Primary seat-belt law still takes a back seat

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Rules of the road No. 1: Wear your seat belt.

That is the surest way to prevent death or serious injury in a traffic accident.

State and local police in Massachusetts are participating in a campaign now through June 5 to promote the use of seat belts. Sponsored by the Governor's Highway Safety Bureau, the campaign is called "Click it or Ticket." Honk your horn if you don't understand that and someone will send help.

As a result of increased awareness and police enforcement, the overall national seat belt use in 2004 was 80 percent, an all-time high. While seat-belt use in Massachusetts has been on a steady climb, the commonwealth is not setting any speed records. Only 63 percent of Massachusetts residents wear a seat belt when driving or riding in a vehicle.

Safety studies show that seat-belt use in Massachusetts would rise to the national average if police were allowed to stop motorists for violations.

Under current Massachusetts law, seat belts are mandatory for every occupant of a vehicle, but police cannot pull over an unbuckled motorist unless they observe another infraction or one of the unbuckled occupants is 12 years old or under.

The Massachusetts Legislature should pass a primary seat-belt law to give police the authority to do their job. Of the six states with seat-belt use at 90 percent or higher, five have primary seat-belt laws that allow police to stop a motorist for not wearing a seat belt. Seat-belt use in Michigan rose from 70 percent to 84 percent when it passed a primary law. It is the greatest highway safety tool since the radar gun.

Some drivers in Massachusetts believe they have a constitutional right to drive or ride in a vehicle without a seat belt. Personal choice, they call it. It's a bad choice for everyone else. Massachusetts taxpayers pay nearly $40 million a year to care for head and spinal-cord injury patients who were not wearing seat belts.

Here at this newspaper, every accident story informs the reader whether the driver and the other occupants were wearing seat belts. We include this information, when it's available, in the hopes that it will persuade readers to buckle up.

We hope that state legislators will read between the lines: Pass a primary seat belt law.

EDITORIALS

Primary seat belt law can't take a back seat

Tuesday, April 26, 2005

By any definition, it is an epidemic.

In this country, the death toll last year was 42,800.

If this many had died from a new disease, worried Americans would demand a new vaccine.

Instead, the high death toll is the number of people who died on the nation's highways in 2004.

"The irony is we already have the best vaccine available to reduce the death toll on our highways - safety belts," said Norman Y. Mineta, the nation's transportation secretary.

While the highway fatality rate is actually the lowest it has been since records were first kept four decades ago, 56 percent of those killed were not wearing seat belts.

The numbers, although not official until the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration releases final figures in August, should stop traffic in the Massachusetts Legislature long enough for lawmakers to pass a primary seat-belt law.

Currently in Massachusetts, police are allowed to enforce the state's mandatory seat-belt law only if they have first stopped the vehicle for another offense, or if there is a passenger in the vehicle under the age of 12 not wearing a seat belt.

As a result, only 56 percent of Massachusetts drivers wear seat belts, according to the Seatbelt Safety Coalition.

A total of 18 states and the District of Columbia now have primary seat-belt laws, which allow police to stop a driver for no other reason than a violation of the seat-belt law. The NHTSA estimates a 15 percent increase in seat belt use among Massachusetts drivers would prevent 3,000 to 4,000 injuries and save the commonwealth an estimated $80 million in health care, taxes and insurance costs.

Highway safety officials have seen similar results in other states after they adopted primary seat-belt laws. Seat-belt use in Michigan, for example, increased from 70 percent to 84 percent when it passed a primary law.

A common argument heard on Beacon Hill is that police might abuse their authority under a primary seat-belt law to unfairly profile minority drivers. As we've noted before, police can pull over motorists for any number of reasons, some as minor as a dirty license plate. Lawmakers should not buy that excuse.

Cars have had seat belts for more than 30 years. It's time everyone used them.

GLOBE EDITORIAL

A loose seat belt law

November 30, 2004

EVERY NEWS report of a Massachusetts highway fatality in which the victim was not wearing a seat belt underscores a shortcoming of Massachusetts society. Despite an enforcement campaign that began just before Thanksgiving, Massachusetts has one of the worst records in the nation of seat belt usage, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration -- and it will continue to lag until state government begins a more vigorous campaign to persuade residents to buckle up.

Massachusetts was ranked 48th, with a compliance rate of 63.3 percent, in an NHTSA study released last week. Mississippi was worse, with a 63.2 percent rate, and no information was available for New Hampshire, where compliance is usually low. Perhaps Bay Staters are lulled by the state's low highway fatality rate -- best in the nation, according to 2003 figures. Still, 462 people died in highway accidents last year, seven over the holiday weekend alone.

State law mandates that people buckle up in cars, but drivers must be stopped for another violation before the seat belt law can be enforced. The Massachusetts Legislature has refused to improve the law to allow police to ticket solely for seat belt negligence. New York State, with the tougher standard, has a compliance rate of 85 percent. An NHTSA spokesman estimated yesterday that 23 lives would be saved and 900 injuries prevented if Massachusetts had the New York law in place.

