We impose all kinds of
restrictions on people to make driving safe. It is a wonderful
convenience, but automobiles are vehicles of destruction. We pass speed
limits. We put up stop signs. We designate some streets as one way. We
pass laws at the municipal, state and federal level all the time to make
driving safe. We require inspections every year. We require car insurance.
I would respectfully submit that we should add this one additional tool
that clearly has a lot of do with making our roads safer. It will save
lives.
What is the first question anyone ever asks when we read about a
fatality in the paper? Were they wearing a seat belt? I am someone who
will go to the mat to defend people's liberties. But I will also go to the
mat to make sure we make life as safe as we can for people.
Rep. Frost said the previous speaker brought up
some issues about laws already on the books. It's our job to make laws.
But I'd like to think that when we create laws that we're trying to do so
to protect individuals from another individual. The reason we have speed
limits is because they could hurt someone else.
When we get to the seat belt issue, it's different. We talk about where do
we stop governing individual responsibility? When do we stop being Big
Brother, and allow individuals to be responsible for their own actions?
When I was reading my local paper today, the editor brought up an AP
article. I know it's an extreme example, but it talks about how a
councilman in Columbia who is seeking to pass a law to fight the spread of
AIDS. In doing so, he wants to require that every person over 14 years old
carries a condom. If you don't, you will be fined and will have to take
sex education. I know it's an extreme example. But these individuals are
in the worst spots for the spread of AIDS.
The good intentions are there. The intention of the primary law is good.
But at some point, you have to draw the line. We have to recognize
individual responsibility. Government should [not] be Big Brother.
Later on, I do have a few amendments. I'm offering a way to tackle the
issue. Let's address the real issue.
One amendment would allow the jury to take into account whether the
person was wearing their seat belt when deciding whether to award damages.
A few years back, New Jersey passed a law saying you couldn't order
undercooked eggs in restaurants. I believe it is no longer the case, but
how far do we go? How far can we use the words "it can save a life" to
extend government power over an individual? I think we can encourage
individual responsibility. Let's not erode that. I feel that we have a
golden opportunity later on in the process to not support primary
enforcement, but to allow a jury the opportunity to take into
account whether an individual was wearing a seat belt.
I hope the bill currently before us does not pass. I hope the amendments
will be found in order and we can debate them as well.
Rep. Travis said this issue goes back
23 years because we debated this in 1984 when the then speaker Thomas
McGee cited the reasons of why we didn't need this. He was in an accident
in California and thrown from the car. He was told that had he been
wearing his seat belt, he wouldn't have survived. He made a choice.
People don't wear seat belts for two reasons: they choose not to, or they
forget. This bill is so badly worded that it says they can stop you as a
primary reason, but they may not search your car or any of its contents.
If I have a revolver on the front seat and get pulled over for not wearing
a seat belt, but you can't get me for that. The marijuana on the front
seat, can't get me for that. How utterly ridiculous can you write a law?
This bill says they can't issue a citation for the first six months. You
can get a written warning. But let me remind you, if you get three
warnings you can get your license removed. You may think you're getting
away with something, but now you're a habitual offender.
The way this is worded leaves so much to chance. The bill doesn't say it's
not subject to a surcharge. I can't vote on something that doesn't tell
me. Roll through a stop sign and you get a surcharge. You're telling my
primary use of seat belts is not going to be a surcharge because it's not
mentioned?
I want to see it mentioned. The bill is moot. It's not mentioned. You can
have the choice to have an abortion, but you can't choose whether or not
you want to wear your seat belt. That's ironic.
QUORUM CALL: At 2:53 pm Rep. Peterson doubted the presence of a quorum and
the chair ordered a roll call.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 148 LAWMAKERS PRESENT
Time was 3 pm.
Rep. Fagan said
first of all I want the members to know that I didn't call the quorum
call. I was a lot happier when none of you were here. Sadly, many of the
people who voted to send you here may not be a lot happier by the time
this is done.
You have tough votes. You have people on both sides. But I tell my friend
from Chelsea, remember Gene, it's only a movie. Is there anyone among us
who doubts the importance of wearing a seat belt? Is there anyone here who
doesn't for a moment ensure that the kids are buckled up when they get in
their vehicle? Of course not. That's not the issue before us.
I listened to all of my colleagues. This will make us safer. There's no
question it's something we should do. But when we look at the statistics,
we overlook the ones that don't support the argument. But this is not
about statistics. This is a discussion about the philosophy of government.
