Arkansas SB 78: Primary seatbelt law.
The purpose of the bill is said to be: "To improve the safety of
motorists on roads and highways by making the seatbelt law primary for enforcement
purposes".
In addition, the bill makes the following claims:
1. "In 2007, five hundred twenty-five (525) people died while riding in passenger
vehicles in Arkansas and 65% of those who died were not wearing a seatbelt."
Safetychoice comments: 1. Notice the attempt to create
the impression that if more had been wearing seatbelts, fewer would have been killed. We
carefully examined this argument, which seatbelt advocates have been making for years, and
found it to be without merit. (see "The Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere
on this web site. 2. The percentage of vehicle occupants killed wearing seatbelts varies
from state to state and ranges from around 47% to about 65%, according to the FARS data
base. It is higher in states that have primary seatbelt laws or where seatbelt laws are
more rigidly enforced. 3. Most fatal accidents happen to reckless drivers (64% according
to NHTSA) and reckless drivers are less likely to wear seatbelts. 4. According to NHTSA,
police reports about seatbelts may not be reliable (see footnote in Traffic Safety Facts,
put out by NHTSA). 5. The figure of 65% not wearing seatbelts is not consistent with the
national data.
2. "In 2007, sixty-one (61) people died after being ejected from their vehicles
during a roll-over crash because they were not wearing seatbelts."
Safetychoice comments: 1. From an exhaustive study of all
the evidence, including the FARS data base, published accident reports, photographs and
physical analysis, we know that a vehicle occupant has a better chance of surviving a
roll-over if he is ejected than of he is trapped in his vehicle by his seatbelt. 2. People
who are trapped in their vehicles by a seatbelt during a rollover are generally crushed or
burned to death. 3. Roll-overs ejections happen almost exclusively to people who are
driving high c.g. vehicles in a reckless manner. The average driver couldn't roll his car
over if he tried. 3. An exhaustive examination of claims of ejection shows that most of
these claims are unverified and, in many cases, are physically improbable or even
impossible.
3. "By adopting a primary seatbelt law, Arkansas can expect an increase in the
use of seatbelts by motorists of of approximately 12%"
Safetychoice comments: 1. There is no question that more
rigid enforcement of seatbelt laws results in higher seatbelt use. Because many people do
not wish to use seatbelts (which is wise of them) seatbelt use falls off when it is
not enforced. 2. All independent studies agree that enforcement of seatbelt laws results
in a higher fatality rate (see "The Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere on this
web-site). 3. It is not possible to predict the increase or decrease of seatbelt use to
within plus or minus one percent. The 12% figure is pure speculation.
4. "Adopting a primary seatbelt law could save as many as forty-seven (47) lives
each year, prevent approximately five hundred four (504) serious injuries each year, and
save an estimated one hundred four million dollars ($104,000,000) in economic costs each
year"
Safetychoice comment: This statement is totally and
demonstrably false. (see "The Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere on this
web-site.)
5. "The adoption of a primary seatbelt law will entitle the State of Arkansas to
receive approximately nine million five hundred thousand dollars ($9,500,000) in federal
grant funds to implement highway safety programs"
Safetychoice comments: 1. Now we see the real cause for
this bill: NHTSA is offering Arkansas a bribe of $9.2 million dollars to pass this law. 2.
The so-called "highway safety programs" referred to consist mainly of massive
police harassment programs to force people to wear seatbelts.
In addition to SB 78, SB 309 was also heard at the meting of the
Arkansas state senate transportation committee on February 16, 2009. This bill, which was
the principal item of business at a meeting at which many other bills were considered,
relates to special licenses for teenagers. While this bill is mainly obesessed with the
issue of teenagers using cell phones while driving, it also repeals the very strong and
specific restriction to secondary enforcement of the seatbelt law for holders of such
licenses and their passengers. (Similar bills are appearing in other state legislatures,
almost identical in wording, so it seems clear that these bills were written by NHTSA and
sent out to various legislators as "suggested legislation". While these bills
are mainly about cell phones, they all contain a provision to make the seatbelt law
primary for drivers under 18 and their passengers. This is in line with the NHTSA policy
of "gradualism" and trying to sneak primary provisions into other bills.)
Montana: SB 237 has been defeated by
the Montana state senate. Still, we thought we would leave this up to show what sort of
material NHTSA is sending to the states. Remember, this was written by the bureaucrats at
NHTSA, in Washington, D.C., under pressure from senator Patty Murray, and not by anyone in
Montana. The material below was contained in the preamble to the bill, sent out as
"suggested legislation" by NHTSA.
"WHEREAS, Montana spends $36.7 million each year on
direct health care costs for patients who were unbelted and injured in motor vehicle
crashes; and"
SafetyChoice Comment: 1. Notice the implication that the
alleged expense is due to the fact that the person was unbelted. Notice that they don't
have the nerve to actually come right out and say so. As they well know, and as we
know from six years of research, the implication is false. 2. They are still playing
the numbers game, however, hoping that no one will call them on it. No source is
given for the dollar amount stated. Nor do they say what they mean by
"Montana", whether it is private or public money. Notice they do not say
"the government of Montana". As NHTSA has a record of making false statements
about statistical and financial data, this figure must be viewed with grave
suspicion. 3. In any case, the argument is monstrous. It says that the state has the right
to restrict the liberty of the people under the pretext of saving a few dollars.
"WHEREAS, uninsured and Medicaid-covered unbelted
occupants cost the state of Montana over $14 million annually for hospital care of their
preventable injuries; and"
Safety Choice Comment: 1. Notice the attempt to create
the false impression that the injuries would have been less severe had the subject been
wearing a seatbelt. Notice that they are careful not to actually come right out and
say so, however. They know, as do we, that the implication is false. 2. No source or
evidence is given for the stated dollar amount, which must be viewed with grave suspicion
for the reasons stated above. 3. The overwhelming majority of motorists have health
insurance, usually through a private insurer. Their healthcare costs are, therefore, not
the business of the state. 4. The chance of an average driver being in an accident severe
enough to require hospital care is miniscule. The overwhelming majority of serious
accidents happen to reckless drivers. 5. The percentage of motorists uninsured
and/or eligible for medicaid is small. Yet all are to be forced to wear these dangerous
devices.
"WHEREAS, unbelted occupants are more likely than
belted occupants to require hospitalization following a motor vehicle crash, with an
average cost of $52,993; and"
Safety Choice Comment: 1. The dollar figures are
pure fabrication. Their data on injury accidents is so bad it is all but worthless. There
is no way they could have gotten such precise numbers from the available data. They
simply made them up. 2. No evidence is presented for the above statements. The
severity of the injuries would depend on the severity of the accident. Our research
indicates that for any given accident, a person wearing a seatbelt would suffer more
severe injuries than a person who is not. 3. Since most people pay their medical
costs either out of their own pocket or through private insurers the argument is a non
sequitur. It is not the business of the state.
"WHEREAS, the average unbelted occupant has a longer
hospital stay, requires more intensive care, and has hospital charges that are $16,573
higher than a belted occupant who is hospitalized; and"
Safety Choice Comment: This is pure fabrication. The only
global data they have on injury accidents is the so-called General Estimate System, and
that is such a mass of confusion and contradiction that it is all but worthless. Think of
the gall of these con artists, the contempt they must have for the intelligence of
the average legislator, to make up these numbers and these assertions and present them as
fact.