Arizona has achieved a 95 percent usage rate even with a weak law. In a telephone interview, Richard Fimbres, director of the Arizona governor's Office of Highway Safety, attributed this to a coordinated campaign involving police and local citizens groups. Katie Ford, spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Office of Public Safety, said new immigrants are often slow to buckle up. In Arizona, with a far larger immigrant population, Fimbres enlisted Latino organizations to educate newcomers. Massachusetts wisely has hired a public relations firm to look into doing the same.

Massachusetts has raised its level of compliance since the "Click It or Ticket" campaign began in 2002. This promotion, which combines law enforcement with television and radio advertisements, takes place only twice a year -- around Thanksgiving and Memorial Day. A more lasting campaign is needed before the state can approach Arizona's compliance rate. The Legislature also needs to approve the tougher seat belt law so police can more easily ticket offenders.

In Milton this month, Kimberly Renee Craft, 21, lost her life when her boyfriend crashed his car into another. The occupants of the other vehicle wore seat belts and survived. The state needs to keep pounding the message home that lives are being lost needlessly.

May 20, 2005

EDITORIAL: Once again, buckle up

The Jaws of Life, medical helicopters and ambulances -- all costly intervention -- have been tools of salvation around here in recent weeks for scores of people injured in numerous road accidents that have also knocked out utilities, sheared off trees, stalled hordes of Boston bound commuters and dumped fruit onto the highway.

Some less-fortunate motorists have died.

Meanwhile, a cheap little gad get, the seat belt, is far too easily dismissed by motorists in Massachusetts, a state whose lawmakers are, again, weighing legislation that would make lack of compliance a primary offense.

Only 63 percent of drivers use seat belts here as opposed to 80 percent nationally, said Brook Chipman of the Governor's High way Safety Bureau. The state ties with Mississippi as last in compliance.

The bill, in committee, would -- with a favorable vote -- head to the House of Representatives, then the Senate. Similar bills in recent years have failed twice in the House, by a whisker. Why?

As it stands, you can be ticket ed in Massachusetts for not wearing a seat belt only if an officer sees you're unbelted while you're stopped for another violation.

This is so, despite the persistent petitioning by police, emergency workers and public safety lobbyists for a change that could save some lives and prevent some injuries. Perhaps newly released statistics will prompt an end to the lolly-gagging.

Lawmakers have new figures in hand, Gloria Craven, political strategist with Craven & Ober of Boston, and coordinator of the SAFE (Seatbelts Are For Every -one) coalition, said.

`` The Legislature will benefit very much from having data that they had not had in previous debates,'' said Craven. `` It's very compelling, very difficult to ignore and absolutely correlated with being unbelted.'' This is it: The number of people ejected from motor vehicles onto Massachusetts roadways in 2003 was 2,388, she said, compared with 2,371 the prior year. Not horrifying enough?

In the year 2000, 11,027 people were admitted from car crashes to medical facilities for head and spinal cord injuries, said Craven. Of these, 124 already happened to be Medicaid recipients, for whom the state then paid $5.9 million for acute care.

`` But the biggest impact,'' she said, `` is that 43 percent of all these people ended up in longterm care and rehabilitation facilities. They become permanent wards of the state.''

A 15 percent increase in seat belt use, like that experienced by other states after they have passed a primary enforcement seat belt law, would prevent 3,0004,000 injuries and save Massachusetts about $80 million in health care, taxes and insurance costs, according to the National High way Traffic Safety Administration, as cited by Craven.

Ruth Balser, D-Newton, is a co-sponsor of the bill.

`` It's very simple. It's about saving lives,'' she said. `` This is really the top public health as well as public safety initiative for the year, as far as I'm concerned. People do not buckle up to the degree they should. If this passes, people will buckle up and fewer will die in car accidents.''

Many contend that seat belt use is a personal issue. But it's not, when you consider the costs, including rising insurance rates.

Each recent accident in this area has been a reminder that we're headed into the busy season for road travel. Vacations will soon begin and major travel holidays, Memorial Day weekend and the Fourth of July, are looming.

Beware. It's not always some one else who becomes a statistic.

Welcome to the Cape Cod Times, Hyannis, MA

May 12, 2005

A SAFE measure
State Legislature can save lives by passing primary seat belt law.

Let's see if we can finally break the tie.

In May 2001, the Massachusetts House deadlocked, 76 to 76, on whether to allow police to stop motorists for not wearing seat belts. (A tie is insufficient to change the law.)

In May 2003, the House voted 73 to 73 on the same measure.

Later this month, legislators will have the opportunity to finally pass a measure that will save hundreds of lives a year.

Why has the Legislature been so divided on this issue? Because of a misguided belief that the bill would unnecessarily intrude on personal rights and freedoms.

