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 HB 0126 would have repealed the ban on introducing evidence regarding failure to wear a seatbelt in civil cases.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").
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).