"WHEREAS, Montana is the only state in which the
child restraint law can only be enforced secondary to some other traffic violation;
and"
Safety Choice Comment: While severe or fatal injuries to
small children in traffic accidents are rare, this provision is particularly vicious,
because putting a child in a booster seat increases its chance of being killed or severely
injured in an accident. In addition to all the cases and evidence presented on this
website, the recent evidence showing that a child in a booster seat can be killed by the
whiplash alone even in a low speed collision, makes the defeat of this bill particularly
urgent.
"WHEREAS, Montana will receive an additional $4.8
million in federal funds for highway construction and safety programs if a primary
enforcement seatbelt law is enacted."
Safety Choice Comment: Ah, now we come to the real crux
of the matter. NHTSA is offering Montana a bribe of $4.8 million dollars to pass this law.
Notice that the arguments, such as they are, are based entirely on the pecuniary interests
of the state. In a democracy, government is supposed to be of the people, by the people
and for the people. This bill was not written by and for the people. It was written by a
handful of bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Should not the people be consulted as to
whether they want this law or not?
Florida: Florida has enacted a primary
seatbelt law. Throughout the legislative season, we kept a careful eye on Florida,
doing repeated text searches on the Florida legislative web site. At no time did a primary
seatbelt law bill show up. Our initial information came from the Orlando Sentinel of May
4, 2009, which stated that the provision had passed as an amendment, but to what bill they
did not say. Further research, however, indicates that that the provision passed as a
standalone bill.
It seems that there were two bills: HB 1 and SB 344. HB 1 was set aside
in favor SB 344, which was passed by both Houses and signed by Governor Crist on May 5,
2009. Judas Iscariot sold out his Master for 30 pieces of silver. The Florida state
legislature sold out their constituents for a $35.5 million dollar federal grant.
The previous high for a bribe offered by NHTSA to a state to pass primary seatbelt law was
$21 million dollars, also to Florida, three years ago, which Florida turned down.
Kansas: The Kansas
state senate passed SB 59, the primary seatbelt bill, on February 19, 2009, by a vote of
23 to 17, with a speed that is almost unprecedented and in violation of all regular
procedure. The sponsors know that they must get these bills passed before the public finds
out what is going on or face defeat. It's hard to believe that this is the same
Kansas where, two years ago, the senators were so enraged when they found out the truth
about seatbelts that they ordered the bill stricken from the record. Assigned to House
transportation committee, 2/24/09.
SB 59 was passed by the senate transportation
committee on February 18, 2009. A note on what went on there has now been published. One
reads the proceedings with a certain sadness because it is the same old story. The bill
was "requested by the Kansas Department of Transportation". Of course the reason
they did it was because NHTSA told them they could get over $11,000,000 if they got it
passed. The witnesses at the hearing were (you get one guess) the head of the State
Department of Transportation, the head of the Health Department, the Chief of the State
Police, the Head of the Kansas Association of Chiefs of Police, the Head of the
Kansas Police Officers association and the Head of the Kansas Nurses Association - in
other words, all the people who would get some of the money. Written testimony was
received (according to the committee report) from AAA Kansas, State Farm Insurance
Company, and a local hospital. In addition, written testimony was received from
"SafeKids Kansas", and you can pretty well figure out where that came from.
The report goes on to state "the points made
by the conferees" (since this is not a conference report the use of the term
"conferees" is not clear) were (and we paraphrase for brevity)
1. Kansas could get lots of money if they pass this
bill.
2.Motor vehicle accidents cost Kansas an
"estimated" $1.9 billion dollars a year (a statement which is not relevant to
the bill and is presented without evidence)
3. "Safety belt use is the single most
effective countermeasure available to passenger vehicle occupants in preventing
fatalitites and injuries in traffic crashes". (There are not words adequate to
describe this statement. "Out and out lie", "demonstrably false",
"absurd on the face of it", would not do it justice.)
4. Kansas seatbelt use is below the national
average. (So what?)
NHTSA offered Kansas a bribe of $11,665,000 to pass a primary
seatbelt law. The bill is SB 59. So far, no member has dared to put his name on it. The
bill is simply described as having been introduced by the senate transportation committee.
There was a hearing on this bill in the committee on January 29, 2009. In the
past year, Kansas collected 14,646 seatbelt fines at $30 a piece on secondary enforcement.
It's clear that if this bill were to pass, seatbelt citations would triple or quadruple
and thus represent a goldmine for the police.
Arkansas: The Arkansas House passed SB
78 on February 25, 2009, by a vote of 60 to 31 with 5 not voting and 2 voting
present. You will notice that the bill was rushed to the floor less than 24 hours after it
came out of committee. However, the emergency clause failed by a vote of 64 to 28 with 6
not voting and 2 voting present. The House then reversed itself and passed the emergency
clause by a vote of 94 to2. The reason for this little bit of theater was that the
sponsors had neglected to explain to the House that NHTSA had put a deadline of June 30,
2009 on the $9.5 million dollar bribe they offered Arkasas to pass this bill.
In other words, the law had to go into effect before that date in order for Arkansas to
qualify for the money. Without the emergency clause there would have been a 91 day delay
after the governor signed the bill (assuming he signs it) before the law could go into
effect, thus missing the NHTSA deadline. The House, while agreeing to go along with the
bill, had enough common sense to realize that there was no "emergency". The
sponsors then explained to the House the real reason for the emergency clause, whereupon
the House reversed itself and agreed to the clause.
The House transportation committee voted to pass SB 78 on 2/24/09.
The Arkansas state senate voted to pass SB 78, the primary seatbelt law bill, on
February 17, 2009. The vote was 29 to 6. The six heroes, who voted not to sell out their
constituents for a federal grant, were Pritchard, Key, Taylor, Madison, Malone and
Whitaker. The senate went on to adopt and "emergency clause", which means that
the bill is to go into effect immediately upon signature by the governor. In addition, the
senate directed that the bill be transmited to the House "immediately". On
senses a certain hysteria here, to rush this bill through before the people of Arkansas
become aware of what is going on. See below for further details.
Also passed was SB 309. This bill was also ordered to be transmitted to the House
"immediately", but it was not declared an emergency. The House has also passed
this bill, which has now become law. While this bill concerns mainly teen-age drivers, one
of its provisions is that all passengers of these drivers, regardless of age, must
wear seatbelts. One of NHTSA's tactics this year has been to try to ram all these bills
though as fast as possible.
Minnesota: Governor Pawlenty has signed HB
878, making Minnesota's seatbelt law primary. After SF 0042 was "stricken from the
record" the seatbelt scammers actually attempted to slip this provision into the
funding bill for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (cf. Rhode Island), a long and
detailed bill where they hoped it would not be noticed. This seems to be the latest ploy
suggested by Dave Kelly and his gang of scoundrels. The bill was SF1276. The bill was
passed by the senate and then tabled in favor of the corresponding House bill, HF 1309,
which does not contain the seatbelt provision.
SF 0042 was "stricken and re-referred to finance (committee)"
on February 2, 2009. HF 0108 and SF 0042 would make Minnesota's seatbelt law primary. SF
0099 would impose Anton's law on Minnesota. Sent to transportation committee on
1/15/09. SF 0042 passed second reading on 1/29/09 and was re-referred to the
judiciary committee.
