TheItem.com Printer Friendly Version

This is a printer friendly version of an article from The Item.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.

Close

Article published: Jun 15, 2005
New law won't scare naysayers into buckling up

The Legislature's priorities are, to say the least, perplexing.

Take, for instance, the new law that makes not wearing a seatbelt a primary offense, one that can get a motorist pulled over. A violator faces a measly $25 fine — hardly a deterrent by any standard — and no points on his license. Obstinate motorists usually aren't swayed by substantial fines, much less this soft-handed approach.

Supporters lauded last week's move by the General Assembly, throwing around statistics on how seatbelts save lives, but this law is not going to scare those naysayers into buckling up.

The governor, who watched the deadline on the seat belt legislation come and go without signing or vetoing it, expressed those sentiments in a memo to Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer.

Two days before offering his opinion on the seatbelt law, Sanford explained to Bauer his veto of a bill that would have ticketed motorists for driving too slow.

"While slow drivers in the left lane of the interstate can be a real irritation, I believe this bill provides for a disproportionate response to the problem. According to the Department of Public Safety, the total cost of a traffic ticket for a violation of this law would be $150.00. In addition, the driver would accrue two points on his or her driving record. This is a strong consequence for driving too slowly in the left lane of the interstate in light of another bill recently delivered to me that would set the fine for failing to wear a seat belt at only $25.00."

The governor got it right.

Sen. Phil Leventis, D-Sumter, said during debates leading up to the general election in November that he opposed the primary enforcement of the seatbelt, not because he didn't believe in the law but because of the problems that would arise from the limited number of state Highway Patrol troopers on the road. He said the law would do no good.

The senator got it right, too.

And his logic still holds true. While no one will admit it, officers charged with policing our streets and highways are not going to waste their valuable time pulling over, for $25, a person who is endangering only himself. Not to mention that officers would have to keep a close eye on the vehicles they encounter just to spot violators.

It's unreasonable to expect that of officers.

Now if the guys in Columbia want to pass a measure that would be more easily enforced and would protect the public, they should examine the laws regarding the use of helmets by motorcyclists. It makes no sense to be worried about whether people are wearing their seatbelts and then allow those same people to climb aboard a motorcycle without a helmet.

Where's the logic in that?

According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, based on miles traveled in 2003, motorcyclists are 32 times more likely to die in a wreck than people riding in a car.

When the law was passed allowing people to ride without helmets, it was in the name of freedom, freedom of choice, that people should be able to choose whether or not to risk life and limb. But laws are passed every day that limit our freedoms, all in the name of protection.

So where should government draw the line? Sanford, in his June 9 memo to Bauer on the seatbelt bill, made his thoughts known:

"... I don't believe it is the role of government to protect people from themselves."

We differ from the governor on this; regulating certain realms of society is his job.

The state of Louisiana, which has changed its helmet law several times since 1968, put the entire helmet issue in perspective with its latest draft. It now reads that the use of a helmet is mandated for all riders under 18 and those 18 and older with less than $10,000 in medical insurance. Those with $10,000 or more medical insurance can make up their own minds.

Enough said.