A few years ago, I suggested there was a constitutional argument. My God.
I'm not going to argue that. My good friend from Malden comes in and
reminds me that we are not going to beat up law enforcement officials. I
have a son who's a police officer. I have the highest respect for those
people. I listened to the gentleman from Walpole and I agree, it's a
terrible thing for the people who have to visit the scenes of an accident.
I do believe those will be decreased. But that's not my argument.
I think about how did I get here? Perhaps the people of my district
weren't very smart. Perhaps they are so lacking in intelligence that they
need people like us to tell them to buckle their seat belt. They don't
need somebody hitting them with a stick. I'm representing those 55,000
people from the city of Taunton. Not the big money interest. Not the
insurance industry. I'm representing the regular men of my district who
send me up here and ask me to protect their interests. I'll wait a long
time to see the benefits to insurance rates.
But it's only a movie. What part are we going to see here? Is there any
wonder why we, as an institution, are held in such disregard sometimes?
When we passed the seat belt law in 1985 there was a public outcry to
repeal it. They stood up and said we don't want this. But this is a
different legislature.
Ahh. I've listened to the society of smart come up here and tell us how
smart they are. When you go back home, do you tell those people that
you're going to vote for a law that will give the police the power to stop
your car to see if you're wearing your seat belt? They'll say to you, are
you crazy?
When I go home I say we've already defeated this, but we're going to try
again. They say to me, who would be that stupid?
And somebody had a quorum call. I come here and I love all of you and I
have fun. I like to have a little smile. But we're tampering with people's
rights. I'm not running for district attorney like some of us may or may
not be doing in here. That's not my point. I have to go home to those
people and explain to them why I was a part of a body who seriously
considered allowing police to stop their car to see if they were wearing
their seat belt.
I looked through the amendments. It's not going to be racial profiling.
Hell, they can't see through the tinted windows to see if they're wearing
their seat belts. We should be able to stop everybody's cars? In Newton,
you'd think they'd know a little better than that. Can we see your papers
please? Papers please. When your wife is stopped, you'll know what it's
like to see your papers.
Rep. Fagan would not yield for a question.
Rep. Fagan said I have been sitting here all afternoon. I'm not taking
questions right now. Thank you very much.
I'd rather be more free than be safer. I'd rather be a little bit freer. I
came here to keep this country as free as I could. We've got 3,000 reasons
to stop your car. This is one little extension of police powers to give
them something they don't really need to do.
We shouldn't be making laws to make us feel good. And we shouldn't be
making laws to make those lobbyists feel good. You vote for this you're
letting those people who sent you here down. Don't tell me how much safer
you're making them. I'll make myself safe, thank you. And I think the
people of Taunton are smart enough to make themselves and their children
safe.
People paid attention to click it or ticket. Our fatality rate has gone
down dramatically. That's by teaching people, not by beating them up. I
don't think police are going to abuse this. I find them to be hardworking
and credible. They have a lot of other important things to be doing.
This isn't about the drug dealers. This isn't about the drunk drivers.
This isn't about sex offenders. This is about the people who live next
door to you. Think about that. You have to tell them the answer to the
question, who could be so stupid?
This effort has been well funded for the last six years. It's had people
in the building every day and the only people who can speak against it are
you. How many of you actually talk to your constituents? Ann Paulsen told
me yesterday that she's only heard from people against this. But you know
what, we're going to do it, because it'll make us safer.
Ben Franklin said somebody who would trade freedom for safety deserves
neither. But he's not a part of the group who was here when the law was
overturned by the people. We passed that stupid law and people stood here
and said never will this become primary enforcement.
It's no wonder people don't trust us. I'll stand by my word. I was taught
as a little boy that your word was supposed to mean something. But maybe
we're not bound by that. After all, we're a different legislature. I've
heard people say that. But here we are. Institutional short memory I guess
it is. Or is it that some of you don't value your word. It's got to be one
of those.
Or, we are a lot smarter than the people that elect us. The people that
sent you here don't want this law. The lobbyists up there want this law.
Those people you talk to when you go home, tell them, I was doing it so
you could be more safe.
If our word was no good before, why would any of them believe us now? I'm
calling on you people to make our word good. I don't want people to make a
liar out of me. I'll give you my word. I'm going to stay there no matter
what the lobbyists say. I'm going to say there no matter what the
newspapers say. I couldn't believe what they said.