SF 0042 was passed by the transportation committee on 1/13/09 and sent
to judiciary which reported the bill out for second reading on 1/27/09. We watched the
transportation committee hearing on this bill. There were only two witnesses for this
bill, two ladies from a small medical college. Each of them spoke for only about a minute
and their testimony was somewhat vague and unenthusiastic. None of the senators made any
attempt to question the ladies or to detain them in any way. The rest of the meeting was
devoted to the senators themselves speaking in favor of the bill. What they
were saying was absurd on the face of it. One senator referred to an accident in which a
driver, "drunk and crazy", had rolled over an SUV at 84 miles per hour.
Therefore, he concluded, all persons should be forced to wear seatbelts. Another senator
said that even though the mail from her constituents had been overwhelmingly opposed to
this bill, she intended to vote for it anyway. Another senator gave it as his opinion that
"libertarians" should not be allowed to stand in the way of this bill.
During the course of the discussion it came out that NHTSA had offered Minnesota a bribe
of $3.4 million dollars to pass this bill and that most, or all of it would go to the
"Safety Council". In this connection, "Safety Council" usually means a
group of present or former state troopers whose main job is promoting the seatbelt scam.
After the other senators had had their say, one senator, who had not spoken previously,
asked, in effect "why are you doing this?" Her actual words were, "What do
you think the chances are of this bill actually passing? This seems to me to be a
perennial thing". The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Murphy, replied that "it
will be difficult with all these committees". A voice vote was then taken. It seemed
to us that, when the nos were called for, there was a faint "no", but we could
not be sure. The chairman looked startled, paused for an instant, and then declared the
bill passed. You can watch this hearing yourself by visiting: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/media/media_list.php?ls=86&archive_year=2009&category=committee&type=video#header
Legislative background on H.R. 3288:
The senate, on September 17, 2009, passed H.R. 3288 by a vote of 73 to 25.
Motions by senators Ensign and Kyl to recommit were defeated by 64 to 33 and 64 to 34,
respectively.
At the same time, no action was taken on the authorization bill, S. 1496. The
situation now seems to be this: senators are afraid to be seen as voting for continued
funding for 23 USC 402, 405 and 406, and afraid to be seen as voting against it. The net
result is that no one dares to vote for S. 1496 and no one dares to move that the funding
be taken out. Thus, H.R. 3288 passes with the funding still in it, while S.1496 is not
brought to the floor. This is almost certainly in violation of senate rules, but the rules
mean nothing if no one dares to suggest that they be enforced.
Your congress at work: The House Rules Committee, by a vote of 7 to 2, voted to waive rule XXI,
section 2, with regard to H.R. 3288. Rule XXI, section 2, says that no money may be
appropriated unless it has first been authorized. This is very clever political and
parliamentary maneuvering. Unfortunately, some Americans are going to die as a result if
this bill passes as it now stands.
House Rules Committee:
In their report on H.R. 3288, the House Rules Committee not only waived rule XXI,
Section2, but agreed to "waive" points of order regarding this rule. It is not
entirely clear what the word "waive" means in this connection, but it sounds as
though they have ruled points of order out of order. Nor is it entirely clear how
seven members of the Rules Committee can simply declare null and void a rule adopted by a
vote of the whole House. If they can do this, why bother to have rules? The Rules
Committee could simply make them up as they go along.
United States Senate bill S. 1496. There has
been no action on S.1496, so the "highway safety" provisions are still
unauthorized. Unfortunately, it is possible for the congress to appropriate without
authorization. The details are complex but our best hope would be to get a member to raise
a point of order if H.R. 3288 passes without S.1496 and the "Highway Safety"
money is still in it. These may seem like arcane points of parliamentary procedure, but
there is nothing arcane about a mother having to watch her four-year-old burn to death.
S. 1496 is the authorization bill for the so-called "Highway
Safety" provisions of H.R. 3288.
The Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a substitute for H.R.
3288, the appropriation bill for DOT et. al., on 7/30/09.
The senate substitute, as reported out by the transportation subcommittee of the senate
appropriations committee, senator Patty Murray, chairwoman, accepts the recommendations of
the House for funding 23 USC 402, 405 and 406, which are at the same level as last year.
This section of the bill is interesting in that the language is much more sober and matter
of fact than in the past. You can read the committee recommendations by visiting
The authorization bill for these expenditures, S.1496 has not, as yet,
been taken up by the full senate.
The bill to authorize continuing expenditures for 23 USC 402, 405 and
406, as well as "High Visibility Enforcement" and "Anton's Law", was
introduced in the United States Senate. The bill is S. 1496, reported out by the Commerce,
Science and Transportation Committee on July 22, 2009, Senator John D. Rockefeller,
sponsor. The bill is a continuing resolution which authorizes the continuation of
expenditures at their present level through March 31, 2011. To see what the current level
of expenditures is, click on this link
Rhode Island: The Rhode Island state legislature has gone
into recess without, apparently, passing a primary seatbelt law, but will meet again in
July and then again in September. The House and Senate passed, and sent to the
governor, H5983 SubA as amended on the floor. There does not appear to be any provision
for a primary seatbelt law in the bill as passed.
The Rhode Island state legislature, after due deliberation, also passed S 591, which
raises the maximum age at which a child is required to be strapped into a death-trap seat
from 6 to 7, and the maximum height from 53 inches to 56 inches.
Alaska: SB 72 would impose Anton's law on Alaska along with certain other requirements.
Sent to transportation committee, 1/21/09. Passed by senate, 2/25/09; sent to House
tranportation committee, 2/27/09; passed House transportation committee, 3/25/09 and sent
to state affairs committee.
Texas: HB 529 is Anton's law. SB 61 is the same as HB 529. HB 529 was "left
pending" in the transportation committee on 3/3/09, which means that Anton's law is
probably dead in Texas, at least for this year. HB 537 would penalize "a person"
for allowing a passenger less than 17 years of age to ride in a van without wearing a
seatbelt. Which person is not stated. Sent to transortation committee, 2/18/09.
Wyoming: HB 0310 missed the cutoff date and hence is now dead. HB 0310 would have made
the Wyoming seatbelt law primary. Referred to the transportion committee on
February 3, 2009. HB 0126 died in committee. The vote was 9 to 0. HB 0126 would have
repealed the ban on introducing evidence regarding failure to wear a seatbelt in civil
cases. What is significant about this is that Wyoming has such a ban. So do many
other states.
Arkansas: Governor Beebe has, apparently, either signed or not vetoed SB 78, the
primary seatbelt law bill. Under Arkansas law, a bill becomes law if, within five days of
being presented to him, the governor does not veto it. SB 309 has also become law,
either with or without the governor's signature. (See below for details).
South Dakota: The South Dakota legislature has adjourned without pass SB 79. On March
2, 2009, the judiciary committee of the South Dakota House of Representatives rejected SB
79 by a vote of 9 to 4. SB 79 would make South Dakota's seatbelt law primary. Passed
by senate on 2/03/09, by a vote of 21 to 13. This bill makes no claims for seatbelts but
simply removes the restriction to secondary enforcement in the existing law. A similar
bill, SB 103, was, apparently, set aside in favor of SB 79.
Maryland: SB 189 passed by senate 46 to 0 on 2/26/09. Sent to House committee on
environmental matters (sic), 2/27/09. SB 189 would exempt school buses from the seatbelt
requirement. (Note: this bill passed the senate last year but it died in the House).
