Home › News › County News
Officers issuing tickets in drive to buckle seat belts Use is greater, but too many still ignore law
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
Seat belt use in California has increased dramatically since the safety devices became mandatory in 1986, but hundreds of people still die each year in traffic accidents because they aren't buckled in, according to data collected by the California Highway Patrol.
In an effort to reduce these preventable deaths, every police agency in Ventura County has been cracking down this month on motorists as part of a nationwide campaign called Click It or Ticket. The effort will continue through June 1.
Fines for first-time offenders range from $80 to as much as $401 if a child in the vehicle is not restrained. Passengers not wearing seat belts, as well as drivers, can be fined. Police officers are giving seat belt tickets without giving warnings first.
About 400 of the more than 4,100 people who died in California traffic accidents in 2006 could have survived if they had been wearing seat belts, said Chris Cochran, a spokesman for the California Office of Traffic Safety.
Nine of the 37 people who died in Ventura County crashes in 2006 were not wearing seat belts.
The Office of Traffic Safety gave local agencies more than $59,000 in grants this year for increased enforcement during the Click It or Ticket effort, Cochran said. Police departments are primarily using the money to pay for overtime so officers can spend more time focusing on seat belt violators, he said.
With about 94.6 percent of people buckling up, California had the nation's fourth-highest rate of seat belt use in 2007. But it is still a pressing issue in Ventura County, said Officer Brandon Mumme of the CHP.
"When I'm out there, pretty much every shift you're going to get a few seat belt tickets," Mumme said. "There are still a lot of people out there not wearing their seat belts."
Statewide, teen seat belt use was 88.9 percent in 2007, more than 5 percent lower than the adult rate, according to data from the Office of Traffic Safety.
Of the 2,926 drivers and passengers ages 16 to 20 who were killed in car crashes nationwide in 2006, 68 percent were not buckled in, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Local teens not wearing seat belts were among the casualties in several recent crashes.
Danielle Barrett, 16, of Fillmore, was killed in an accident May 1 after she was thrown from her car. She was not wearing a seat belt, authorities said.
Desiree Mooney, 18, of Camarillo, was killed April 20 when she lost control of her car. Three young men in the car suffered serious injuries. None of the four was buckled in, police said.
A 17-year-old girl narrowly escaped death and lasting brain damage and two teen boys broke their hips in an April 9 crash that killed the 17-year-old male driving the car, Cody Murphy. A fifth person, who walked away from the accident, and Murphy were the only ones wearing seat belts.
The reason behind this month's seat belt enforcement drive is the belief that tickets might persuade some of the holdouts to buckle up, Cochran said.
Data collected by the Office of Traffic Safety supports that theory, he said.
Since 1993, seat belt use in California went up by 12 percent. One quarter of that increase happened in the three years since the enforcement-heavy Click It or Ticket program went into effect.
Posted by JesusMalverde on May 22, 2008 at 4:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no excuse for not wearing a seatbelt. Parents set the example by wearing your seatbelt ALL THE TIME.
I hope the cops write those tickets EVERY TIME they see someone not wearing a seat belt. If it saves ONE life it is so worth it.
Posted by stopit on May 22, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think lawmakers really care about our safety.They just figure out ways to generate money.Now that our economy is in a downturn with high gas prices,they turn law enforcement into revenue enhancement officers to make up the difference.
Posted by cslaurie on May 22, 2008 at 6:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nanny state run by nannies.
Posted by Nosmo_King on May 22, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Adam Foxman, are the cops wearing seatbelts when they pull people over for not wearing seatbelts?
Posted by Sneed_Hearn on May 22, 2008 at 7:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I have to go along with "stopit" here. Its all about money, not safety. You can rest assured that its a cash cow and they're going to take every advantage of it, including what "stopit" failed to mention, the insurance lobby, one of the biggest lobbies in this country who are responsible for the law. Now, if you're involved in a vehicle accident and it can be proven that you were NOT wearing a seat belt, they no longer have to pay out on your policy, saving that industry millions of dollars! Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating non seatbelt use. Quite the contrary. I just think that law enforcement and the insurance industry should be truthful about it. Aside from the money they earn or save with the law, those that are injured or killed are just collataral damage when it comes to big bucks. The media should also be truthful in their reporting of vehicle accidents. They rarely mention that the victim WAS wearing a seatbelt when they were injured or were killed but in cases when they were not wearing their seatbelts, they report that in bold print! Children have no choice in the matter and should always be buckled up. I've always buckled up even before it became a law however, I find it difficult to accept that Big Brother forces me to do something that I feel is a personal decision as an adult and the same applies as to whether I should wear a helmet when riding a motorcycle. TELL THE TRUTH Y'ALL!!
