If I choose not to wear a seat belt, I should have that right. If there were really serious, why don't they give tickets to bike riders that don't wear helmets. To me, it's just a money making scam by local police. At any rate, I did not pay the ticket, and now they say that I have to pay them 80 bucks. Can I really be forced to pay this ticket? Will I be jailed if I refuse to pay. It's not about the money, its a matter of principle.
2007-07-13 12:20:36 · 34 answers · asked by Major Tom 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Why can't a person pose a ligitimate question without being called stupid and an idiot? What's with all the hostility here. There are ways to disagree with a person without name calling. So, can we all try to be a little more civil?
2007-07-13 13:12:17 · update #1
Constitutional or not, I disagree with the law. That said, you will NOT win this fight in court. You could TRY to get the state to change the law. Even if you succeed, you ticket will stand as the law was in place when you received the ticket.
coragryph said "The constitution protects specific areas where the govt is not allowed to regulate activity." This is actually the exact OPPOSITE of the truth. The constitution GRANTS the government certain powers. EVERYTHING not granted to the government is outside the government's authority. For those who can't tell that from the very structure of teh text, the 10th amendment spells it out.
2007-07-13 13:18:23 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is nothing in the United States Constitution that says anything about a right to refuse to wear a Seat Belt, while I agree with you that it should be one's choice to wear a Seat Belt or not, it is not Unconstitutional for a State to require such a thing, so it would be wise to obey the law.
Yes you will be jailed if you refuse to pay, unless you can prove the Police did something wrong to the ticket (like if a ticket has no name or date on it, the ticket is then null and void, even if you did the deed).
2007-07-13 12:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by MrCool1978 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. And one of the many laws governing that privilege is the requirement to wear a seat belt. Do you insist that your kids buckle up? And even if you do, what lesson are you teaching them by not buckling yourself? Has it never occurred to you that not buckling up might lessen your control over your car and thus put other drivers at greater risk? This is a valid safety issue. Pay the $80 before the consequences become greater.
By the way, some jurisdictions DO ticket bike riders for failure to wear a helmet.
2007-07-13 12:35:45 · answer #3 · answered by Tom K 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"Carry that logic further. If I choose to put heroin in my body, I should have that right. If I choose to drown my mentally retarded baby rather than care for it, I should have that right. If I choose to drive 90 miles per hour through my neighborhood so I can get home faster, I should have that right.
The government has the ability to put restrictions on your ultimate freedom for the public benefit."
The choice of putting heroin in ones body is equivalent to the choice of eating fast food. Murder is a crime, so murderering someone is not a right. Driving over the speed limit is dangerous and can result in injury or death to others besides yourself, which is why driving over the speed limit is not a right.
Now, how the hell does putting restrictions on seat belts benefit the public? Making it harder for the stupid people to die doesn't benefit the public.
How does an idividual not wearing a seat belt hurt the public? I should have the right to do what I want as long as it does not bring harm to others, such as smoke marijuana at home etc..
2007-07-13 13:15:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "right" not to wear a seatbelt is not mentioned in the Constitution, gee, I wonder why? The reason you are forced to wear a seatbelt is that it has been repeatedly proven to reduce traffic fatalities, thereby reducing insurance costs for all responsible drivers across the board and protecting people with marginal judgement from themselves by making them use a very basic safety device.
In states mandating that bicyclists must wear helmets, they are indeed ticketed for non-compliance, just as you were for your non-compliance with the law.
As far as having to pay the ticket, you will not be "forced" to pay it, but if you do not, a warrant can be sworn out for your arrest for not paying, your license could be suspended or revoked, and you could eventually find yourself in jail.
You should probably save your "principles" for more important matters, such as speech or freedom of religion. Nobody fought and died in a war so you could endanger yourself by not buckling up.
2007-07-13 12:51:07 · answer #5 · answered by gilliegrrrl 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
While I don't disagree with you on the concept, let's look at the law.
The constitution protects specific areas where the govt is not allowed to regulate activity. What specific right (restriction on govt regulation) guaranteed in the constitution (state or federal) do you think applies?
This issue has been litigated, in most states. The bottom line is that the state is allowed to regulate any activity unless there is a specific restriction preventing it from regulating it.
And yes, you will be subject to further criminal sanctions if your refuse to pay. You can, however, take the matter to court and challenge the law. Who knows, your lawyer may be able to find something in your state constitution to succeed.
2007-07-13 12:28:03 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The problem is that you do not have a constitutional right to drive a car. Since the government authorizes you to drive, that authorization can be dependent upon any conditions the government believes to be appropriate without offending the constitution. So, yes, you can be forced to pay the ticket.
In fact, you could be forced to pay the ticket even if the law was NOT constitutional. You don't litigate the constitutionality of a law by ignoring it, but by challenging the law properly in court. Eventually, if you keep ignoring it, the only recourse which will be left is for a warrant to be issued for your arrest.
And, by the way, in California they DO give tickets to bike riders who do not wear helmets.
2007-07-13 12:32:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
I don't know where you live but with that attitude I'm not sure I want to be on the road with you. A little inconvenience to save your life and you whine about it. Bikers are ticketed where I live if they don't have a helmet on. Skate boarders too. It is a SAFETY issue. Next time I hope the ticket is 4 times that just for being stupid.
2007-07-13 12:25:26 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The main reason behind the seatbelt law was that no seat belts was raising everyones insurance rates since death, maiming and dismemberment was much higher before mandatory seat belt laws.
This is not to say that I agree with the law, but the reason they give you a license is NOT because it is you "right" to drive, but a privilege, and therefor it can be restricted as the gov't sees fit.
Now if only the AARP could see it that way and allow us to retest people as they get older to judge competency behind the wheel...
2007-07-13 13:07:18 · answer #9 · answered by arch_uriel 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think it's a violation of civil rights. What right does the govt have to tell you how you can or cant hurt yourself. It's from a PC doesn't know whats going on knee jerk reaction. I say call ACLU it's worth a try. I can see a law that protects others from someone, but come on. wearing or not wearing a seat belt wouldn't hurt anyone but you. There have also been cases where not wearing a belt saved someones life.
2007-07-13 12:24:23 · answer #10 · answered by disabled_usmc 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