I fought the law: beat a ticket? [Archive]

TimElhajj

06-19-2002, 10:06 PM

It's off topic, but I am completely pissed. I was stopped me for not wearing a seat belt. I can't believe it. Of all the stupid things to waste my time with, this just takes the cake.

I looked up the citation on line: RCW 46.61.688. (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/rcw%20-%20text/title_46/chapter_061/rcw_46_61_688.txt)

It says that, "(7) Enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of Title 46 RCW or an equivalent local ordinance or some other offense.

I think that means that this officer did not have a right to stop me. When I asked him, he told me he was stopping me for the seatbelt and it's the only thing he wrote on my ticket. I wonder if this is grounds to beat this ticket? I have looked on line and they say it is difficult to get out of a ticket on a technicality, like the officer wrote the wrong license plate number, etc. But this seems beyond a technicality and more like the officer didn't understand the law. Anyone ever run into anything similar? What do you think my chances might be?

Apparently there is a huge campaign in WA state to combat not wearing seatbelts. Since I rarely watch TV, I had no idea. I just think it's incredibly unfair. I usually always wear my seatbelt. I have kids! But I can't believe they are actually paying people to harrass me this way. Talk about pissing in a guy's corn flakes.

Murph

06-19-2002, 10:11 PM

If it makes you feel any better (but I know it won't), we got stopped yesterday because our tag lights -- the ones that illuminate our license plate -- were out. My wife was furious that he wasted his -- and our -- time over such a little thing.

He didn't write us a ticket, though...That would have made things seem more relavent to this thread...

I'm certainly no expert, but it sounds like he shouldn't have been able to stop you for that, Tim. What the does to your chances of beating the ticket, I don't know. How much would the fine be to just pay it? You'll have a court cost, regardless, which generally runs about $25...It might not be that much more expensive to just pay the fine.

TimElhajj

06-19-2002, 10:32 PM

Court costs? I have never done anything like this before, so I assume you are correct, but that just seems over the top. I have to take off work to fight this, and I have to pay court costs too? Oiy. Do they make you pay it win or lose? That's just very annoying.

Anyhow--it's an $86 ticket. Not a huge amount, but enough to get my attention.

Murph

06-19-2002, 11:08 PM

Eighty-six bucks!! For not wearing a seat-belt!! Wow! We've got a big "wear your seatbelt" push around here, too, but I don't think it's that high! (Could be wrong...)

I assume it's the same everywhere, but I got stopped one time, and didn't have insurance on me -- I hadn't gotten my verification papers, even though I'd renewed. Anyhoo, I just went up there with my insurance verification, and the judge threw out the ticket, but I still had to pay a $25 court cost. Yup, win or lose, you have to pay a court fee -- here, at least.

So, if it's the same there, ask yourself whether it's worth taking off work to save the sixty bucks. (It probably would be to me!)

I'd probably fight it. If you "win", you pay court costs, and that's it. If you lose, you pay the fine plus court costs -- which here, would amount to $111. I think it would be worth the risk to try and fight it, though. It would be to me, I think, if I felt like I had a shot.

But wait until some of the real law-savvy guys show up, and see what they say. I'm just going on my extremely limited experience and knowledge.

Brad Grenz

06-19-2002, 11:21 PM

Like Murph says, depending on how much you might potentially lose from lost work, I'd at least go to court and tell the judge what you found. They will probably throw it out. You may owe a court fee, but maybe not. We don't have them where we live. I've found most judges I've seen over minor traffic infractions to be incredibly reasonable.

Jason McCullough

06-19-2002, 11:48 PM

Fuck it, stand up for yourself and tell the law to eat a dick. Search around, there's really cheap ways to contest, especially when the law is so blatantly clear.

Even if you don't win, you'll get a very satisfying disciplinary action started against the officer.

Ben Sones

06-20-2002, 04:07 AM

I'd fight it. I find seat belt laws highly distasteful; I don't need the government to legally enforce crap like that. If I want to be an idiot and not wear a seatbelt, what business is it of theirs? The only person I stand to hurt is myself. I consider laws like that to be little more than harassment, and a waste of police manpower and taxpayer dollars.

Contest it!

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 08:23 AM

Yep, you should definitely fight the ticket. Sounds like he had no right to pull you over for that.

But why the hell weren't you wearing your seat belt in the first place? After years of wearing one, I feel totally weird driving without one and just naturally always wear it.

Ben, there is some cost to society when people don't wear their seat belts. Often natural selection does its job, but some of the idiots aren't killed by in the wrecks, just severely injured. And since it's generally lower social classes (and Tim :twisted:) who aren't smart enough to strap in, the social infrastructure ends up paying to keep these people alive in the hospital after they get extreme injuries, since our health system will treat people in accidents whether or not they have the means to pay.