But driving is not a right; it's a privilege. And people who drive without seat belts are abusing their privilege and driving up costs for the law-abiding.

As written, the bill would allow a police officer who sees an unbelted driver or front-seat passenger to stop the vehicle and issue a $25 fine. The constitutionality of traffic stops - an officer using a minor traffic infraction, real or alleged, as the pretext to stop a vehicle - was affirmed by the U. S. Supreme Court in 1996. The justices unanimously ruled that it does not violate the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.

But the most compelling reason to support this legislation is public safety. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, such a law would increase seat belt use about 15 percent. On average, two lives are saved for every 1 percent increase in seat belt use.

As a result, if Massachusetts drivers increased seat belt use by 15 percent, there would be 3,000 to 4,000 fewer injuries and 27 to 30 fewer fatalities every year. That would save $80 million in health care, taxes and insurance costs.

''With the state budget taking center stage, we are hopeful that something will click with legislators as they look at the human and dollar costs of unbelted crashes and the benefits associated with passing a primary belt law in Massachusetts'' said Yvonne Michaud, a trauma nurse coordinator.

Currently, Massachusetts ranks 49th in the nation in seat belt usage. Only 62 percent of Bay State residents wear their belts. The national average is 80 percent. Ten years ago, before California passed a similar law, seat belt usage was only 58 percent. Today, it is 90 percent.

''When you don't wear your seat belt, it is everybody's business,'' said Dr. James Feldman of the Seat belts Are For Everyone (SAFE) Coalition. ''Failure to buckle up is clearly associated with costs borne by public agencies supported by our tax revenues. As the Legislature begins their deliberations on the budget, we're asking them to strongly consider a primary belt law as a sensible and budget neutral way to save the Commonwealth's taxpayers millions of dollars per year while also saving lives and preventing needless disabilities.''

(Published: May 12, 2005)

Editorial: A better seat belt law
Friday, May 6, 2005

In many ways, cars are safer than ever, especially big, sturdy SUVs. True, the top-heavy SUVs can be prone to rollovers, but the best of them encase driver and passengers in a heavy steel cage that protect them even in a horrific collision -- if they take advantage of a simple safety feature that's neither new nor expensive: the safety belt.

The latest sad example of this came Monday on the Mass. Pike in Natick. Susan E. Fennell of Marblehead was driving her Infiniti QX4 in the left-hand lane when she struck the median barrier and lost control. The SUV veered across three lanes of traffic, struck another car and rolled over several times.

There is no question that seat belts save lives. Police officers, EMTs and emergency room physicians see the evidence every day. The only argument over safety belts in Massachusetts in recent years have been over laws requiring their use.

That debate grew stale long ago. The "freedom" to drive unbuckled isn't implied in our founding documents nor is it important. The idea that buckling up is purely a personal matter is disproved by huge medical bills with impacts far beyond the driver and by the secondary collisions that happen when an unbelted driver is ejected from his or her vehicle.

Massachusetts law now provides for a $20 ticket for failure to wear a safety belt, but prohibits police from pulling someone over just because the driver isn't belted in. Some have opposed joining 21 states that allow primary enforcement for fear police will use the law to harass young or minority drivers. But studies in other states with primary enforcement have found no evidence of increased racial profiling, and the implication that respectful officers will turn into rogue cops with this minor change in law is illogical and insulting.

But experience has shown that enforcement of safety belt laws, along with driver education, will, over time, increase seat belt use. Twice the House has failed to pass this reasonable legislation, both time on a tie vote. This year lawmakers should do better. Lives depend on it.

Editorial: A better seat belt law
Wednesday, May 18, 2005

In many ways, cars are safer than ever, especially big, sturdy SUVs. True, the top-heavy SUVs can be prone to rollovers, but the best of them encase driver and passengers in a heavy steel cage that protect them even in a horrific collision -- if they take advantage of a simple safety feature that's neither new nor expensive: the safety belt.

From the looks of the banged-up SUV, Fennell might well have survived. But she wasn't wearing her safety belt. She was ejected from the car, a common occurrence in rollovers when the driver isn't belted in, and landed more than 100 feet from the vehicle. She was pronounced dead at the scene. There is no question that seat belts save lives. Police officers, EMTs and emergency room physicians see the evidence every day. The only argument over safety belts in Massachusetts in recent years have been over laws requiring their use.

The primary enforcement law wouldn't raise the $20 fine, which cannot lead to an insurance surcharge. It specifically prohibits police from searching vehicles pulled over for seat belt violations. Nor will it guarantee that everyone will buckle up -- there will always be some people without the common sense to act in their own best interests. But experience has shown that enforcement of safety belt laws, along with driver education, will, over time, increase seat belt use. Twice the House has failed to pass this reasonable legislation, both time on a tie vote. This year lawmakers should do better. Lives depend on it

BACK