CLT
UPDATE
Friday, January 20, 2006
Another "promise" broken by the
pols;
Anyone surprised any more?
The Massachusetts House narrowly approved a
controversial bill yesterday to give police officers authority to pull
over drivers for not wearing seat belts, a move that supporters say
would prevent needless deaths and injuries on state roads every year.
The bill, which had stalled twice in the House on tie votes in the last
five years, passed 77 to 74 over objections that it would lead to racial
profiling and unwarranted government intrusion into people's decisions
about their own safety.
It stands a good chance of becoming law; the Senate has backed similar
bills twice in recent years, and Governor Mitt Romney signaled support
for the measure yesterday....
Seat belt requirements in Massachusetts have become a flashpoint in a
20-year debate about personal liberty and one's responsibility to
society. The House's endorsement yesterday of the measure, called a
"primary seat belt" bill, is the latest chapter....
According to a recent survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 65 percent of Massachusetts drivers buckle up, which
puts the state near the bottom of the country in terms of seat belt
compliance. Only Mississippi, at 61 percent, is lower. (The national
average is 82 percent.)
But Massachusetts also boasts the lowest rate of driving-related
fatalities of any state in the country. In 2004, the state had 7.42
deaths per 100,000 residents, according to federal figures....
If the bill becomes law, Massachusetts would become the 24th state to
have a primary seat belt law, according to the Traffic Safety
Administration, which estimates that Massachusetts would see compliance
rise by 11 percent, and save 23 lives every year....
Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom issued an e-mail
statement yesterday indicating the governor's support for the
legislation.
"Governor Romney supports a primary seat belt law because it means more
federal funds for our state and more lives saved," Fehrnstrom said.
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 20, 2006
House approves seat belt scrutiny
Bill would let police pull over non-users
To the glee of safety hawks, the House yesterday narrowly
passed a mandatory seat-belt bill giving police the power to pull drivers over
for not buckling up.
To become law, the bill, approved 76-74, must now be backed by the Senate and
governor....
The measure has been dubbed Amanda’s Bill, after 18-year-old Amanda Decoteau
from Springfield who was thrown from her car to her death in August 2004.
The prospects for the bill becoming law are strong. The state Senate has
supported similar bills, and Gov. Mitt Romney backs primary seat-belt
legislation.
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2006
House OKs bill to let cops make seat belt stops
When lawmakers passed the state’s current secondary
enforcement seat belt law in 1994, they promised they would never change it to
make it primary enforcement.
Parente and House Majority Leader John Rogers, D-Norwood, were among the pols
who said they could not break that pledge....
Massachusetts ranked 48th in 2005 for seat belt compliance, out of 49 states
with some sort of seat belt law for adults, according to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.
If the Bay State adopts a primary seat belt law, it would qualify for millions
of federal dollars, starting at $13.6 million the first year, according to Seat
Belts Are For Everyone.
The MetroWest Daily News
Friday, January 20, 2006
House vote say buckle up or pay up
How long will it be before the seat belt roadblocks begin?
Will it be before or after our bought-and-paid-for Legislature raises the fine
for not wearing your seat belt from $25 to $50, or maybe $75? And how many years
— or months — will it be before not wearing a seat belt becomes a surchargeable
offense, the gift that keeps on giving, at least to the insurance companies?
The Legislature did it again yesterday, breaking yet another promise to the
people of Massachusetts. In 1994, when they passed the "secondary" seat belt
law, the solons promised they’d never expand it so that the cops could stop a
motorist just for not wearing one.
But that was then, and this is now, after the insurance companies told them to
jump, and 76 reps responded, "How high?"
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2006
Proposed law hits below belt
By Howie Carr
Chip Ford's CLT Commentary
After twenty-three years of dogged advancement, the
Safety Stormtroopers have finally had their way, have shattered yet
another promise, trampled it under hob-nail boots.
But they are not done: they will be back for
more. They always are. More Is Never Enough (MINE), no
matter how long it takes for them to grab it all, as long as we have
some left.