So sometimes the government has to play big brother to the proletariat so we don't all end up paying for their lack of sense of self-preservation.

Menzo

06-20-2002, 08:26 AM

No offense, but you guys know that you're being a serious retard by not wearing your seatbelt, right? Have you ever seen video of a crash when one or more occupants isn't wearing one? They literally become a bullet and bounce all around the car cabin, potentially causing VERY VERY serious injury to the others in the car, who might have actually been smart and put on their belt.

Of course I agree that in this case you should probably fight the ticket if it's worth your time. But seriously, put the damn thing on - it's one of the easiest ways to dramatically lower your risk of death at any given time, besides simply not leaving your house.

And it sets a good example for any children who might ride with you.

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 09:06 AM

Well if you wear your seatbelt most of the time and didn't have it on for some reason than I think you may be able to fight it on your own ethical grounds, but if you don't typically wear one, then you're a moron.

That being said, the reason why they enforce it is manyfold: personal safety, safety of others, reinforcement of the safety of others (namely children), reduce insurance rates, reduce health costs, and save money in general. If you only just slightly think about any of those than it'd probably make sense for you to wear your seatbelt, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you or how weird a tan it gives you, driving shirtless, in the West Viriginia outback.

--- Alan

draziw

06-20-2002, 09:45 AM

They have changed the law in WA, they now (as of last Thursday) have the right to pull over and ticket based only on seatbelts. So I don't think you'll have much luck in court, unfortunately. And be thankful you've avoided the "Click it or Ticket" advertizing blitz.

Jason Levine

06-20-2002, 10:45 AM

I'm not familiar with Washington state law, but if it's similar to Illinois, individual municipalties can and do pass stricter enforcement ordinances than the state law. The municipality I live in, has a primary enforcement (they don't have to pull you over for another infraction first) of the seat belt law ordinance, while many other municipalities don't.

As for your wearing or not wearing a seat belt being my business: You get injured and require hospital treatment the my insurance premiums suffer an incremental hit. I have a lot of sympathy for the "it's my life" libertarian point of view, but it ignores the fact that we live in the mass society of the 21st century where the damage that you do to yourself does have an effect on your fellow citizens. It's not like colonial days where if you got kicked in the head by your horse, the only one hurt was you.

Alan Au

06-20-2002, 10:56 AM

*insert comment here about laws designed to protect people against themselves*

:roll:

- Alan

Pie4Foo

06-20-2002, 11:29 AM

Apparently there is a huge campaign in WA state to combat not wearing seatbelts.

They have a huge campaign going on here in Georgia, too. I've heard, however, that the campaign has less to do with seatbelts, and more to do with just an excuse to pull more people over (DUI, check insurance and other items for certain counties to meet a revenue quota).

However, I don't think it's an entirely bad thing. I do think wearing seatbelts is important enough to warrant a ticket, however much Smokey could be out doing more important things.

noun

06-20-2002, 11:39 AM

Hey Tim, I'm afraid they've been talking about this campaign in the newspapers and on the radio almost non-stop for the past month. I haven't researched the law myself, but if it really has been changed and it's not just media propaganda, I'd say your chances are slim to none for beating this thing.

Besides, between I-695 and the missing billions sunk into light rail, the state needs to do something to regain revenue. ;)

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 12:38 PM

Ben Sones

06-20-2002, 01:02 PM

the social infrastructure ends up paying to keep these people alive in the hospital after they get extreme injuries, since our health system will treat people in accidents whether or not they have the means to pay.

That's a really slippery slope, though--one that ultimately leads to a world where the government mandates all sorts of goofy things "for our own good." Like cracking down on cigarettes, even though every smoker living on the planet today realizes that they smoke at the expense of their health. What's next? A ban on fast food? Heart disease kills more people each year than smoking and auto accidents combined.

For the record, I always wear my seatbelt. But if, for some insane reason, I decided to take it off and go for a drive, I would not take kindly to getting slapped with a fine when the only person that stands to be injured by my actions is me. That's just wrong, and nonsensical. It's like giving someone the death penalty for attempted suicide.

Ben Sones

06-20-2002, 01:07 PM

Alan Au

06-20-2002, 01:12 PM

If the government really wants to get people to wear seatbelts, they should just legislate that you're automatically at fault in an accident if you aren't wearing one. That'll fix the problem in a hurry.

