Posted: 10/22/2010 2:51:38 PM EDT
|
I understand the fact that if you don't have your seatbelt on, you are going to get a ticket. Now comes the tricky part where I am getting a lot of different answers:
Driver (me) has his seatbelt on, passenger (co-worker) doesn't. Cop gives a speech about the driver getting a ticket too because he is in charge and responsible for the vehicle and passengers. First thing that comes to mind would be the freaking click it or ticket commercial where only the guy in the back gets the ticket. I have been looking at some penal codes and seatbelt laws and none mention that the driver is responsible for a passengers wrong. On the other hand I keep reading about the driver has control and is responsible of the vehicle and passengers but nothing official. So anyone knows the real truth to this? I am trying to look for codes and laws but can't find none. |
|
Quoted:
I understand the fact that if you don't have your seatbelt on, you are going to get a ticket. Now comes the tricky part where I am getting a lot of different answers: Driver (me) has his seatbelt on, passenger (co-worker) doesn't. Cop gives a speech about the driver getting a ticket too because he is in charge and responsible for the vehicle and passengers. So anyone knows the real truth to this? I am trying to look for codes and laws but can't find none. The person who is at or over 15 who is not wearing the seatbelt gets the ticket. If the person is 15 or 16, both the person not wearing the seatbelt and the operator can be cited. If the person is under 15 and not wearing, only the operator can be cited. Those under 8 and not a certain height must also be in an approved child safety restraint system. Texas Transportation Code
Sec. 545.413. SAFETY BELTS; OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if:(1) the person:(A) is at least 15 years of age;(B) is riding in a passenger vehicle while the vehicle is being operated;(C) is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt; and(D) is not secured by a safety belt; (b) A person commits an offense if the person:(1) operates a passenger vehicle that is equipped with safety belts; and(2) allows a child who is younger than 17 years of age and who is not required to be secured in a child passenger safety seat system under Section 545.412(a) to ride in the vehicle without requiring the child to be secured by a safety belt, provided the child is occupying a seat that is equipped with a safety belt. |
|
Quoted:
Seatbelt laws are crap. If you are over 18 and don't want to wear them, that should be up to you. I agree, they are crap. However, the only way to get rid of seat belt laws is to ALSO remove all welfare and government compensation to the familes of idiots who don't wear seat belts, wreck, kill themselves and then the family has no way of supporting themselves so they file for government assistance. Until they remove such programs, I want laws for wearing seat belts because I certainly don't want to be paying for any person's surviving family with my tax dollars. |
|
Thanks for the clarification. The cop was showing attitude from the start and was using that BS excuse (driver being in charge of the vehicle crap). I guess they are pissed because they are getting furloughs days too!
I know I could have fought the ticket if he had pushed the issue but it is an inconvenience to spend the day in court. Even on city business. Thanks! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seatbelt laws are crap. If you are over 18 and don't want to wear them, that should be up to you. I agree, they are crap. However, the only way to get rid of seat belt laws is to ALSO remove all welfare and government compensation to the familes of idiots who don't wear seat belts, wreck, kill themselves and then the family has no way of supporting themselves so they file for government assistance. Well, that was a fine start... ...and then you wandered off into lib-land... 
Until they remove such programs, I want laws for wearing seat belts because I certainly don't want to be paying for any person's surviving family with my tax dollars.
Try this one on for size: Until they develop accident-proof guns, I want laws banning the possession of firearms because I certainly don't want to be paying for any accidental shooting victim's surviving family with my tax dollars.
How does that work for ya? |
|
Also passed in the last legislative session was that nobody under 5 can ride on a motorcycle except for on a side-cart, helmet or not.
It's also required for anyone under 21 to wear a helmet, which has been the case for a while now. Nanny-state laws? I don't think so. The basis for some traffic law like the above is to prevent idiots from killing themselves or others as they dont have the mental capacity to understand why it may be dumb to not wear a helmet at 18 years old. The same reason renting a car is usually not possible until you are in your mid 20s. It's simply because your not mature enough to handle it and it's well documented. Years ago, I encountered an guy on a scooter in his 40s riding down a 40mph access road. I had to doube-take, as I observed a 4 year old child ( who was actually wearing a helmet, all be it an open-face helmet) STANDING on the platform on the scooter with his hands on the handlebars between his fathers legs. Fortunately the child escaped without smashing his teeth out on the handlebars. There are some decisions that parental figures should not be able to make for their children who don't know any better. |
|
Quoted:
Seatbelt laws are crap. If you are over 18 and don't want to wear them, that should be up to you. I think that is fine if you are riding in the car alone. If you are in a car without your seat belt and you crash you can actually kill people in the car that are wearing a seat belt. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seatbelt laws are crap. If you are over 18 and don't want to wear them, that should be up to you. I agree, they are crap. However, the only way to get rid of seat belt laws is to ALSO remove all welfare and government compensation to the familes of idiots who don't wear seat belts, wreck, kill themselves and then the family has no way of supporting themselves so they file for government assistance. Until they remove such programs, I want laws for wearing seat belts because I certainly don't want to be paying for any person's surviving family with my tax dollars. The most expensivie injury for children are head injuries. I want every child to be required to wear a helmet 24/7 because I certainly don't want to be paying for any person's surviving family with my tax dollars. Seat belt laws, helmet laws....tell me where does it start infringing on my rights???? Seems like a very slippery slope. |