Arkansas: The Arkansas House passed SB 78 on February 25, 2009, by a vote
of 60 to 31 with 5 not voting and 2 voting present. You will notice that the bill was
rushed to the floor less than 24 hours after it came out of committee. However, the
emergency clause failed by a vote of 64 to 28 with 6 not voting and 2 voting present. The
House then reversed itself and passed the emergency clause by a vote of 94 to2. The reason
for this little bit of theater was that the sponsors had neglected to explain to the House
that NHTSA had put a deadline of June 30, 2009 on the $9.5 million dollar bribe they
offered Arkasas to pass this bill. In other words, the law had to go into effect
before that date in order for Arkansas to qualify for the money. Without the emergency
clause there would have been a 91 day delay after the governor signed the bill (assuming
he signs it) before the law could go into effect, thus missing the NHTSA deadline. The
House, while agreeing to go along with the bill, had enough common sense to realize that
there was no "emergency". The sponsors then explained to the House the real
reason for the emergency clause, whereupon the House reversed itself and agreed to the
clause.
The House transportation committee voted to pass SB 78 on 2/24/09. The Arkansas
state senate voted to pass SB 78, the primary seatbelt law bill, on February 17, 2009. The
vote was 29 to 6. The six heroes, who voted not to sell out their constituents for a
federal grant, were Pritchard, Key, Taylor, Madison, Malone and Whitaker. The senate went
on to adopt and "emergency clause", which means that the bill is to go into
effect immediately upon signature by the governor. In addition, the senate directed that
the bill be transmited to the House "immediately". On senses a certain hysteria
here, to rush this bill through before the people of Arkansas become aware of what is
going on. See below for further details.
Also passed was SB 309. This bill was also ordered to be transmitted to the House
"immediately", but it was not declared an emergency. The House has also passed
this bill, which has now become law. While this bill concerns mainly teen-age drivers, one
of its provisions is that all passengers of these drivers, regardless of age, must
wear seatbelts. One of NHTSA's tactics this year has been to try to ram all these bills
though as fast as possible.
Arkansas: SB 78 was passed by the senate transportation committee on February 16,
2009. SB 78 would make Arkansas' seatbelt law primary. The preface to
this bill, which was drafted by NHTSA, contains the usual false and misleading statements:
The purpose of the bill is said to be: "To improve the safety of motorists on
roads and highways by making the seatbelt law primary for enforcement purposes".
In addition, the bill makes the following claims:
1. "In 2007, five hundred twenty-five (525) people died while riding in passenger
vehicles in Arkansas and 65% of those who died were not wearing a seatbelt."
Safetychoice comments: 1. Notice the attempt to create the impression that if more had
been wearing seatbelts, fewer would have been killed. We carefully examined this argument,
which seatbelt advocates have been making for years, and found it to be without
merit. (see "The Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere on this web site. 2. The
percentage of vehicle occupants killed wearing seatbelts varies from state to state and
ranges from around 47% to about 65%, according to the FARS data base. It is higher in
states that have primary seatbelt laws or where seatbelt laws are more rigidly enforced.
3. Most fatal accidents happen to reckless drivers (64% according to NHTSA) and reckless
drivers are less likely to wear seatbelts. 4. According to NHTSA, police reports about
seatbelts may not be reliable (see footnote in Traffic Safety Facts, put out by NHTSA). 5.
The figure of 65% not wearing seatbelts is not consistent with the national data.
2. "In 2007, sixty-one (61) people died after being ejected from their vehicles
during a roll-over crash because they were not wearing seatbelts."
Safetychoice comments: 1. From an exhaustive study of all the evidence, including the
FARS data base, published accident reports, photographs and physical analysis, we know
that a vehicle occupant has a better chance of surviving a roll-over if he is ejected than
of he is trapped in his vehicle by his seatbelt. 2. People who are trapped in their
vehicles by a seatbelt during a rollover are generally crushed or burned to death. 3.
Roll-overs ejections happen almost exclusively to people who are driving high c.g.
vehicles in a reckless manner. The average driver couldn't roll his car over if he tried.
3. An exhaustive examination of claims of ejection shows that most of these claims are
unverified and, in many cases, are physically improbable or even impossible.
3. "By adopting a primary seatbelt law, Arkansas can expect an increase in the use
of seatbelts by motorists of of approximately 12%"
Safetychoice comments: 1. There is no question that more rigid enforcement of seatbelt
laws results in higher seatbelt use. Because many people do not wish to use seatbelts
(which is wise of them) seatbelt use falls off when it is not enforced. 2. All
independent studies agree that enforcement of seatbelt laws results in a higher fatality
rate (see "The Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere on this web-site). 3. It is not
possible to predict the increase or decrease of seatbelt use to within plus or minus one
percent. The 12% figure is pure speculation.
4. "Adopting a primary seatbelt law could save as many as forty-seven (47) lives
each year, prevent approximately five hundred four (504) serious injuries each year, and
save an estimated one hundred four million dollars ($104,000,000) in economic costs each
year"
Safetychoice comment: This statement is totally and demonstrably false. (see "The
Truth About Seatbelts" elsewhere on this web-site.)
5. "The adoption of a primary seatbelt law will entitle the State of Arkansas to
receive approximately nine million five hundred thousand dollars ($9,500,000) in federal
grant funds to implement highway safety programs"
Safetychoice comments: 1. Now we see the real cause for this bill: NHTSA is offering
Arkansas a bribe of $9.2 million dollars to pass this law. 2. The so-called "highway
safety programs" referred to consist mainly of massive police harassment programs to
force people to wear seatbelts.
In addition to SB 78, SB 309 was also heard at the meting of the Arkansas state senate
transportation committee on February 16, 2009. This bill, which was the principal item of
business at a meeting at which many other bills were considered, relates to special
licenses for teenagers. While this bill is mainly obesessed with the issue of teenagers
using cell phones while driving, it also repeals the very strong and specific restriction
to secondary enforcement of the seatbelt law for holders of such licenses and their
passengers. (Similar bills are appearing in other state legislatures, almost identical in
wording, so it seems clear that these bills were written by NHTSA and sent out to various
legislators as "suggested legislation". While these bills are mainly about cell
phones, they all contain a provision to make the seatbelt law primary for drivers under 18
and their passengers. This is in line with the NHTSA policy of "gradualism" and
trying to sneak primary provisions into other bills.)
Kansas: The Kansas state senate passed SB 59, the primary seatbelt bill, on February
19, 2009, by a vote of 23 to 17, with a speed that is almost unprecedented and in
violation of all regular procedure. The sponsors know that they must get these bills
passed before the public finds out what is going on or face defeat. It's hard to
believe that this is the same Kansas where, two years ago, the senators were so enraged
when they found out the truth about seatbelts that they ordered the bill stricken from the
record. Assigned to House transportation committee, 2/24/09.
SB 59 was passed by the senate transportation committee on February 18, 2009. A note on
what went on there has now been published. One reads the proceedings with a certain
sadness because it is the same old story. The bill was "requested by the Kansas
Department of Transportation". Of course the reason they did it was because NHTSA
told them they could get over $11,000,000 if they got it passed. The witnesses at the
hearing were (you get one guess) the head of the State Department of Transportation, the
head of the Health Department, the Chief of the State Police, the Head of the Kansas
Association of Chiefs of Police, the Head of the Kansas Police Officers association and
the Head of the Kansas Nurses Association - in other words, all the people who would get
some of the money. Written testimony was received (according to the committee report) from
AAA Kansas, State Farm Insurance Company, and a local hospital. In addition, written
testimony was received from "SafeKids Kansas", and you can pretty well figure
out where that came from.