My local paper wouldn't print my obituary until three weeks after I die so
they could be sure I was dead. But they're with me on this. When you take
the pulse of the people, this is not a law that we need, this is not a law
that they want, this is not a law we said we would give them.
We're going to save money? If that's the case then we don't need this
because we can all afford a chauffeur. Who is going to believe us? No one,
unless we stand by our word.
I can't talk about the constitution. I was told that was wrong. The fact
that this is an opportunity for those who might be so unscrupulous, you
know I'm so sick of being Irish and being stopped everywhere I go.
Why is there an amendment in there? What about the word we gave to our
people? What about the word we gave in 1994? And what about the people you
represent? Are you really that much smarter than some of them? I can't
believe how smart some of you are.
You know how much money we're going to save. Wow. I don't take this
lightly for one single minute. But I don't take my word lightly. I don't
take the trust of those people who sent me here lightly. I don't take the
constitution lightly. And I think as we consider this, there are far more
considerations than wearing seat belts is a good thing.
Even I know you should wear your belt all the time. But I also know that I
have to honor my word in 1994 when we said we'd never make it primary. I
may not be as smart as some of those other people. But when I go to
Taunton and I go to Elks on Friday afternoon, I can at least say I stood
my ground. I fought the fight for you people.
This was more government than any of us need. And I'll be all right with
that. This is a bad law. This is a law that we don't need. It's more
government than we need. I don't think I'm smarter than those people in
Taunton who don't want it. I think I should listen to them.
And we as an institution have to start working a little harder at honoring
the commitments we made before, rather than finding ways to slide out from
under them.
Time was 3:25 pm.
Rep. Festa said if you consider every argument that the gentleman
made, none of them are compelling in any way.
Let's start with looking at
ourselves in the eye. He said we must be respectful of our constituents,
that we don't do our job when we don't listen to our constituents. Many of
us know full well that this is an obligation every one of us took when
elected. It isn't an attitude of we know better.
I ask you is there any
doubt, because the gentleman did not refute this, that because of the
current law we are not doing the job of reducing the fatalities and
serious injuries because this law is not being complied with the way it
should? The answer is this law is not doing the job the way it should.
When you ask the question who are the people behind this to denigrate
doctors and polices officers who have to clean up the mess, to insult them
as the gentleman did, is to demean the lives of every one they tried to
save.
This is not a debate about lobbyists and those trying to make money
off pain and suffering. We passed a law that says you should wear a seat
belt and it is a violation right now. What the officers and advocates have
said is if you have a law like no other that says if you break it an
officer can not cite you unless something else is going on, you are not
taking seriously that requirement.
What is the issue with respect to civil
rights? Absolutely nothing. Stopping someone on mere suspicion is not the
law. That would not be the case with this law. You have to have probable
cause.
I don't understand an argument that says when you take a vote, you
can never change your point of view. We are not right now doing what we
need to do.
As eloquent and as passionate an argument as it was, we are
doing this because we are going to save lives. In every state that voted
for primary enforcement, they have seen an extraordinary increase in the
response and they have seen lives saved. This is a vote we take that will
save lives. No one disputes that. I urge you to support this bill and
reject the notion that we are not capable as an institution to revise,
rethink and do what is necessary.
Rep. Petrolati, in the chair, called a brief recess at 3:33 pm.
At 3:33 pm, Rep. Jones doubted the presence of a quorum and the chair
ordered a roll call.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 147 LAWMAKERS PRESENT
Question came on ordering the bill to third reading.
FROST AMENDMENT: Rep. Frost offered an amendment. There was no objection
to not reading the amendment.
Rep. Rivera said point of order. I believe the amendment is beyond the
scope of the bill.
Rep. Petrolati, in the chair, said point well taken.
Rep. Frost doubted the ruling of the chair and requested a roll call.
There was support.
Question was on whether the decision of the chair shall stand.
BY ROLL CALL VOTE 130-20 RULING STANDS
FROST AMENDMENT: Rep. Frost offered a subsequent amendment dealing with
jury proceedings. There was no objection to not reading the amendment.
Rep. Rivera said point of order. I believe the amendment offered is beyond
the scope of the bill.
Rep. Petrolati said point well taken.
Rep. Travis said point of personal privilege. The rulings are being made
and I know that we said we didn't have to hear the amendment, but if the
amendments are out of order, can we hear them if they are short?
Rep. Petrolati said point well taken.
