Democrat Representative Joe Rice again proposes a mandatory seat belt law for Colorado. Actually, Colorado already has a mandatory seat belt law. It is a secondary enforcement law: police can cite a driver or front seat passenger for a seat belt infraction if the officer pulls him over for a different infraction. However, Representative Joe Rice wants a primary enforcement measure. And, as usual, it is all about safety revenue.
The Denver Post reports:
A last-ditch effort to allow police to
stop drivers for not wearing their seat belts is underway in hopes of
luring $20 million in federal funds to the state. State Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton, said that in the past he has
sponsored seat-belt bills because they save lives, but this time, part
of his motive is federal transportation dollars offered to states as an
incentive for tougher seat-belt laws.
This is how the Federal government rolls when money is involved. It simply causes a de facto national policy because (so-called) cash-starved states can get a Federal bribe simply for passing legislation. These unethical policies make a convincing argument for less taxpayer dollars going to Washington, and more remaining with the State and local governments.
These policies are not new. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) lobbied during the 1980's for a national drinking age of 21. The Federal government passed legislation tying highway funding to each State passing the minimum drinking age. Again, earlier t his decade, Congress passed a law mandating a 0.08 percent limit for blood alcohol content tied to State highway funding (another MADD project). With President Barack Obama nominating former MADD CEO Chuck Hurley (a neoprohibitionist) to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, expect more of this Federal nannyistic bribery to occur in the future.
It is dubious whether or not making seat belt enforcement a primary offense will actually improve safety. It is always wise to wear a seat belt; however, some people will avoid wearing one even though statistically, they are safer when they do. The people who already avoid wearing seat belts, whether due to civil disobedience or plain ignorance, will continue to do so regardless of legislation to the contrary.
The largest argument against the law is that it is unenforceable as written. It is not possible for a police officer traveling at highway speeds to determine if one is wearing a seat belt. Even on city streets, it will be difficult, especially if one wears a shirt or coat the same color as a seat belt. This will provide another reason for police officers to make contact with drivers to hunt for other violations. Expect racial profiling to increase as well, since police can use "it did not appear that the driver was wearing a seat belt" as an excuse.
What does it profit a man to gain Federal highway subsidies, but lose his civil liberties? Representative Joe Rice has the answer:
"Twenty-million dollars in our economy; I think that's huge," he said.
by Civil Sense
Comments