The report goes on to state "the points made by the conferees" (since this is
not a conference report the use of the term "conferees" is not clear) were (and
we paraphrase for brevity)
1. Kansas could get lots of money if they pass this bill.
2.Motor vehicle accidents cost Kansas an "estimated" $1.9 billion dollars a
year (a statement which is not relevant to the bill and is presented without evidence)
3. "Safety belt use is the single most effective countermeasure available to
passenger vehicle occupants in preventing fatalitites and injuries in traffic
crashes". (There are not words adequate to describe this statement. "Out and out
lie", "demonstrably false", "absurd on the face of it", would not
do it justice.)
4. Kansas seatbelt use is below the national average. (So what?)
NHTSA has offered Kansas a bribe of $11,665,000 to pass a primary seatbelt law. The
bill is SB 59. So far, no member has dared to put his name on it. The bill is simply
described as having been introduced by the senate transportation committee. There was a
hearing on this bill in the committee on January 29, 2009. In the past year,
Kansas collected 14,646 seatbelt fines at $30 a piece on secondary enforcement. It's clear
that if this bill were to pass, seatbelt citations would triple or quadruple and thus
represent a goldmine for the police.
North Dakota: The North Dakota House has defeated HB 1197 on second reading by a vote
of 58 to 34. The transportation committee of the House recommended "Do Not
Pass" on HB 1197. The vote was 8 to 6. One of those voting in the minority was
the sponsor of the bill, representative Gruchalla, a retired state trooper. HB 1197 would
make North Dakota's seatbelt law primary. There was a hearing on the bill in
North Dakota: The North Dakota House has defeated HB 1197 on second reading by a vote
of 58 to 34. The transportation committee of the House recommended "Do Not
Pass" on HB 1197. The vote was 8 to 6. One of those voting in the minority was
the sponsor of the bill, representative Gruchalla, a retired state trooper. HB 1197 would
make North Dakota's seatbelt law primary. There was a hearing on the bill in the House
Transportation Committee on January 30, 2009 at 9 a.m. This bill merely stated
that secondary enforcement is to be changed to primary.
Mississippi: SB 2599, SB 2252, HB 1583, and SB 2207 are all dead. All were killed
in committee on February 3, 2009. The word "dead" is printed in red on the
report. SB 2599 and HB 1583 would have limited the total amount that a violator of
the seatbelt law would have to pay to $25. It specifically mentioned court costs,
fees and local assessments, in addition to fines. Sent to transportation committee
on 1/22/09. SB 2207 would have extended the seatbelt requirement to all passenger
vehicles holding 15 passengers or less. SB2252 would have required seatbelts on all school
buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds. It seems as though the committees are saying
"We are sick and tired of seatbelt bills and we don't want to hear any more about
it". It's too bad they couldn't have decided this sooner.
Vermont: Someone has once again introduced a primary seatbelt law bill in Vermont. They
have done this every year for at least the last six years. So far, none of them have made
it out of committee. This bill is H 0147 and was sent to the transportation commiteee in
February 4, 2009. The bill contains various other provision (with regard to teen age
drivers and cell phones) but the principal one is to repeal the restriction to secondary
enforcement of the Vermont seatbelt law. This section contains the following provision:
"The state (of Vermont) is authorized to accept any additional funding from the
federal government attributable to the passage of this section". No fiscal statement
has been posted for this bill so we don't know how much NHTSA has offered Vermont to pass
this bill. (NHTSA actually has a formula to compute these proffered bribes for each state,
but we suspect they fudge it a little bit, depending on what they think their chances
are.)
Nevada: SB 116 was passed by the Nevada state senate on 2/24/09. The vote was 12 to 9.
SB 116 was recommended for passage by the senate transportation committe on 2/20/09.
As expected, NHTSA is back for another try in Nevada. SB 116 would make Nevada's seatbelt
law primary. Introduced and sent to committee on energy, infrastructure and transportation
on February 4, 2009. No sponsor is listed. Given the fact that this bill is about as
popular with the people of Nevada as Osama bin Laden, this is not surprising. This bill
merely amends the existing law by removing the limitation to secondary enforcement. No
word yet on how much NHTSA is offering Nevada this time to pass this bill.
Montana: The Montana state senate defeated SB 237, the primary seatbelt law bill, on a
tie vote, on February 5, 2009. They then proceeded to pass a resolution postponing further
consideration of this bill indefinitely. The resolution passed by a vote of 25 to 24. See
below for further details on this bill, which is now, hopefully, dead.
Minnesota: SF 0042 was "stricken and re-referred to finance (committee)" on
February 2, 2009. HF 0108 and SF 0042 would make Minnesota's seatbelt law primary. SF 0099
would impose Anton's law on Minnesota. Sent to transportation committee on 1/15/09.
SF 0042 passed second reading on 1/29/09 and was re-referred to the judiciary committee.
SF 0042 was passed by the transportation committee on 1/13/09 and
sent to judiciary which reported the bill out for second reading on 1/27/09. We watched
the transportation committee hearing on this bill. There were only two witnesses for this
bill, two ladies from a small medical college. Each of them spoke for only about a minute
and their testimony was somewhat vague and unenthusiastic. None of the senators made any
attempt to question the ladies or to detain them in any way. The rest of the meeting was
devoted to the senators themselves speaking in favor of the bill. What they
were saying was absurd on the face of it. One senator referred to an accident in which a
driver, "drunk and crazy", had rolled over an SUV at 84 miles per hour.
Therefore, he concluded, all persons should be forced to wear seatbelts. Another senator
said that even though the mail from her constituents had been overwhelmingly opposed to
this bill, she intended to vote for it anyway. Another senator gave it as his opinion that
"libertarians" should not be allowed to stand in the way of this bill.
During the course of the discussion it came out that NHTSA had offered Minnesota a bribe
of $3.4 million dollars to pass this bill and that most, or all of it would go to the
"Safety Council". In this connection, "Safety Council" usually means a
group of present or former state troopers whose main job is promoting the seatbelt scam.
After the other senators had had their say, one senator, who had not spoken previously,
asked, in effect "why are you doing this?" Her actual words were, "What do
you think the chances are of this bill actually passing? This seems to me to be a
perennial thing". The sponsor of the bill, Sen. Murphy, replied that "it
will be difficult with all these committees". A voice vote was then taken. It seemed
to us that, when the nos were called for, there was a faint "no", but we could
not be sure. The chairman looked startled, paused for an instant, and then declared the
bill passed. You can watch this hearing yourself by visiting:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/media/media_list.php?ls=86&archive_year=2009&category=committee&type=video#header
Florida: S 1404 would impose Anton's law on Florida. Sent to transportation commitee,
2/19/09. A hearing was scheduled for this bill on March 17, 2009 at 3:30 p.pm. in 37-S.
Arizona: HB 2211 491R would require lap belts on school buses. Read second time,
1/22/09 and assigned to transportation, education and rules committees. Why lap belts and
not shoulder belts is not explained.
Colorado: SB09-029 would require seatbelts on school buses. Sent to transportation
committee on 1/07/09. Passed by senate, 2/23/09. Sent to House education committee,
3/05/09.