- Alan

Jason Levine

06-20-2002, 01:19 PM

If you hit my car and I'm wearing a seatbelt, I might still die. So what then? ... You can't fix a flawed system by adding more nonsensical rules.

But the chances that you'll die are significantly less if you're wearing the seat belt than if you're not. I don't see anything nonensical about that.

TimElhajj

06-20-2002, 02:11 PM

>And it sets a good example for any children who might ride with you.

To be honest, this is the main reason I wear my seatbelt. My kids are always quick to remind me if I forget, and it's very difficult to get them to cooperate if I don't set a good example.

TimElhajj

06-20-2002, 02:17 PM

> Hey Tim, I'm afraid they've been talking about this campaign in the newspapers and on the radio almost non-stop for the past month.

noun,

Yes, so I've been told. I rarely watch the TV anymore as I am attempting to do a lot of self-study these past few months.

However, I looked the statue up and posted it earlier in this thread. It says it's effective until 7/1/02; after that there is a change to the primary provision, but it seems to apply only to kids in child safty seats.

Any idea where I can find on-line this new law, or at the very least, the reference to it going into effect on Thursday? I would really appreciate it.

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 02:36 PM

86 bucks!! that is nuts. in md its 25$ and they CAN pull you over just to write you a citation for not wearing your seatbelt, dunno how it is where you live but I can tell you this... the only reason why people go to court for traffic tickets is to beat the points, there is no fucking way you will ever not pay money to the court. So unless you are unemployed bored and enjoy being in the same rooms with cops and judges who make you wait 45 minutes I would say pay the money and considered yourself one more in the long line of the fucked :)

Always remember the govt is here to make sure you do not hurt yourself. It is the true meaning of liberty.

Jason Levine

06-20-2002, 02:41 PM

Any idea where I can find on-line this new law, or at the very least, the reference to it going into effect on Thursday? I would really appreciate it

WA ST 46.61.688 (effective until July 1, 2002)

3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.

...

(7) Enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of Title 46 RCW or an equivalent local ordinance or some other offense.

WA ST 46.61.688 (effective July 1, 2002)

(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.

(4) No person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either: (a) Wearing a safety belt assembly or (b) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.

(7) Except for subsection (4)(b) of this section, which must be enforced as a primary action, enforcement of this section by law enforcement officers may be accomplished only as a secondary action when a driver of a motor vehicle has been detained for a suspected violation of Title 46 RCW or an equivalent local ordinance or some other offense.

Under either provision, if you were stopped only for the seat belt offense, the ticket would be beatable.

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 02:54 PM

If I hit your car and you die, then it's my problem, regardless whether or not I'm at fault.

Yeah, I guess it is. And if a meteor hits you on the head, it's also your problem. I'm not sure why people persist in believing that the government can legislate all the risk out of life. If you hit my car and I'm wearing a seatbelt, I might still die. So what then? If the accident truly is not your fault, then ideally you would not be held accountable for my death. If you were held accountable, then that's a problem with the legal system, not with my personal choice to wear a seatbelt (or not). You can't fix a flawed system by adding more nonsensical rules.

Not my point. I have to live with the fact a direct action of mine killed someone, regardless of the law. So I'd prefer you wear a seatbelt, thanks.

It took laws to get carmakers to put them in, and laws to get people to use them. Neither is a bad thing and don't infringe on anyone's personal rights, since driving a car isn't a right, it's a privelege.

How about they put it in the requirement to carry a driver's license? If you don't wear seatbelts, they take your license away from you? There are "laws" with every other type of license.

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 03:37 PM

I always wear a seat belt, because it's what your supposed to do, right? I recently read a book called darwins blade by dan simmons. It's fiction, but based on his brothers experiences as an accident investigator. An interesting idea from there is most accident investigators turn off their air bags and don't wear seat belts, because they think it's safer not to.

TimElhajj

06-20-2002, 05:16 PM

>Under either provision, if you were stopped only for the seat belt offense, the ticket would be beatable.

Yep, that's what I think to, Jason. There is some rumor of the law being changed just this year so that now they can pull you over for not wearing a seatbelt as a primary offence. Apparently it went into effect on 13 June 02. So far, however, I have not been able to dig up the actual text.

You would think that they would be required to post it somewhere.

Biyobi

06-20-2002, 05:45 PM

I got pulled over once for "California stopping" (rolling through a stop sign). Rather than cite me for that (a moving violation) he cited me for the cheaper not wearing my seatbelt. He made a friend that day I can tell you. :D

The cop may have been cutting you some slack. He probably could have cited you for something else but if your record is relatively clean they'll sometimes let you off with this "warning".