SPELIOTIS AMENDMENT - AGE REQUIREMENT: Rep. Speliotis offered an amendment
setting the age for primary enforcement at 22. There was no objection to
not reading the remainder of the amendment.
LANTIGUA FURTHER AMENDMENT: Rep. Lantigua offered a further amendment. The
clerk read part of the amendment and there was no objection to not reading
the remainder.
By voice vote, further amendment REJECTED
Time was 3:52 pm.
FROST FURTHER AMENDMENT: Question came on adopting a further Frost
amendment.
Rep. Frost said this simply seeks to reduce the age. This would say
primary enforcement should be at 17.
By voice vote, further amendment REJECTED
SPELIOTIS AMENDMENT: Question came on adopting the Speliotis amendment.
Rep. Speliotis said I've watched for years the interaction in this State
House. I was here when there was no primary enforcement. Then secondary
came along and people forgot that we still have a primary enforcement on
the books for children. That, to me, has been a hypocritical part of the
law. If you vote for this amendment, you're voting for education over
enforcement. You're voting for children to get in the habit of doing
something. This is the direction we ought to be going in. The other
direction is with a hammer. You ought to do this because it is right.
There are many things we ought to do because they are right. But do we do
things to protect children?
Rep. Rivera said I respect your viewpoint. Let me tell you what this won't
accomplish. It won't save lives. The most important tool we have as
parents, for our children, is to buckle up. Adults are getting killed
because they are not buckling up. Adults are the ones who are not buckling
up. They are the ones in the hospitals. The bottom line is we're all here
and we're all concerned about saving lives. Someone tell me that they
continue to speed by the cruiser on the highway when you see the radar
gun. Come on. All we want is for everyone to buckle up.
By voice vote, amendment REJECTED
Rep. Jones doubted the vote and requested a roll call. There was support.
Time was 4:07 pm.
BY ROLL CALL VOTE 9-137 AMENDMENT REJECTED
RUSHING AMENDMENT: Rep. Rushing offered an amendment. There was no
objection to not reading the amendment.
Rep. Peterson said point of order. I believe the amendment is beyond the
scope of the bill.
Rep. Petrolati said well taken.
WOLF AMENDMENT: Rep. Wolf offered an amendment, as changed. There was no
objection to not reading the amendment.
By voice vote, amendment ADOPTED
At 4:15 pm, Rep. Petrolati called a brief recess while he conferred with
Reps. Donato, Rogers and Jones on the rostrum.
At 4:30 pm, Rep. Wolf moved reconsideration and by voice vote,
reconsideration prevailed.
Question came on adopting Rep. Wolf's amendment. By voice vote, amendment
REJECTED
CABRAL AMENDMENT: Rep. Cabral offered a revised amendment 10, requiring
the RMV to maintain records on citations and send the data to the attorney
general.
By voice vote, amendment ADOPTED
Question then came on ordering the bill to third reading. A roll call was
previously ordered.
Time was 4:32 pm.
BY ROLL CALL VOTE 77-74 BILL ORDERED TO THIRD READING
Several guests in the gallery began clapping.
Time was 4:38 pm.
[ . . . ]
RECESS/PLANS: Rep. Petrolati said we anticipate one more roll call after
a brief recess. At 4:51 pm, the House recessed, intending to return at
5:20 pm.
RETURNS: The House returned at 5:28 pm, with Rep. Golden of Lowell
presiding.
QUORUM CALL: Rep. Jones doubted of a quorum and the chair ordered a roll
call.
Rep. Petrolati took the gavel.
A ROLL CALL INDICATED 144 LAWMAKERS PRESENT
PRIMARY SEAT BELT - ENGROSSMENT: Rep. Rivera moved to suspend the
rules to allow H 229 to be taken up.
By voice vote, the rules were suspended.
Rep. Jones doubted the vote and requested a roll call. There was
support.
BY ROLL CALL VOTE 129-20 RULES SUSPENDED
Question came on engrossing H 229 further regulating the use of seat
belts.
By voice vote, bill engrossed.
Rep. Jones doubted the vote and requested a roll call. There was
support.
Time was 5:40 pm.
At 5:44 pm, several members began yelling, "call the vote."
Rep. Verga was then ushered to his seat by Rep. Rivera.
BY ROLL CALL VOTE 76-74 BILL ENGROSSED
Rep. Rivera moved reconsideration. By voice vote, reconsideration
failed.