Posted by srcheek on May 22, 2008 at 9:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I absolutely support this law. My youngest brother was in the car with Desiree Mooney and he is still in the hospital after nearly dying. He has had multiple surgeries, is just now being able to try to speak, stood up for the first time a two days ago and has a very long way to go to recovery. The other two boys also have a long recovery ahead of them. If it's a moneymaker for the state but it saves lives, then who cares what the initial reason is for enforcing the law? IT'S THE LAW.
Posted by omie on May 22, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Its a moneymaker, gov telling us what to do what we can not do. Yes Seat belts save lives, I am living proof of it. If you do not wear your seat belt, involved in a collision and are injured the insurance company should not have to pay for anything. There was a device that could have saved you from death or serious injury but you chose not to use it.
Posted by Sneed_Hearn on May 22, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)
surcheek....I am very sorry for your brother and all of the other passengers in that vehicle. But before you make a statement that it saves lives, do you happen to know the stastics between injuries and death from those wearing them or not? I can't find it anywhere. Why? Because they don't want you to know as it will deflate their argument. Its hard to deal with or get pertinent information from entities that control all of the information. One of my best friends was wearing his seatbely and had a rollover down into a small canal or ditch. He couldn't unbuckle his seatbelt and as a result he drowned. Seatbelt deaths happen all of the time but you are hard pressed to obtain anything other than them telling lies about the dangers inherent by not wearing them. Remember, its a two way street but they are only telling you about one side of that street that benefits what they want. My argument is not about seatbelts. Its about them giving you all of the facts instead of brainwashing the citizenry.
Posted by dhatcher on May 22, 2008 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
srcheek
I am Desiree's mom.
Could you please email me privately? I would like to talk to you.
dianahatcher5168@yahoo.com
To all; contrary to popular belief and media shock value and even the police report, Desiree was wearing her seatbelt. This was confirmed by one of the passengers in the car and also the first witnesses on the scene who disconnected it in an attempt to revive her.
Posted by srcheek on May 22, 2008 at 12:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Diana,
Of course I will email you privately.
Yours,
Sunshine
Posted by LivinInPoorMansPV on May 22, 2008 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They need to make it clear...it is not just wearing your seatbelt, IT IS WEARING IT PROPERLY!
Unfortunatley I was reminded of this last week, when I was stopped AND CITED for having my seatbelt not worn directly between my breasts and over my shoulder directly up on my neck. The very nice police officer asked me why, and it is due to medical reasons..I have a raised mole right in that particular area that gets rubbed and spreads dut to this.
Hey this is a NO TOLERANCE law, and there are NO EXCEPTIONS.
Not only do I always wear my seat belt and it is CLICKED before I take my vehicle out of park, but so is EVERYONE else in my car.
I know I know, get the disgusting/hot/smelly seat belt cover.
Now will they make the cel phone law NO TOLERANCE PLEASE!
I cant believe that we are allowed to continue text messaging WHILE DRIVING. I find it very interesting when I see people text message while driving. Both hands are being used to text and they are looking at there phone/pda the entire time.
Posted by cslaurie on May 22, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
living poor....
I would fight that one in court. Talk about a CS ticket. Very nice jerk more likely.
Posted by smithjc on May 22, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
in re the question about the police wearing seat belts, there is an exemption in the law for emergency personnel/vheicles.
i'm against the enforcement issue of this for a couple reasons. first, as was said by another, it's an extension of the nanny state. secondly, enforcement of laws like this violate the laws of natural selection.
Posted by smithjc on May 22, 2008 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
and just in case you were wondering, yes, i do wear seatbelts, and i wear them properly as designed.
Posted by T_T on May 22, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I fully support the legislated use of seat belts, Stopit and SneadHearn have a point. In 1973 when we went to a 55mph speed limit, there was a great side effect: reduced accidents and deaths. Did we see even a one penny reduction in our insurance rates? No, those guys kept their money.
In spite of all that, I still believe seat belt use should be mandatory as a safety issue regardless of the money interests.
Posted by Sneed_Hearn on May 22, 2008 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
And lets not forget that over 40,000 of our children travel to and from school in an open bus without the benefit of seatbelts as should be required in accordance with this law. ITS A SHAM PEOPLE and you should at least be aware of that! Your grandma at 80 years old is required to use them but your 8 year old daughter is not! Where is the fallacy in that??
Posted by Nosmo_King on May 22, 2008 at 7:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
smithjc, thanks for the comment about Cops and seatbelts and natural selection...very funny!
Posted by srcheek on May 23, 2008 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
SmithJC: "Natural selection"? I hope that I misunderstand your statement. I take your comment "natural selection" to mean that the people who have died from not wearing their seat belts deserved it. If that is indeed what you meant, then you are a cruel person because I highly doubt that those victims' loved ones would agree. I find that type of thinking to be repulsive and wish that people would think their comments through prior to posting them.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.