Meet the new Senate, same as the old Senate.

The much-ballyhooed changes to the Senate’s rules — which promised to create a more efficient, streamlined chamber, unfriendly to filibusters — faced its first real test Thursday.

The result? A punt on a stronger seat belt law.

But supporters of the bill said they still picked up ground.

Sen. Greg Ryberg, R-Aiken, primary sponsor of the bill, was not concerned by the rules drama. He said his focus is on approving a bill that will save lives.

“I feel good. It is absolutely a step forward,” Ryberg said, adding the Senate could give final approval to the seat belt proposal as soon as next week.

That will not be a moment too soon for Dr. Thomas Gibbons of Columbia, chairman of the Safe Kids Coalition, a group of doctors, hospitals and social service groups that support the bill.

A childhood friend of Gibbons’ daughter was killed a few years ago in an accident because the friend was not buckled up.

“You talk about stats and numbers,” Gibbons said. “It really has to be a personal thing”

Gibbons said he understands those who believe government should not regulate behavior.

“But the individual liberties in this particular topic pale compared to the social good that comes out of it,” he said.

The bill creates what is called “primary enforcement” of the seat belt law. While the law already requires drivers and passengers to wear seat belts, police cannot stop and ticket most violators unless another infraction occurs. The bill would change that and allow police to ticket motorists just for not wearing seat belts.

If the bill passes the Senate, where it has died several times, it must pass the House and be approved by the governor to become law. The House has passed similar legislation before.

Gov. Mark Sanford, however, has never made clear his position on the issue. Spokesman Will Folks said Thursday the governor has concerns with what the bill does not include.

For example, Folks said, the bill does not allow a jury in a lawsuit to consider whether a driver was wearing a seat belt.

That would be important if a driver is injured in a car accident and sues someone else. The jury could not be told that the driver was not wearing a seat belt.

Folks said Sanford’s proposal for changing how lawsuits can be filed in the state, now being debated in both the House and Senate, includes a requirement that jurors be told whether motorists were wearing seat belts.

The proposed penalty, $25, for not wearing a seat belt, also is too low, Folks said.

For a while Thursday, senators appeared unsure what they would do with the proposal.

When Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, began to delay action on the bill, supporters began plotting how they would use the Senate’s new rules to make Grooms stop talking.

But they quickly discovered they did not have the 24 necessary votes to end Grooms’ filibuster, mostly because many senators had left for the week.

Instead of letting Grooms live up to his promise to “stay here until I couldn’t stand no more,” senators unanimously agreed to bypass their new rules.

One of those new rules, adopted the first week of the session, is designed to ensure legislation can be amended only when it is up for the second of three necessary votes.

The seat belt bill was up for second reading Thursday, but there were a number of amendments still pending when Grooms began to filibuster.

However, Grooms agreed to delay his filibuster after the Senate agreed to consider the amendments on the bill’s third reading, setting aside its rules.

Democrats, who said the new rules took away their ability to influence legislation by taking away their ability to delay action, were amused by the predicament.

“Don’t you find it ironic that the first time we get in a box, we’re going to suspend the rules?” Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Kershaw, said to Sen. Larry Martin, R-Pickens, the architect of the new rules.

“No,” Martin said, “I think it’s a very good rule.”

Martin said Thursday’s developments moved the bill forward. Instead of getting the required three-fifths vote to allow amendments to be considered on final reading, the Senate unanimously agreed to do so, he noted.

“We can do with unanimous consent anything we need to break an impasse,” Martin said.

Reach Gould Sheinin at (803) 771-8658 or asheinin@thestate.com.