ADJOURNS: The House adjourned at 5:45 pm to meet next on Monday at 11 am
in an informal session.
AN ACT ESTABLISHING A PRIMARY SEAT BELT LAW
(1/19/2006)
HOUSE . . . . . . . No. 229
By Mr. Fallon of Malden, petition of Daniel F. Keenan and others
relative to primary enforcement of the motor vehicle safety belt law.
Public Service.
In the Year Two Thousand and Five.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
PETITION OF:
Daniel F. Keenan
Barbara A. L’Italien
Alice Hanlon Peisch
Paul J. Donato
Christopher G. Fallon
Ruth B. Balser
John W. Scibak
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Court assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Section 13A of chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2002
Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking the seventh paragraph
beginning on line 23 and inserting in place thereof
the following:—
Any person who operates a motor vehicle without a safety belt, and any
person sixteen years of age or over who rides as a passenger in a motor
vehicle without wearing a safety belt in violation of this section,
shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars. Any operator of a
motor vehicle shall be subject to an additional fine of twenty-five
dollars for each person under the age of sixteen and not younger than
twelve who is a passenger in said motor vehicle and not wearing a safety
belt. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by law
enforcement agencies when an operator of a motor vehicle or passenger
who rides in the front seat is not wearing a safety belt in violation of
motor vehicle laws. A police officer may not search or inspect a motor
vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of a
violation of this section. For a period of 180 days following the
effective day of this act, any law enforcement official who stops a
motorist solely because of failure to wear a safety belt shall not
issue a citation, but shall only issue a written or verbal warning.
2 HOUSE — No. 229 [January 2005]
AMENDMENT NO. 10 FILED: 1/17/2006 4:58:07 PM FOR H. 229
Mr. Cabral of New Bedford moves that the bill be amended by adding the
following:
SECTION __. Section 8 of Chapter 228 of the Acts of 2000 is hereby
amended by adding at the end the following: "The registry of motor
vehicles shall report all statistical information maintained pursuant to
this Chapter with respect to citations issued for failure to wear a seat
belt as required by M.G.L.c. 90, Section 13A, paragraph 7 to the
attorney general and the clerks of the house of representatives and the
senate no later than January 1, 2007 and at least annually thereafter.
AMENDMENT NO. 9 FILED: 1/17/2006 4:33:03 PM FOR H.
229
Ms. Wolf of Cambridge moves that H. 229 be amended by striking the
sentence "A police officer may not search or inspect a motor vehicle,
its contents, the driver, or a passenger solely because of a violation
of this section.", and inserting in place thereof:-
Any search or inspection of the motor vehicle, its contents, the driver,
or a passenger stopped solely to enforce Section 13A of Chapter 90 shall
be considered an illegal search.
AMENDMENT NO. 8 FILED: 1/17/2006 4:32:59 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Rushing of Boston, Ms. Fox of Boston, Mr. Lantigua of Lawrence and
Ms. Paulsen of Belmont move that House Bill 229 be amended by adding at
the end thereof the following:
All state police barracks, municipalities, and university police
officers shall collect information on all traffic stops, including those
not resulting in a warning, citation, or arrest, for a period of five
years.
Such information shall be entered on a uniform Data Collection Form,
developed and approved by the executive office of public safety.
Information to be collected shall include, in addition to information
currently required by the Massachusetts Uniform Citation, all
information specified in Sections 8 and 10 of Chapter 228 of the Acts of
2000. Information collected shall indicate the reason for the stop and
also whether a stop was initiated by the failure of the operator or a
passenger to wear a seat belt. Individual law enforcement officer
identification will be included on each uniform Data Collection Form.
The executive office of public safety shall develop a uniform protocol
for state police and municipal police officers on how to use the
Massachusetts Separate Data Collection Form pursuant to this statute.
The secretary of public safety shall direct the criminal justice
training council to include these protocols in (1) the new recruit basic
training curriculum under section 116A of chapter 6 of General Laws; (b)
any in-service training for veteran officers; (c) any supervisory
training for all superior offices; and (d) any dispatchers and
communications training officers.
The registry of motor vehicles shall collect, aggregate, and maintain
the statistical information on the data required by this Act and shall
report that information monthly to the secretary of public safety, who
shall determine when it is also appropriate to transmit such data to the
attorney general.
All information collected pursuant to this Act will be considered a
matter of public record, provided, however, that individual motorist
data acquired under the Act shall be used only for statistical purposes
and may not contain information that may reveal the identity of any
individual who is stopped.