Hawaii: HB 800, HB 176 and SB 146 would require seatbelts on school buses. HB 800 was
passed by the transportation commmitee on 2/2/09. HB 800 and HB 176 passed second
reading on 2/5/09. SB 146 was assigned to the tranportation and education committees on
1/26/09.
Florida: S 1404 would impose Anton's law on Florida. Sent to transportation commitee,
2/19/09. A hearing was scheduled for this bill on March 17, 2009 at 3:30 p.pm. in 37-S.
Arizona: HB 2211 491R would require lap belts on school buses. Read second time,
1/22/09 and assigned to transportation, education and rules committees. Why lap belts and
not shoulder belts is not explained.
Colorado: SB09-029 would require seatbelts on school buses. Sent to transportation
committee on 1/07/09. Passed by senate, 2/23/09. Sent to House education committee,
3/05/09.
Hawaii: HB 800, HB 176 and SB 146 would require seatbelts on school buses. HB 800 was
passed by the transportation commmitee on 2/2/09. HB 800 and HB 176 passed second
reading on 2/5/09. SB 146 was assigned to the tranportation and education committees on
1/26/09.
Illinois: HB 0166 and SB 0067 would require seatbelts on school buses. Sent to rules
committee on 1/14/09. HB 0166 was sent to the vehicles and safety committee on 2/4/09. SB
0067 was initially assigned to transportation which, apparently, refused to consider it.
On 3/05/09 it was assigned to the committee on special issues.
Iowa: HF 35 would require seatbelts on school buses. HF 19 would extend the seatbelt
requirement to rear seats. HF 35 was assigned to the transportation committee on 1/16/09.
HF 19 was assigned to the transportation committee on 1/15/09.
Maine: LD 221, SP 71 would exempt newspaper delivery persons from having to wear a
seatbelt. LD 263 would allow motorists exempted from having to wear a seatbelt for medical
reasons to display a placard to that effect on their vehicle. Both sent to transportation
committee on 1/27/09.
Michigan: HB 4028 would repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement. Sent to committee on
regulatory reform on 1/22/09. (Note: this bill says motorcyclists may wear a helmet if
they wish but are not required to).
Nebraska: LB 255 would require seatbelts on school buses. Hearing was scheduled for
2/17/09 in transportation committee.
Oklahoma: HB 2019 would require the driver of a school bus to wear a seatbelt. (Not the
passengers; just the driver). Sent to Rules, 2/03/09. HB 2268 would raise the
seatbelt fine by $5 to $25 and raise the age of children for which a seatbelt is required
from 13 to 16. Talk about gradualism! The sponsors claim this bill would raise $162,000
for the state of Oklahoma. This bill was postponed in committee on 3/5/09.
Oregon: HB 2499 would exempt motorcycle riders over 21 from having to wear a helmet. To
Transportation, 2/03/09.
South Carolina: S 0108 would make failure to wear a seatbelt admissible as evidence in
civil cases. (See Wyoming below). Many states have long had a provision making failure to
wear a seatbelt inadmissible as evidence in civil cases. These laws basically say that
whether or not a person was wearing a seatbelt in an automobile accident is
irrelevant where death, damage, or injury has occurred. Sent to judiciary committee,
1/13/09.
Montana: SB 237 has been defeated by the Montana state senate. Still, we thought
we would leave this up to show what sort of material NHTSA is sending to the states.
Remember, this was written by the bureaucrats at NHTSA, in Washington, D.C., under
pressure from senator Patty Murray, and not by anyone in Montana. The material below was
contained in the preamble to the bill, sent out as "suggested legislation" by
NHTSA.
"WHEREAS, Montana spends $36.7 million each year on direct health care costs for
patients who were unbelted and injured in motor vehicle crashes; and"
SafetyChoice Comment: 1. Notice the implication that the alleged expense is due to the
fact that the person was unbelted. Notice that they don't have the nerve to actually
come right out and say so. As they well know, and as we know from six years of research,
the implication is false. 2. They are still playing the numbers game, however,
hoping that no one will call them on it. No source is given for the dollar amount
stated. Nor do they say what they mean by "Montana", whether it is private
or public money. Notice they do not say "the government of Montana". As NHTSA
has a record of making false statements about statistical and financial data, this
figure must be viewed with grave suspicion. 3. In any case, the argument is monstrous. It
says that the state has the right to restrict the liberty of the people under the pretext
of saving a few dollars.
"WHEREAS, uninsured and Medicaid-covered unbelted occupants cost the state of
Montana over $14 million annually for hospital care of their preventable injuries;
and"
Safety Choice Comment: 1. Notice the attempt to create the false impression that the
injuries would have been less severe had the subject been wearing a seatbelt. Notice
that they are careful not to actually come right out and say so, however. They know,
as do we, that the implication is false. 2. No source or evidence is given for the stated
dollar amount, which must be viewed with grave suspicion for the reasons stated above. 3.
The overwhelming majority of motorists have health insurance, usually through a private
insurer. Their healthcare costs are, therefore, not the business of the state. 4. The
chance of an average driver being in an accident severe enough to require hospital care is
miniscule. The overwhelming majority of serious accidents happen to reckless
drivers. 5. The percentage of motorists uninsured and/or eligible for medicaid
is small. Yet all are to be forced to wear these dangerous devices.
"WHEREAS, unbelted occupants are more likely than belted occupants to require
hospitalization following a motor vehicle crash, with an average cost of $52,993;
and"
Safety Choice Comment: 1. The dollar figure is pure fabrication. Their data on
injury accidents is so bad it is all but worthless. There is no way they could have gotten
such a precise number from the available data. They simply made it up. 2. No
evidence is presented for the above statements. The severity of the injuries would depend
on the severity of the accident. Our research indicates that for any given accident, a
person wearing a seatbelt would suffer more severe injuries than a person who is
not. 3. Since most people pay their medical costs either out of their own pocket or
through private insurers the argument is a non sequitur. It is not the business of the
state.
"WHEREAS, the average unbelted occupant has a longer hospital stay, requires more
intensive care, and has hospital charges that are $16,573 higher than a belted occupant
who is hospitalized; and"
Safety Choice Comment: This is pure fabrication. The only global data they have on
injury accidents is the so-called General Estimate System, and that is such a mass of
confusion and contradiction that it is all but worthless. Think of the gall of these
con artists, the contempt they must have for the intelligence of the average legislator,
to make up these numbers and these assertions and present them as fact.
"WHEREAS, Montana is the only state in which the child restraint law can only be
enforced secondary to some other traffic violation; and"
Safety Choice Comment: While severe or fatal injuries to small children in traffic
accidents are rare, this provision is particularly vicious,
Georgia: Pre-filed bills: HB 22 would require seatbelts in pickup trucks and rear
seats. Second reading, 1/15/09. SB 5 would extend the seatbelt requirement to all
occupants of vehicles holding ten passengers or less. Second reading, 1/18/09.
Massachusetts: Last year the Massachusetts state legislature passed a bill which
exempts side facing seats on antique automobiles from the seatbelt requirement.
New York: A00873 would require booster seats in taxis, S00152 would require seatbelts
in school buses, S00226 would require seatbelts in school buses and for rear seat
passengers. All three bills were sent to the transportation committee on 1/07/09.
New seatbelt commercials. NHTSA has begun airing a new series of seatbelt commercials.
