I fought the law: beat a ticket?

[TimElhajj]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

:roll:

- Alan

[Pie4Foo]

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]

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]

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!

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

[Ben Sones]

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]

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.

[Alan Au]

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]

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]

>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]

> 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

>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]

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]

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]

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