Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - N.D. lawmaker offers seat-belt incentive

N.D. lawmaker offers seat-belt incentive

Jan 08, 2009 - 04:05:21 CST

By DALE WETZEL
Associated Press Writer

Offering an incentive for motorists to use seat belts is better than more stringent laws to force people to wear them, a rural lawmaker says.

Rep. Duane DeKrey, R-Pettibone, has introduced legislation to subtract one penalty point on any traffic offense if the offender was wearing a seat belt when he or she was stopped.

For example, speeding between 11 and 15 miles per hour over the limit normally carries a 1-point penalty against the offender's driver's license.

Under DeKrey's proposal, a driver who was going that fast and was wearing a seat belt would be ticketed, but would not have a penalty point added to his or her license. A driver who accumulates 12 points is facing a license suspension.

"This bill would, in effect, be a carrot instead of the stick," DeKrey said. "I think that people will look at that as kind of a really cheap insurance policy on losing points off their licenses."

The North Dakota Legislature has frequently debated a proposal to allow law officers to pull over vehicles if they notice the driver is not wearing a seat belt.

Under North Dakota's existing law, an officer may not stop a car just because he notices the driver is not using a seat belt; he must first observe another traffic offense.

Sen. Tracy Potter, D-Bismarck, said he supported the proposal, and had agreed to cosponsor it.

"In all cases of regulation, I would prefer incentives to penalties," Potter said.

News > State

Printer friendly version N.D. lawmaker offers seat-belt incentive

Comments

The Point wrote on Jan 9, 2009 2:23 PM:

" I've watched some of Rep. DeKrey's hairbrained ideas over the years (remember the law to require deer hunters to cover up the deer when they are transported on the highway?). But I have to respectfully disagree with the other bloggers. Why must laws always penalize, rather than reward behavior? I disagree that proper behavior must be expected and not rewarded, because what I expect and what you expect are 2 different things. A legislator finally coming up with a way to entice people to behave in a certain way (wearing your seatbelt) rather than penalize you for NOT doing it is a good idea and I support it. Penalizing people doesn't work-otherwise why would we have repeat offenders? "

Jerry wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:08 PM:

" My, how time flies. Fifteen years ago they had to put it on the ballot 3 times to make not wearing a seat belt a secondary offense ane the third time they changed the wording so a no vote meant yes to get it passed. They also said that they would never (I repeat "never") bring it up to make it a mandatory offense so they could get the secondary offense law passed.
I still feel it is my decision to make if I want to wear them or not. Just some more of our rights being taken away and more reasons to pull someone over for a ticket. "

Dave wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:45 PM:

" So if I put mine on quick because I'm getting pulled over, will that still count? "

Father knows best wrote on Jan 8, 2009 2:43 PM:

" I hope this silly idea is killed in committee.

From what most of the Bloggers are saying it appears that we have a consensus on this dumb idea.

It is like saying, OK little Johnny or Betty, if you behave and do what is right I will give you a big ice cream cone at the end of the day.

That sort of mentality never works. Proper behavior should never be rewarded just expected. "

Razors Edge wrote on Jan 8, 2009 1:22 PM:

" Sims:

As my friend likes to say about riding motorcycles and getting into crashes, "The difference between wearing a helmet and not wearing a helmet is an open or closed casket." The motorcycle always loses. That's why you take defensive riding classes so you don't get run over by a cager. Something that should be mandatory for all new drivers, and old people. "

Edward wrote on Jan 8, 2009 12:58 PM:

" What about getting a point back if you are not on a cell phone? "

Sims wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:52 AM:

" I can't understand why the law would dictate that I have to wear a seatbelt while driving in a 2000+ pound vehicle with air bags on every possible side, but I don't have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle. I wonder what would save more lives. Maybe it should be illegal to even drive a motorcycle because in an accident with another vehicle, the motorcycle never wins. Where does it stop, bicycle helmet, skateboard helmet, ski helmet, tricycle helmet, big wheel helmet ... Why not legislate everything. Anybody ever hear of freedom of choice. "

BBB wrote on Jan 8, 2009 11:37 AM:

" The incentive to wearing a seat belt is to save your life. In the bigger picture that is what the author is trying to achieve. To suggest this will entice drivers to break the law in a larger fashion or more frequently is ridiculous. Who does this bill hurt? No one. Who could it potentially help? Everyone. Cut this man some slack--this is OK, really. "

Whats the difference wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:38 AM:

" I don't always wear my seatbelt *OMG! GASP!* I have been pulled over for speeding once and once because a headlight was out. Both those times I wasn't wearing a seatbelt and the cop did not even mention the seatbelt. So, had I been wearing a seatbelt, there wouldn't have been a "reward". Incentive or not, it's really all the same. "

Bismarcker wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:29 AM:

" While the concept may be novel idea, I too think it will only cause people to violate speed laws more frequently and more severely. After all, points against a drivers license are what really hurts a person, not the little fine that one has to pay. Take away the point system and I think you are really taking away a major reason not to drive 10-20 over the speed limit. "

st wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:23 AM:

" Why would anyone reward someone who is breaking the law? Honestly, Mr. DeKrey and Mr. Potter, is this the best you can do for the citizens of North Dakota? Are their not greater issues that need to be dealt with during this legistative session - property taxes, injured workers, health care, education, and this is just a few. "

is it a law wrote on Jan 8, 2009 10:23 AM:

" I thought that not wearing a seat belt was a secondary offense. You cannot be cited just for not wearing your seat belt. If you get stopped for another offense then they can ticket you for a seatbelt violation? I wear mine all the time just wanted to know the law.... "

KISS wrote on Jan 8, 2009 8:26 AM:

" Looks like a pretty stupid bill to me. Something to take up legislative time and add furthur confusion to traffic laws. Leave the law the way it is.
In other words: Keep it simple ______ . "

justice for all wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:49 AM:

" Make motorcyclists wear helmets and seat belts or better yet pay my insurance then maybe the government can tell me I HAVE TO WEAR ONE. "

Jonny B wrote on Jan 8, 2009 7:09 AM:

" This is a ridiculous proposal. I remember when the law was passed that required people to wear a seat belt. At first, people were opposed to the idea believing that their rights were being infringed. However, after several years, everyone that I know just puts on their seat belt automatically without even thinking about it. As a matter of fact, I feel very uneasy if I am in someones car and the seat belt is inaccessible because it is buried in between the seats. Seat belt laws not only protect the person wearing the seat belt, they also protect other motorists from being put into a situation where they may hurt someone in a fender bender who was not wearing their seat belt. It is better to just damage the car and not the person since they were smart by wearing their seat belt. Why should we offer incentives to people for doing what is right and what is safe by obeying the law? I do not believe that we are so stupid that we need to be rewarded with a carrot in order to protect ourselves.

If our legislators want to make a difference in highway safety, then they should focus on newer problems such as cell phone use in the car. I must take evasive action at least once or twice a week to avoid getting into an accident. 99% of the time, the other diver is talking on the cell phone and does not even realize that they almost caused an accident. North Dakota should require the use of hands-free cell phones while driving. "

ToFast wrote on Jan 8, 2009 6:40 AM:

" Bad idea. As it is, many people drive 4 mph over the limit in the belief that they will not be stopped. With this law, many people will drive 14 mph over the limit, because then it is "only money". "

Dumbfounded wrote on Jan 8, 2009 4:12 AM:

" I do not know why people do not wear seat belts. What is next, incentives not to speed or run red lights? "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.