AMENDMENT NO. 7 FILED: 1/17/2006 4:08:31 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Speliotis of Danvers moves that the bill be amended by striking all
except the enactment clause and inserting the following section:--
SECTION 1. Section 13A of chapter 90 of the General Laws, as appearing
in the 2002 Official Edition, is hereby amended by striking the seventh
paragraph beginning on line 23 and inserting in place thereof the
following two paragraphs: -
Any person under the age of twenty-two who operates a motor vehicle
without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who
rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in
violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty- five
dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an
additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of
sixteen and not younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor
vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this paragraph
shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies when an operator of a
motor vehicle or passenger who rides in the front seat is not wearing a
safety belt in violation of motor vehicle laws. A police officer may not
search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver, or a
passenger solely because of a violation of this section. For a period of
180 days following the effective day of this act, any law enforcement
official who stops a motorist solely because of failure to wear a safety
belt shall not issue a citation, but shall only issue a written or
verbal warning.
Any person not younger than twenty-two who operates a motor vehicle
without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who
rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in
violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty- five
dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an
additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of
sixteen and no younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor
vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this paragraph
shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a
motor vehicle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws
or some other offense.
AMENDMENT NO. 6 FILED: 1/17/2006 3:51:11 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Fennell of Lynn moves that H. 229 be amended by inserting at the end
of Chapter 90, section 22 H of the Massachusetts General Laws, 2000
Official Edition, the following:
Section 22H: No person shall transport an animal in the interior of a
motor vehicle unless the animal or animals are securely contained by a
harness, or within a pet carrier or cage. Any person who violates the
provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than
fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, and not more than two
hundred dollars ($200.00) for each subsequent offense.
AMENDMENT NO. 5 FILED: 1/17/2006 3:51:11 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Fennell moves to amend H. 229 by inserting at the end thereof the
following section:
Section 16 of chapter 90 of the Massachusetts General Laws, 2000
Official Edition, shall hereby be amended by inserting at the end the
following:
Section 1.: No person shall operate a motor vehicle while using a
hand-held mobile telephone to engage in a call while such vehicle is in
motion, with the exception for the sole purpose of communicating with
any of the following regarding an emergency situation: an emergency
response operator; a hospital, physician's office or health clinic; an
ambulance company; a fire department; or a police department.
Section 2: Any person who violates section 1 of this act shall be
fined not more than one hundred ($100.00) dollars for a first offense,
two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the second offense, and five hundred
dollars ($500.00) for each subsequent offense.
For purposes of this section, the following term has the following
meaning:
(a) "Hand-held mobile telephone" means a cellular, analog, wireless or
digital telephone capable of sending or receiving telephone
communications.
AMENDMENT NO. 4 FILED: 1/17/2006 3:21:38 PM FOR H.
229
Whereas: The purpose of this legislation is to protect the citizens of
the Commonwealth while in a motor vehicle and,
Whereas: The safety and well being of children is of particular public
policy concern,
Mr. LeDuc of Marlborough & Mr. Connolly of Everett moves that the bill
be amended by adding at the end thereof the following section:
No person shall operate a motor vehicle with passengers under the age of
12 while smoking cigarettes or other tobacco products in the presence of
said children. Any person who so operates a vehicle in violation of this
section shall be subject to a fine of twenty five dollars.
AMENDMENT NO. 3 FILED: 1/17/2006 1:57:28 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Frost of Auburn moves that the bill be amended by adding the
following section:
"Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, any grand
jury or jury convened in any nature may consider when assessing both
fault and damages whether persons involved in an automobile accident
were wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident."
AMENDMENT NO. 2 FILED: 1/17/2006 12:27:32 PM FOR H.
229
Mr. Frost of Auburn moves to amend the bill by striking all after the
enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the following new text:
"Notwithstanding any general or special law to the contrary, any grand
jury or jury convened in any nature, may consider when assessing both
fault and damages whether persons involved in an automobile accident
were wearing seatbelts at the time of the accident."
AMENDMENT NO. 1 FILED: 1/17/2006 12:23:41 PM FOR H.
229
Ms. Pope of Wayland moves that the bill be amended by adding at the end
thereof the following new section:--
SECTION __. The auto insurance of any person who operates a motor
vehicle without a safety belt and is involved in a motor vehicle
accident will be nullified in covering the damages that arise as a
result.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml