Colorado Seatbelt Legislation

I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
if you ask the authorities.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:56:16 -0500, (Time Traveler)
wrote:

>:|I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
>:|you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
>:|state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
>:|the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
>:|revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
>:|if you ask the authorities.

that logic is inherently flawed, at least as far as motorcycles go as
you are far more likely to die and *NOT* become a ward of the state
while not wearing a helmet than if you are wearing one.
it's a revenue generator, just like here in maine. the governor
is trying to get the law changed to a primary offense *and* more than
doubling the fine from ~$100 to almost $250. all of this is because
his driver sent the governors state owned 'burb through the woods on a
icy night because he was driving about twice as fast as he should
have. I wear my seatbelt, but I don't think it should be a primary
offense, just like I think the states child restraint law (8 years old
or 100lbs in some type of car seat)) is stupid.

-Bret

NJ originally had it as a secondary offense.Now it is a primary
offense.When towns were cut back on state funds they were told to raise
their motor vehicle fines and parking ticket fines.Local police use the
seat belt law to fill out their quota of tickets SUGGESTED by their
superior officers.Parking tickets that were once under $10 are now
$44.The ole deep pockets theory and who has them.

Bret Chase > writes in article > dated Sun, 30 Jan 2005 15:08:04 -0500:
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 23:56:16 -0500, (Time Traveler)
>wrote:
>
>>:|I live in NJ and their rationale is the same as motorcycle helmets.If
>>:|you have a severe accident,and live,you could become a ward of the
>>:|state.Thus the state has a vested interest in you not getting injured in
>>:|the first place.But there is a very,very slight possibility, as a
>>:|revenue generator, in giving tickets to the unbelted.But that can't be
>>:|if you ask the authorities.
>
> that logic is inherently flawed, at least as far as motorcycles go as
>you are far more likely to die and *NOT* become a ward of the state
>while not wearing a helmet than if you are wearing one.

No, the logic is not flawed. But there is an unstated assumption, and you
make the opposite assumption in yours.

Let's divide injuries into 3 categories -- (A) fatal, (B) disabling, and (C)
recoverable. Time (or rather his friends in the NJ legislature) believe
that B is lower if you wear a helmet, and you believe that it's higher.

If somebody has statistics on this, it could settle the question.

-- spud_demon -at- thundermaker.net
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.