Anonymous

06-20-2002, 06:59 PM

You would think that they would be required to post it somewhere.

Actually, they are. A law that's not published is not enforceable. And I checked the Washington statutes, and there is no other seat belt law. So the rumor is just that. Besides, according to your initial post, the only provision you were charged with violating is the one I quoted. If the officer didn't pull you over for something else, your ticket is bogus.

Jason Levine

06-20-2002, 07:04 PM

Oops, that last post was mine. Forgot to log in. I'll get used to this forum software one of these days.

Ben Sones

06-20-2002, 08:28 PM

But the chances that you'll die are significantly less if you're wearing the seat belt than if you're not. I don't see anything nonensical about that.

The nonsensical part is where the hypothetical second party is held responsible for my death when the responsibility clearly lies with my sorry non-seatbelt-wearing ass.

I have to live with the fact a direct action of mine killed someone, regardless of the law.

If you were at fault in the accident, perhaps so. If you are suggesting that I should be legally forced to wear a seatbelt against my will simply so that you don't have to feel guilty if you kill me in a car accident... well, we're back to nonsensical again.

It took laws to get carmakers to put them in

If people wanted them, then they would have been put in anyway, at least as an option. Car makers cater to the whims of the consumer. If people don't want them, then what is the point of writing laws and forcing car makers to spend money to add a feature to every car that many people don't even use (which then requires that we pass additional laws requiring them to use them)?

since driving a car isn't a right, it's a privelege.

It's not either one, definitively. Various court decisions have come down on both sides of the issue. Some courts have defined it as a privilege, some courts have upheld it as a right.

How about they put it in the requirement to carry a driver's license? If you don't wear seatbelts, they take your license away from you? There are "laws" with every other type of license.

I'm not interested in the semantics of how it is restricted--I don't think it should be restricted in any way, for the reasons I stated. I am in favor of licensing regulations that ensure that people do not act in ways that endanger others, but the only person endangered by Joe Driver not wearing his seatbelt is Joe Driver. It's a dumb choice--who would choose not to wear their seatbelt? But it still should be his choice, simply because there is no just reason to deny it.

Alan Au

06-20-2002, 10:04 PM

I personally don't think there should be laws enforcing seatbelt use (for adults) for the same reason I don't think there should be motorcycle helmet laws. Then again, I'm probably just being cynical. ;)

- Alan

TimElhajj

06-20-2002, 11:26 PM

Actually, they are. A law that's not published is not enforceable.

Thanks Jason. I knew it was you.

I am this close -><- to checking off the box that says I'm fighting it, and then sending it in. I am mainly fighting it because it looks like I have a decent chance of winning and the fine is outrageously high.

If I lose I will at least make them listen to me complain about the cost of the fine.

Jason McCullough

06-21-2002, 01:36 AM

'If people wanted them, then they would have been put in anyway, at least as an option. Car makers cater to the whims of the consumer. If people don't want them, then what is the point of writing laws and forcing car makers to spend money to add a feature to every car that many people don't even use (which then requires that we pass additional laws requiring them to use them)?'

You know, I kind of agree with this. As another data point, though, do you remember what the detroit auto companies suggested be done to cut down on auto fatalities, pre-Nader?

Rather than build safer cars, they insisted the government should cut down all trees within 500 feet of a road.

I swear I'm not making that up. Some markets don't properly work.

Murph

06-21-2002, 01:43 AM

Rather than build safer cars, they insisted the government should cut down all trees within 500 feet of a road.

Heh...That sounds like how my company thinks!

Jason Levine

06-21-2002, 06:57 AM

"Some markets don't properly work."

Yes, that's the problem with leaving it to choice. People think that it's always going to happen to the other guy, not to them. (And, parenthetically and off topic, I'll add that the proliferation of SUVs has lead to the proliferation of idiots who think they're invulnerable in them.) Maybe it's because of my wife's and my connection to the health care industry. I've seen rehab hospitals full of people who thought they were such excellent drivers that they would never have an accident.

And I still take issue with Ben's statement that the only one being hurt is the driver who chooses not to wear a seat belt. My wife and I both have perfect driving records, but our auto insurance premiums are going up about 15% this year. I could be cynical and lay that off on the venality of the insurance industry, but the data shows that they are paying out more in claims. People who don't wear seat belts are more likely to have costly insurance claims than people who don't. Your decision not to wear your seat belt hurts me where it counts: In the wallet.

DennyA

06-21-2002, 08:07 AM

See, Ben's a pretty hardcore Libertarian.

I think Libertarianism is wonderful in concept.

