Veto threat is misguided

e-mail this story discuss this issue in our forums

State Sen. Greg Ryberg is blunt about a proposed stronger seat-belt law: The law is all about saving the lives of more South Carolinians. And that's why Gov. Mark Sanford should support it.

Sanford recently threatened to veto the seat-belt bill unless it incorporated a number of regulations that would weigh down the proposal and undercut the General Assembly's support for it. Sanford, motivated by a libertarian philosophy that skips blithely over the carnage taking place on South Carolina's roads, is opposed to the bill unless it is changed to accommodate his concerns.

The stronger law under consideration would allow police to stop adult drivers for not wearing a seat belt. Currently, motorists can be fined for not wearing a seat-belt only if they are stopped for other violations.

Some senators who traditionally have opposed a tougher seat-belt law already tried to tack on amendments designed to diminish support for the bill. Those amendments failed. The Senate passed the bill; the House, which passed the bill last session, will consider the measure soon.

But now the governor is demanding changes similar to the defeated Senate amendments. For instance, Sanford wants seat-belt use to be admissible as evidence in civil lawsuits involving injuries. But as Ryberg, one of the chief proponents of the seat-belt bill, points out: adding such stipulations to the bill may imperil its chances of passing. Ryberg, an Aiken County Republican, is right that such a tort-reform issue has little to do with making the seat-belt law stronger.

In a recent commentary in The Greenville News, Sanford also complained that the proposed seat-belt law would not allow records of seat-belt violations to be kept or reported to insurance companies. But the law is not intended to add minor traffic violations to a motorist's record or give insurance companies a reason to raise premiums. The law is intended to save lives, reduce injuries and save money by encouraging people to wear seat belts.

As Ryberg says, the law passed by the Senate would encourage greater seat-belt use for two reasons: people don't want to be stopped, and they don't want to be fined.

Sanford says the prospect of a $12 fine won't encourage people to wear seat belts but he's wrong. With fees and assessments, the actual fine for a seat-belt violation will be closer to $50, according to Ryberg.

Sanford suggested also that one motivation for the seat-belt law is for small towns to generate greater revenue. Such a cynical view makes this worth repeating: The seat-belt law is about saving lives. A gubernatorial veto would be unconscionable in a state with one of the highest rates of fatalities on the road.

Sanford should support a clean and stronger seat-belt bill that is free from onerous encumbrances that could scuttle the bill. If Sanford follows through with his veto threat, the General Assembly should override the veto and ensure that common sense and public safety win the day over narrow ideology.