Primary enforcement of their intrusive mandatory seat
belt law law was inevitable, as I've always predicted -- just a matter
of time, of wearing down the opposition, of conditioning the public to
acceptance.
Again state Rep. Jim Fagan (D-Taunton) passionately led the
opposition, summing it up in a
stirring
speech. In the past two pushes for a primary enforcement law, that did
the trick; but not yesterday. Reps.
Lewis
Evangelidis (R-Holden) and
Phil Travis
(D-Norton) also gave defeat of the bill their best shot, but yesterday they lost
in a 76-74 vote. Just one vote would have made the difference, as it has
in a tie vote outcome both of the last two times.
They will be back, sooner than later. The
end-game remains ahead for them.
Let's look at the promises made when repeal of their
second law was on the ballot (the first was repealed by the voters in
1986). The following excerpts are from the Secretary of State's
1994 "Information for Voters" booklet:
Seat Belt Law (Question Two)
[Excerpts]
A driver and each passenger 16 years old or older may be fined $25 for
not using a safety belt when required....
The law is enforced by law enforcement agencies only when a driver
has been stopped for a motor vehicle violation or some other
offense...
The law provides that failure to use a properly fastened safety belt
may not be considered as contributory negligence or used as evidence
in any civil lawsuit.
Each of these "promises" was built into the law,
intended to placate concerns of opponents and fence-sitters. We
warned that these alleged protections wouldn't stand long if the law was
adopted by the voters. They were duped, and after years of
ceaseless effort another of many "promises" was finally broken yesterday
by our duplicitous House of "Representatives."
Next will come an increase of the fine, from its
present $25 to $50, $75 or $100. This may not happen next year,
but it's coming. Bet on it.
That will be followed or introduced simultaneously by
adding the violation to the list of insurance surchargeable offenses.
For the next six years, violators will then be forced to pay tribute to
the insurance industry.
The end-game will arrive only when failure to wear a
seat belt is cause for contributory negligence. Then, and only
then, will
it finally be over: the Safety Stormtroopers will have everything they set
out to achieve back in 1985, or at least their patrons, the insurance
industry, finally will. Yesterday it was proposed as an amendment by state
Rep.
Paul Frost (R-Auburn) and fortunately
was defeated -- for now.
(See link to the full debate, below.) Though he spoke and voted against
the bill, Rep. Frost opened the door -- wittingly or otherwise -- for
the insurance industry lobby's end-game.
The slippery slope has been taken by the enemies of
personal freedom. The slide downward is picking up speed.
The bottom is coming up fast now.
Massachusetts House of Representatives
Debate on Primary Enforcement of the Mandatory Seat Belt Law (H-229)
CLICK HERE
H-229 Rollcall Vote
CLICK HERE
To enlarge the image that opens, run your cursor over it,
then click on the box that appears in the lower right.
|
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Globe
Friday, January 20, 2006
House approves seat belt scrutiny
Bill would let police pull over non-users
By Scott Helman, Globe Staff
The Massachusetts House narrowly approved a controversial bill yesterday
to give police officers authority to pull over drivers for not wearing
seat belts, a move that supporters say would prevent needless deaths and
injuries on state roads every year.
The bill, which had stalled twice in the House on tie votes in the last
five years, passed 77 to 74 over objections that it would lead to racial
profiling and unwarranted government intrusion into people's decisions
about their own safety.
It stands a good chance of becoming law; the Senate has backed similar
bills twice in recent years, and Governor Mitt Romney signaled support
for the measure yesterday.
Under current law, drivers and passengers are required to wear seat
belts, but police cannot pull them over solely for failing to wear a
seat belt. Officers must have another reason to pull over a car, such as
speeding, and then may issue a $25 citation to the driver and passengers
who are not wearing seat belts.
Seat belt requirements in Massachusetts have become a flashpoint in a
20-year debate about personal liberty and one's responsibility to
society. The House's endorsement yesterday of the measure, called a
"primary seat belt" bill, is the latest chapter.