We should not be surprised because they are required to do this by law and, because the
congress is funding the government by continuing resolution, the money just keeps flowing
in. In their previous series, which as a long time ago now, they had given up making
claims for seatbelts and resorted instead to threatening people with the police. In
this new series, however, they have thrown all caution to the winds and have
reverted back to the big lie technique. This undoubtedly reflects the decision of
the new acting administrator, Mr. David Kelly. Given Mr. Kelly's background, we should not
be surprised.
Seatbelt whiplash: An interesting story on ABC news on December 23, 2008.
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6515671&page=1 A car slammed into a dump truck.
The neck of a nine year old boy sitting in the back seat, strapped in by a seatbelt, was
broken as a result of his head having snapped forward. The story gives few details, but
the accident must have taken place at a relatively low speed because the mother was not,
apparently, seriously injured. The story dwells on the fact that the doctors were able to
save the child's life even though such injuries are usually fatal. The story is important
because of the dearth of real world data on this type of accident. It shows that even in
the type of accident for which NHTSA promotes seatbelts, even at low speed, the whiplash
alone can prove fatal to a child.
Note: Since younger children are more vulnerable to such injuries, and booster seats
strap the child in more firmly than seatbelts, this story illustrates the extreme danger
that booster seats pose to small children in the type of accident envisaged by NHTSA. (cf.
"Anton's Law").
Arizona: HB 2211 491R would require lap
belts on school buses. Read second time, 1/22/09 and assigned to transportation, education
and rules committees. Why lap belts and not shoulder belts is not explained.
Hawaii: HB 800, HB 176 and SB 146 would
require seatbelts on school buses. HB 800 was passed by the transportation commmitee
on 2/2/09. HB 800 and HB 176 passed second reading on 2/5/09. SB 146 was assigned to the
tranportation and education committees on 1/26/09.
Iowa: HF 35 would require seatbelts on
school buses. HF 19 would extend the seatbelt requirement to rear seats. HF 35 was
assigned to the transportation committee on 1/16/09. HF 19 was assigned to the
transportation committee on 1/15/09.
Michigan: HB 4028 would repeal the
motorcycle helmet requirement. Sent to committee on regulatory reform on 1/22/09. (Note:
this bill says motorcyclists may wear a helmet if they wish but are not required to).
Nebraska: LB 255 would require seatbelts on
school buses. Hearing was scheduled for 2/17/09 in transportation committee.
Oklahoma: HB 2019 would require the driver
of a school bus to wear a seatbelt. (Not the passengers; just the driver). Sent to Rules,
2/03/09. HB 2268 would raise the seatbelt fine by $5 to $25 and raise the age
of children for which a seatbelt is required from 13 to 16. Talk about gradualism! The
sponsors claim this bill would raise $162,000 for the state of Oklahoma. This bill was
postponed in committee on 3/5/09.
Oregon: HB 2499 would exempt motorcycle
riders over 21 from having to wear a helmet. To Transportation, 2/03/09.
South Carolina: S 0108 would make failure to
wear a seatbelt admissible as evidence in civil cases. (See Wyoming below). Many states
have long had a provision making failure to wear a seatbelt inadmissible as evidence in
civil cases. These laws basically say that whether or not a person was wearing a
seatbelt in an automobile accident is irrelevant where death, damage, or injury has
occurred. Sent to judiciary committee, 1/13/09.
Georgia: Pre-filed bills: HB 22 would
require seatbelts in pickup trucks and rear seats. Second reading, 1/15/09. SB 5 would
extend the seatbelt requirement to all occupants of vehicles holding ten passengers or
less. Second reading, 2/18/09.
Massachusetts: Last year the Massachusetts
state legislature passed a bill which exempts side facing seats on antique automobiles
from the seatbelt requirement.
New York: A00873 would require booster seats
in taxis, S00152 would require seatbelts in school buses, S00226 would require seatbelts
in school buses and for rear seat passengers. All three bills were sent to the
transportation committee on 1/07/09.
Wisconsin: On June 30, 2009. Governor Doyle
signed AB-75, the Wisconsin state budget bill, as submitted by the governor and
passed by the legislature. It turns out that buried deep inside this huge bill, in small
print, was a provision to make Wisconsin's seatbelt law primary. Even finding the
bill number containing this provision was a challenge, because Wisconsin's legislative
website is unique in making it almost impossible to find anything. Here is what the notice
said, when we finally found it:
Safety belt law primary enforcement authorized,
forfeiture increased [Sec. 2991, 2992, 9350 (4), 9450 (6); Enrolled AB-75: forfeiture
increase removed, specified as being mandatory, federal incentive grant provision,
efective date, 9150 (5c), (14q), 9450 (6q), (7q)]............AB-75
The key to this is the phrase "federal incentive grant
provision". Because the fine is set so low, it is clear that the reason the provision
was included in the budget was to get whatever bribe NHTSA offered Wisconsin to include
this provision. No doubt the actual amount is buried somewhere deep inside the budget, but
so far we have not been able to find it.
Pennsylvania: On April 22, 2009, the House
debated HB 0067. This bill adds further lengthy, detailed, and convoluted requirements to
what teenagers may or may not do while driving a car. It also extends the seatbelt
requirement to trucks, vans, motor homes and antique cars. The debate was lengthy and
heated. A motion offered by representative Geist to recommit the bill to the
transportation committee failed by a vote of 97 to 101. Geist asked the House to
reconsider and the motion failed on reconsideration by just one vote - 98 to 99. The
question of constitutionality was raised on one of the amendments. The bill passed the
House on 4/27/09 and was sent to the senate transportation committee on 5/01/09.
Alaska: The SB 72 House committee
substitute was agreed to by the senate on 4/27/09. NHTSA promised Alaska $194,235 if
they pass this bill. This is out of the $7,000,000 appropriated by Patty Murray for
Anton's law. SB 72 would basically impose Anton's law on Alaska along with detailed
requirements on where and how a child is to be secured depending on age, height, weight,
etc. They presumably got these loony ideas from NHTSA. It is a pity that, where the lives
of children are concerned, legislators do not understand that NHTSA knows even less about
it than they do, and is endangering, not protecting, the lives of their children. In
general, where matters of life and death are concerned, it would be better if legislators
did not rely on the advice of ignorant politicians and bureaucrats, no matter how well
meaning.
Illinois: HB 0166 and SB 0067 would require
seatbelts on school buses. HB 0166 was rereferred to the rules committee on 3/13 under
rule 19a. Originally sent to rules committee on 1/14/09. HB 0166 was sent to the vehicles
and safety committee on 2/4/09. SB 0067 was initially assigned to transportation which,
apparently, refused to consider it. On 3/05/09 it was assigned to the committee on special
issues. On 4/03/09 it was re-referred to the rules committee.
Maryland: SB 189 passed by senate 46 to 0 on
2/26/09. Sent to House committee on environmental matters (sic), 2/27/09. SB 189 would
exempt school buses from the seatbelt requirement. There was a hearing on this bill
in the House environmental affairs committee on March 31, 2009. No report. (Note: this
bill passed the senate last year but it died in the House).
Colorado: Sanity prevails in Colorado. The
school bus seatbelt bill, SB09-029, has been "postponed indefinitely". SB09-029
would require seatbelts on school buses. Sent to transportation committee on 1/07/09.
Passed by senate, 2/23/09. Sent to House education committee, 3/05/09.