But in reality, a huge percentage of humanity is either self-absorbed (only concered about themselves and their immediate family), unintellectual, or even evil. This sort of thing makes Libertarian ideals unworkable. Go to a Libertarian system and "everyone screws it up for the rest of us."

So in the end, I think we're left with either legistating seat belt use, or insisting that anyone who doesn't wear a seat belt must drive a Corvair.

TimElhajj

06-21-2002, 08:39 AM

The change to this law that I was hearing rumors about is true.

It's not easy to understand when you see it in print. If you go to search.leg.wa.gov and look for house bill 1460 you can see it. Basically the change is just that they enclosed paragraph 7, which talks about the provision being a secondary law, with the symbols (({- and -})). These marks and the minus sign indicate that section has been deleted. And then the next paragraph is enclosed with {+ (8) +} to indicate text that has been added. In this case the paragraphs have simply been renumbered.

I am bummed.

The upside is that this has been an interesting discussion. I think I would rather have kept my $86 bucks, though.

Dave Long

06-21-2002, 08:45 AM

I dunno...it's such a new law and apparently it wasn't publicized very well or you'd not have gotten caught, eh? I'd still fight it.

--Dave

Jason Levine

06-21-2002, 09:01 AM

Don't get too bummed. The change eliminating the secondary enforcement provision doesn't take effect until July 1, 2002. So it doesn't apply to your ticket.

Xaroc

06-21-2002, 09:54 AM

86 bucks!! that is nuts. in md its 25$ and they CAN pull you over just to write you a citation for not wearing your seatbelt, ...

I am in MD as well and they made this change a while back. And $86 is usurious<sp?>. The most I have paid for a speeding ticket in MD is around $75.

BTW, don't speed in PA (or invest in a good radar detector) their fines are stupid high. I remember getting caught for a 10-15 mph over the speed limit there when I was in college and getting a ticket for well over $100. I think speeding tickets and tickets of most kinds are just a selective tax to begin with. Looks like the selective tax rates in PA and WA are both too damn high.

-- Xaroc

Lando

06-21-2002, 10:45 AM

I don't buy the bullshit about seatbelt laws.

You know what would really save lives? How about we actually require people to KNOW HOW TO FREAKING DRIVE!!!! That would save so many lives it wouldn't even be funny. How about a serious test every license renewal time, and some of these 85 year olds will finally be recognized for the menace they are. (All of the 16 year olds as well)

I'd contest it too.

Just a note. The only reason this law exists is because someone put some political muscle behind it. Here in Arkansas, they recently repealed the motorcycle helmet law -- yep, you can ride WITHOUT a helmet. But heaven forbid you drive without your seatbelt. (They also repealed the car inspection law -- of course it was a joke anyway with all the crackpot mechanics around)

Politicians don't care about your safety, they care about buying votes and ensuring future campaign contributions. Period.

TimElhajj

06-21-2002, 11:06 AM

Don't get too bummed. The change eliminating the secondary enforcement provision doesn't take effect until July 1, 2002. So it doesn't apply to your ticket.

The original law was set up so that it was a secondary offense. This law expires on July 1 2002. After the expiration, if your kids are not using a car seat it is a primary offense. None of this is the bill I'm talking about.

This bill that impacts me went into effect last Thursday and modifies both the current statue and the one that goes into effect after July 1. It modifies the current statue to delete paragraph 7, and it does the same thing to the post July 1 statue. If they hadn't made both these changes, the new statue making it a primary offense would have only been good until July 1, 2002.

The problem is you have to really dig into a few documents on the site I mentioned to see how it all works. I called the WA traffic safty number to have them explain it to me, lest you wrongly get the impression I was able to do this all myself.

Jason Levine

06-21-2002, 11:19 AM

Yeah, Tim, you're right. Instead of using that confusing Washington public site, I went and looked at it on our subscription Westlaw service, which has the whole thing set out in integrated form. Sure enough, there were all those different effective dates you were talking about.

Sounds like you were unlucky enough to encounter a cop eager to write a ticket under the new law. Bummer.

TimElhajj

06-21-2002, 11:20 AM

And $86 is usurious

Dig it. This is my biggest beef.

Jason Levine

06-21-2002, 11:26 AM

The only reason this law exists is because someone put some political muscle behind it.

That is, of course, true of any law, especially on the state level. I agree with you about stricter licensing requirements and repeat testing, but that doesn't make the seat belt laws a bad idea. Neither does the fact that state legislators are stupid enough to repeal helmet laws. I live in Illinois, the first state to repeal the helmet law, and the state where the president of the senate is a functional illiterate. Cynicism about state law-making is a way of life here.