Lawmakers were lobbied to pass the bill by an umbrella group called the
Seatbelts Are For Everyone Coalition, which includes several dozen
health and public safety organizations and advocates. The coalition also
includes insurers who would benefit from facing fewer expensive claims
if injuries and deaths from car accidents were reduced.
Opponents of the law believe that drivers should be able to decide
whether to wear a seat belt or not and that they have a right to drive
unsafely if they wish.
"Where does the government stop being Big Brother?" Representative Paul
K. Frost, Republican of Auburn, asked during the debate. "When do we
stop having the sense that government knows best and hold individuals to
be responsible for their own actions?"
But House members backing the bill argued that taxpayers shell out
millions of dollars every year in Medicaid costs to provide medical care
and rehabilitation for drivers and passengers severely injured in
accidents because they weren't wearing seatbelts.
Representative John W. Scibak, Democrat of South Hadley, cited
statistics prepared by supporters estimating that the yearly cost to the
state could reach more than $200 million.
"Because somebody is not abiding by the law of Massachusetts, we have to
pay for it," said Representative Cheryl A. Rivera, a Springfield
Democrat and co-chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Public Safety and
Homeland Security.
Several House members who opposed a tougher seat belt law in the past
said they had been swayed by arguments that it would save lives and
reduce injuries. "It has taken me a long time to come to the conclusion
that a primary seat belt law is perhaps the only way to put some teeth
into this law that we already have on the books," said Representative
Christine E. Canavan, a Brockton Democrat.
Opponents countered that the new law opens the door for the state to
regulate any kind of unhealthy behavior. Following this logic, said
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis, why not outlaw fast food, smoking,
and alcohol?
"I think we'd all agree that not wearing a seat belt is crazy," said
Evangelidis, a Holden Republican. But, he said, "if we start telling
people what to do with their personal safety inside a motor vehicle,
what's the next step? ... Where do we draw the line here, folks?"
Seat belt laws have generated controversy in Massachusetts for more than
20 years. The state's first mandatory seat belt law took effect Jan. 1,
1986, but was later repealed by voters. The Legislature again mandated
seat belt use in 1994, and that's the law that stands today. (The law
was endorsed by voters in 1994.)
According to a recent survey by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 65 percent of Massachusetts drivers buckle up, which
puts the state near the bottom of the country in terms of seat belt
compliance. Only Mississippi, at 61 percent, is lower. (The national
average is 82 percent.)
But Massachusetts also boasts the lowest rate of driving-related
fatalities of any state in the country. In 2004, the state had 7.42
deaths per 100,000 residents, according to federal figures.
One reason for the low fatality rate: New England has a high number of
roads where the speed limit is less than 55 miles per hour.
If the bill becomes law, Massachusetts would become the 24th state to
have a primary seat belt law, according to the Traffic Safety
Administration, which estimates that Massachusetts would see compliance
rise by 11 percent, and save 23 lives every year.
The state would also immediately qualify for nearly $14 million in
federal transportation grants and potentially millions more in the
future if the bill becomes law, said Traffic Safety Administration
spokesman Rae Tyson.
The Senate passed a primary seat belt measure on voice votes in 2000 and
2001, but it wasn't clear last night whether Senate President Robert E.
Travaglini would support what the House passed yesterday. A spokeswoman
said Travaglini was unavailable for comment.
Romney communications director Eric Fehrnstrom issued an e-mail
statement yesterday indicating the governor's support for the
legislation.
"Governor Romney supports a primary seat belt law because it means more
federal funds for our state and more lives saved," Fehrnstrom said.
The opportunity for more federal money wasn't worth it to many,
including most African-American members. One -- Byron Rushing, the
second assistant majority leader -- said he couldn't support the bill
without an assurance that it wouldn't worsen the problem of police
disproportionately pulling over minority group members.
"We haven't solved the problem of racial profiling," Rushing, a Boston
Democrat, said after the vote. "We need to be talking about how to solve
this problem before we give policemen a whole range of other abilities
to stop people."
