Legal Argument: Technically Speaking, the Law Doesn't Require That the Seat Belt Be Attached to the Car



Paul Weigand of Kansas argued with the court that the state statute requiring people to wear seat belts while riding in a car didn't specifically assert that the seat belt (not pictured) had to be attached to the vehicle in question:

An officer ticketed Paul Weigand during a winter traffic stop after making him get out of his car to prove the belt wasn’t connected to the vehicle. Weigand says he is terrified of becoming trapped in a burning vehicle. Plus, he says the law doesn’t specify that the seat belt has to be attached to his vehicle.


The judge disagreed and levied him a fine and court costs.

Link via Lowering the Bar | Photo (unrelated) via Instructables

Newest 5
Newest 5 Comments

#15- off by 10 years. All vehicles manufactured after 1/1/68 were required to have seatbelts. Lap belts for all passengers and shoulder belts for the 2 front passengers next to the doors. I remember because my '68 GTO didn't have the shoulder harnesses and it was the last model year when it wasn't required.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The problem with that, nutbastard, is that those same people could make a choice not to buckle up their children or put their toddlers in car seats.

They could choose to drive without insurance. For that matter, why should we force people to get a license to drive?

People don't choose to wear seatbelts for the stupidest and obscurest of reasons. You're far more likely to be thrown from a car without your seatbelt than to be trapped underwater and not able to get your seatbelt off in time.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
I never drive without wearing a seatbelt, but anyone who wishes to take that risk ought to be able to.

And, actually, all one needs to avoid having to wear one is a vehicle manufactured prior to what, 1978? Something like that.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@ted:

The NYT had an article about bicycle riders where cars travel several inches closer to riders who are wearing helmets. The theory being that drivers see you wearing a helmet and it makes them feel safer driving next to you. So while you might be worse off during a crash without one, wearing a helmet might make you more likely to crash. I'd bet a similar phenomena exist with motorbike riders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10bike.html?ex=1323406800&en=6cfbd84196d71abc&ei=5090

Back when I had a bike I never wore a helmet, I t-boned a car, went over the roof and performed an awesome tuck and roll. No injuries other than a little road rash on my shoulder. Doesn't mean you shouldn't wear one but helmets also aren't cure-alls.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The funny thing is he's proud of it, and he probably went out of his way to get caught.

I would say that this does not meet the definition as outlined in the previous comment since it's not "properly" fashioned, according to any legitimate safety standards.

Just like helmet laws. I know bikers who actually think you're better protected if you get in an accident and you're not wearing a helmet, because if you hit something helmet-on, you could somehow injure your spine. They don't bother to consider if you hit something head-on without a helmet, you're having a closed casket for sure.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Commenting is closed.





Check out Twaggies' very funny clip:

Give a Man a Fish - Twaggies by Twaggies
Email This Post to a Friend
"Legal Argument: Technically Speaking, the Law Doesn't Require That the Seat Belt Be Attached to the Car"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window