Texas: HB 529 is Anton's law. SB 61 is the
same as HB 529. HB 529 was "left pending" in the transportation committee on
3/3/09, which means that Anton's law is probably dead in Texas, at least for this year. HB
537 would penalize "a person" for allowing a passenger less than 17 years of age
to ride in a van without wearing a seatbelt. Which person is not stated. Sent to
transportation committee, 2/18/09.
Wyoming: HB 0310 missed the cutoff date and
hence is now dead. HB 0310 would have made the Wyoming seatbelt law primary.
Referred to the transportion committee on February 3, 2009. HB 0126 died in committee. The
vote was 9 to 0. HB 0126 would have repealed the ban on introducing evidence regarding
failure to wear a seatbelt in civil cases. What is significant about this is that
Wyoming has such a ban. So do many other states.
Arkansas: Governor Beebe has, apparently,
either signed or not vetoed SB 78, the primary seatbelt law bill. Under Arkansas law, a
bill becomes law if, within five days of being presented to him, the governor does not
veto it. SB 309 has also become law, either with or without the governor's
signature. (See below for details).
South Dakota: The South Dakota legislature
has adjourned without pass SB 79. On March 2, 2009, the judiciary committee of the South
Dakota House of Representatives rejected SB 79 by a vote of 9 to 4. SB 79 would make South
Dakota's seatbelt law primary. Passed by senate on 2/03/09, by a vote of 21 to 13.
This bill makes no claims for seatbelts but simply removes the restriction to secondary
enforcement in the existing law. A similar bill, SB 103, was, apparently, set aside in
favor of SB 79.
North Dakota: The North Dakota House has
defeated HB 1197 on second reading by a vote of 58 to 34. The transportation committee of
the House recommended "Do Not Pass" on HB 1197. The vote was 8 to 6.
One of those voting in the minority was the sponsor of the bill, representative Gruchalla,
a retired state trooper. HB 1197 would make North Dakota's seatbelt law primary. There was
a hearing on the bill in the House Transportation Committee on January 30, 2009 at 9
a.m. This bill merely stated that secondary enforcement is to be changed to primary.
Mississippi: SB 2599, SB 2252, HB
1583, and SB 2207 are all dead. All were killed in committee on February 3, 2009. The word
"dead" is printed in red on the report. SB 2599 and HB 1583 would have
limited the total amount that a violator of the seatbelt law would have to pay to $25. It
specifically mentioned court costs, fees and local assessments, in addition to
fines. Sent to transportation committee on 1/22/09. SB 2207 would have
extended the seatbelt requirement to all passenger vehicles holding 15 passengers or less.
SB2252 would have required seatbelts on all school buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds.
It seems as though the committees are saying "We are sick and tired of seatbelt bills
and we don't want to hear any more about it". It's too bad they couldn't have decided
this sooner.
New Hampshire: HB 383: In an unparalled act
of wickness and folly, the New Hampshire House of Representatives, on April 9, 2009,
passed a primary seatbelt law. Mercifully, the New Hampshire state senate has laid the
bill on the table. This usually means the bill is dead, but theoretically the bill can be
taken off the table at any time. Contrary to the usual practice in New Hampshire, the gang
of scoundrels who sponsored this bill did not include a fiscal impact statement. NHTSA
must have offered them millions of dollars to pass this bill, because getting a primary
seatbelt law passed in New Hampshire would be the greatest triumph of Dave Kelly's life.
We trust that the senate is not going to take this bill off the table, but we are going to
continue to watch this situation very carefully.
Nevada: The motion to
pass SB 116, the Nevada primary seatbelt law bill, failed in the Assembly
transportation committee on April 23, 2009, on a voice vote. SB 116 was passed by the
Nevada state senate on 2/24/09. The vote was 12 to 9. SB 116 was recommended for passage
by the senate transportation committe on 2/20/09. As expected, NHTSA came back for
another try in Nevada. Introduced and sent to committee on energy, infrastructure
and transportation on February 4, 2009. No sponsor was listed. Given the fact that this
bill is about as popular with the people of Nevada as Osama bin Laden, this is not
surprising. This bill would amend the existing law by removing the limitation to
secondary enforcement.
The summary of this bill states that it will have no fiscal effect on
either state or local government, a statement which is patently false. The reason this
bill was introduced is because NHTSA offered Nevada millions of dollars to pass it.
The minutes of the senate transportation committee hearing on this bill
have now been posted. The strategy of the proponents at this hearing was to absolutely
swamp the committee with the number of witnesses, mainly from the police departement and
the health department, the two agencies which would get most of the money. Their testimony
was such a mass of falsehoods and absurdities as to defy description. We will quote just
one example for the amusement of engineers. One lady senator, testifying for the bill,
stated that she was rear ended but that she was saved by her seatbelt and air bag. She
added that the responding police officer told her that if she hadn't been wearing her
seatbelt she would have been thrown through the wind shield.
West Virginia:
The West Virginia state legislature has adjourned without passing SB
336, the primary seatbelt law bill. The West Virginia senate passed SB 336 by a vote of 38
to 2 on 3/27/09. This represented the first time in six years that such a bill has
even made it out of committee in West Virginia. It's clear that NHTSA made an all
out effort to get this bill passed in West Virginia this year.
Vermont: H.0147 has been assigned to the
rules committee in the Vermont state senate. H.0147, which would make Vermont's seatbelt
law primary, was passed by the Vermont House of Representatives on April 15, 2009 by
a vote of 104 to 40. This bill is primarily about regulating the use of cell phones
in automobiles but, slipped into the middle, is a brief paragraph making Vermont's
seatbelt law primary. No justification is given, but a subsequent clause states that the
state shall be entitled to accept money from the federal government for making the
seatbelt law primary. Thus, the House has infringed on the liberty of the people, and put
their lives at risk, in return for thirty pieces of silver. We thank representative
Rodgers for his courageous fight against this bill.
Maine: LD 221, SP 71 was passed by the House
on 4/09/09 and by the senate on 1/14/09. This bill would exempt newspaper delivery persons
from having to wear a seatbelt. LD 263 would allow motorists exempted from having to wear
a seatbelt for medical reasons to display a placard to that effect on their vehicle. This
bill was passed by the House on 4/09/09 but has been held up in the senate by senator
Damon. This is the same senator Damon who, as chairman of the transportation committee was
largely responsible, along with senator Sullivan and governor Baldacci, for Maine's
primary seatbelt law. We wrote to senator Damon at the time, so he is in full posession of
the facts.
More 2009 legislation:
Arkansas: SB 78 was passed by the senate
transportation committee on February 16, 2009. SB 78 would make Arkansas' seatbelt
law primary. The preface to this bill, which was drafted by NHTSA, contains
the usual false and misleading statements. For the details on the lies, fraud and deceit
which was used to get this bill through, see leg2009.htm
Kansas: SB 59, the primary seatbelt law bill, is now
officially dead. For details on how the seatbelt scammers attempted to get this bill
through, see leg2009.htm
Montana: The Montana state senate defeated
SB 237, the primary seatbelt law bill, on a tie vote, on February 5, 2009. They then
proceeded to pass a resolution postponing further consideration of this bill indefinitely.
The resolution passed by a vote of 25 to 24.
For more on the sordid story of this bill, visit leg2009.htm
Note: With the principal legislative season in the states now
over, we have now moved most of the 2009 legislative news into a separate web page.
Visit leg2009.htm