Rushing, who had indicated this week that he was undecided about the
bill, supported the one amendment that passed with the legislation
yesterday. It would require the Registry of Motor Vehicles to annually
report statistics on citations issued for seat belt violations to the
attorney general and to the House and Senate clerks.
The bill also stipulates that anyone pulled over for not wearing a seat
belt within 180 days of the law's enactment will only be issued a
warning.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2006
House OKs bill to let cops make seat belt stops
By Emelie Rutherford, MetroWest Daily News Staff
To the glee of safety hawks, the House yesterday narrowly passed a
mandatory seat-belt bill giving police the power to pull drivers over
for not buckling up.
To become law, the bill, approved 76-74, must now be backed by the
Senate and governor.
Under the bill, a driver or passenger not wearing a seat belt would face
a $25 fine. The driver also would face a fine for anyone 12 to 16 who
isn’t buckled up. Police would no longer need any other reason to pull
motorists over.
"Of all the things that we do regulate in the commonwealth ... this is
one we should be on the side of," said state Rep. Paul Loscocco
(R-Holliston), pointing to hundreds of reasons police can pull over
drivers.
Yet some House lawmakers said they can’t support granting government —
and police officers — sway over drivers’ belting habits.
"I don’t want to be safer if I can’t be free," said state Rep. James
Fagan (D-Taunton).
The measure has been dubbed Amanda’s Bill, after 18-year-old Amanda
Decoteau from Springfield who was thrown from her car to her death in
August 2004.
The prospects for the bill becoming law are strong. The state Senate has
supported similar bills, and Gov. Mitt Romney backs primary seat-belt
legislation.
Some House pols said they dropped their opposition to the bill after
eyeing benefits, including saving lives — of both car occupants
themselves, and those who may be struck by bodies not strapped in — and
reduced medical costs.
Return to top
The MetroWest Daily News
Friday, January 20, 2006
House vote say buckle up or pay up
By Emelie Rutherford, Daily News Staff
Buckle up.
The House narrowly passed a bill, by a 76-74 vote, to let police pull
over drivers if they or their passengers aren’t wearing seat belts, to
the glee of safety hawks and fury of civil libertarians.
Drivers and passengers now can be fined for not wearing seat belts, but
police only can pull over drivers if they committed primary offenses
like speeding, or if kids under 12 in their cars are unbelted. The bill
would make it a primary violation for adults to not wear seat belts.
The House had killed primary seat belt bills in rare and dramatic tie
votes in 2001 and 2003.
"I think in the back of many of our minds are situations we’re aware of
where people weren’t wearing their seat belts were seriously injured,"
said supporter state Rep. Deborah Blumer, D-Framingham.
"If we can avoid putting lives at risk, we should."
The bill now heads to the Senate, which passed similar bills in 2000 and
2001. Gov. Mitt Romney backs a primary seat belt law.
Some House pols said they dropped their opposition to the bill after
eyeing benefits including saved lives -- of drivers and others killed
when drivers become projectiles -- fewer medical costs passed on to the
state and added federal money the state would snag.
"Of all the things that we do regulate in the commonwealth...this is one
we should be on the side of," said state Rep. Paul Loscocco,
R-Holliston, who voted for the measure he previously opposed. Pointing
out hundreds of other reasons police can pull over drivers, Loscocco
said he recognizes concerns about the added police power leading to
racial profiling yet said police don’t need such a law to do so.
Some House lawmakers said they cannot support granting government, and
police officers, more sway over drivers’ seat belt habits.
"I absolutely have concerns about personal liberties, that’s an
invasion, inside your car," said Rep. Marie Parente, D-Milford.
When lawmakers passed the state’s current secondary enforcement seat
belt law in 1994, they promised they would never change it to make it
primary enforcement.
Parente and House Majority Leader John Rogers, D-Norwood, were among the
pols who said they could not break that pledge.
Under the bill, fines for not wearing seat belts would remain as they
are now: $25 for each violator -- driver or passenger -- over the age of
16, with drivers receiving fines of $25 for each unbelted passenger
under age 16.
Under the bill, seat belt violations would not go on drivers’ records or
affect insurance rates. And police could not search people or vehicles
because of such violations.
Twenty-two other states have primary seat belt laws.
Massachusetts ranked 48th in 2005 for seat belt compliance, out of 49
states with some sort of seat belt law for adults, according to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
If the Bay State adopts a primary seat belt law, it would qualify for
millions of federal dollars, starting at $13.6 million the first year,
according to Seat Belts Are For Everyone.
The measure has been dubbed Amanda’s Bill, after 18-year-old Amanda
Decoteau from Springfield who, while not wearing a seat belt, was thrown
from her car to her death in August 2004.
Return to top
The Boston Herald
Friday, January 20, 2006
Proposed law hits below belt
By Howie Carr
How long will it be before the seat belt roadblocks begin?
Will it be before or after our bought-and-paid-for Legislature raises
the fine for not wearing your seat belt from $25 to $50, or maybe $75?
And how many years — or months — will it be before not wearing a seat
belt becomes a surchargeable offense, the gift that keeps on giving, at
least to the insurance companies?
The Legislature did it again yesterday, breaking yet another promise to
the people of Massachusetts. In 1994, when they passed the "secondary"
seat belt law, the solons promised they’d never expand it so that the
cops could stop a motorist just for not wearing one.
But that was then, and this is now, after the insurance companies told
them to jump, and 76 reps responded, "How high?"
It was time, as Rep. Mike Festa of Melrose smarmily put it, "to revise,
rethink and, frankly, do what is necessary."
In other words, it takes a big man to double-cross people he made a
promise to.
You remember Festa, right? A few years ago, he slammed his SUV into a
pole at a gardening center, then sped off. He claimed it wasn’t a
hit-and-run because it occurred on private property. Festa also said he
wouldn’t be surcharged because he wasn’t putting in an insurance claim.
In other words, do as Festa says, not as he does. He drives away, but
you pay and pay and pay. How about Reps. Colleen Garry and David Linsky
— they thought filing income taxes was optional, but for you, seat belts
are now mandatory. It’s not enough that the cops issued 81,000 citations
in 2004 just with a "secondary" law. Two million bucks wasn’t nearly
enough.
You should have heard the reps yesterday, talking about their midnight
phone calls, beautiful young girls being "ejected," etc. These are the
same pols who vote for Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-UI, and who support Tom
Reilly for governor, but we’re supposed to believe that now they’re
concerned about protecting the lives of innocent people on the highways.
Here’s Rep. Cheryl Rivera, the chairman of the committee from which
House Bill 229 was excreted: "If the seat belt use for Massachusetts
goes above the national average," she said, with a straight face, "then
insurance rates would automatically decrease."
Riiiight, Cheryl.
Of course, everyone needs to wear seat belts — if only to protect
ourselves from the drunk drivers the solons tried so desperately to
shield from prosecution just a few months back.
Some liberals want studies to see if the cops disproportionately harass
minorities. I’d like to see two other studies:
Number one, how many off-duty cops are ever going to be charged by their
fellow officers?
Number two, what kills more U.S. citizens, not wearing seat belts, or
unlicensed illegal aliens with fake names driving unregistered,
uninspected, uninsured vehicles?
On Question 2, here are last week’s stats from the North Shore. Illegal
aliens running over U.S. citizens, 1 fatality (in Salem on Saturday).
Not buckling up, zero fatalities.
The only proponent of the bill who actually made any sense was Rep.
Frank I. Smizik, the Fizz, from Brookline. He recounted a call to his
office yesterday morning from a female constituent. She asked his aide
how the Fizz, a Nanny State Democrat from way back, was planning to
vote. The aide told the woman that the Fizz would of course be voting
the straight Dukakis line.
"She replied," the Fizz said, "that Rep. Smizik is an idiot."
She was right, times 76.
Return to top
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
|