[Fredog]

that is a ridiculous statement

[golfhobo]

Originally Posted by Scoe

Why was he pulled over? In Washington this is now a primary offense, seat belt wearing. LEO spotted his being worn with enough slack to warrant a closer examination and popped him for it.

What I really want to see is the statute supporting the exact wearing of a seat belt.

I don't think so, Scoe. I've stood at ground level, say 20 yards from a truck, and I can't tell if the driver is even wearing his belt, let alone if it has too much slack. Many trucks have slightly tinted windows to boot. I don't think an LEO can make a stop based on "seeing" a seatbelt violaton. Maybe snoopyandpuppy (or one of the other LEO's on the board) could chime in on this.

My point was that the trucker was probably pulled for some other violation, which he is pizzed about, and got the seatbelt violation to boot because he forgot to release the clip and reset the belt.

I don't know if there is an FMCSR concerning it, but I do know there is one saying we have to obey ALL state laws. Since most if not all states have such a law, we are required to wear our belts. I wear a black uniform shirt and have a black belt (not the karate kind.) I DARE any LEO to take me to court and prove he could tell if I was even wearing it, let alone the 4" violaton! But, of course, I'm not stupid enough to leave it "clipped out" by the time he pulls me and invites me to step out of the truck. In fact, I usually make it a point to let him SEE me unhook my securely tightened belt before I get out of my seat to open the passenger door for him (even if I just hooked it up after seeing his flashing lights.)

I drive by about 4 cops per day, at known locations, and I usually pull it across my chest as I go by... but, sometimes I forget. I really don't think it matters. I can see into HIS cab, and I can't tell what he has across his chest.

I do know that some states have a policy that they cannot stop you for a seatbelt violation. They have to discover it AFTER the stop. That is why I said that the driver probably "hung" himself. WHO would be that stupid?

[Scoe]

Originally Posted by golfhobo

I don't think so, Scoe. I've stood at ground level, say 20 yards from a truck, and I can't tell if the driver is even wearing his belt, let alone if it has too much slack. Many trucks have slightly tinted windows to boot. I don't think an LEO can make a stop based on "seeing" a seatbelt violaton. Maybe snoopyandpuppy (or one of the other LEO's on the board) could chime in on this.

My point was that the trucker was probably pulled for some other violation, which he is pizzed about, and got the seatbelt violation to boot because he forgot to release the clip and reset the belt.

I don't know if there is an FMCSR concerning it, but I do know there is one saying we have to obey ALL state laws. Since most if not all states have such a law, we are required to wear our belts. I wear a black uniform shirt and have a black belt (not the karate kind.) I DARE any LEO to take me to court and prove he could tell if I was even wearing it, let alone the 4" violaton! But, of course, I'm not stupid enough to leave it "clipped out" by the time he pulls me and invites me to step out of the truck. In fact, I usually make it a point to let him SEE me unhook my securely tightened belt before I get out of my seat to open the passenger door for him (even if I just hooked it up after seeing his flashing lights.)

I drive by about 4 cops per day, at known locations, and I usually pull it across my chest as I go by... but, sometimes I forget. I really don't think it matters. I can see into HIS cab, and I can't tell what he has across his chest.

I do know that some states have a policy that they cannot stop you for a seatbelt violation. They have to discover it AFTER the stop. That is why I said that the driver probably "hung" himself. WHO would be that stupid?

Now that's where you are wrong. I know for a fact that when you pull into the entrance lane to the POI at Ridgefield, WA. that the weigh masters sit in the scale house with binoculars hidden behind their tinted windows looking for unsuspecting truckers buckling their seat belts prior to crossing the scale and for truckers with cell phones up to their ears rather than hands free.

How do I know? I got stopped, red lighted, on the scale and the weigh master tried to accuse me of having something, probably a cell phone up to my ear while advancing towards the scale. I saw him poking out from behind the tinted window when I was about 50 feet from said scale. He proceeded to tell me it was illegal to talk on my cell phone if it wasn't hands free even if I wasn't on the freeway anymore. I told him I didn't know what he was even talking about and showed him the flashing blue connectivity light on my bluetooth headset and explained how you can't talk on the handset if it's mated to the bluetooth. He told me he saw me with binoculars with something, probably a phone, up to my ear. I told him to look in my ear where I showed him the outer skin on my ear had some sort of irritation that was infected and itchy. His last words to me were, "Have a nice day sir."

BTW, this whole conversation occurred with my seat belt on and clipped in the slack, much more that 4 inches, position.

[Jackrabbit379]

That's the silliest thing I ever heard, Scoe! Like Malaki said, if you weren't able to clip the seat belt, they wouldn't have installed the yellow clips from the factory. I clip mine too. That seat belt drives me nuts!
Law says that we have to wear a seat belt. It doesn't say that it has to be a noose. I'd take that lawman into court over that one. (If I had the money)

[golfhobo]

Scoe said:

Now that's where you are wrong.

"That" what? Where? You quoted my whole post. Oh... you mean the part about them "seeing" into the cab of a truck, right? Okay... you might have a point about the binoculars thing.

I know for a fact that when you pull into the entrance lane to the POI at Ridgefield, WA. that the weigh masters sit in the scale house with binoculars hidden behind their tinted windows looking for unsuspecting truckers buckling their seat belts prior to crossing the scale and for truckers with cell phones up to their ears rather than hands free.

A FACT, eh? Okay. Let 'em! Did you read my earlier point about taking care of business and not feeding the bears? I know where the weigh stations are. I know the exact moment that they come into "line of sight." I put my belt on and my phone in my lap (IF I'm using it,) before I reach that point. But, you bring up an interesting point about what level of "technology" they can use. Your story was amusing. Here's a couple of mine:

I used to have a small Sirius radio unit mounted on my dash. I was red-lighted at a scale in Alabama once, and the guy came out to my truck. He asked to see my logbook first, which was up to date. Then he asked me what that was on my dash. I told him what it was and even showed him the readout of the station I was listening to. He mentioned that it looked JUST like a radar detector, and that it might cause me to be "checked out" more often than I would like to be. I'd never thought of that... but, he was right!

Second story is the one dealing with technologies. I drive thru the NC/TN gorge every day. If I know the coast is clear, and I am closing in on a line of slow trucks doing well under the pitifully slow speed limit, well.... somehow, I end up in front of them regardless of that NO LEFT LANE rule. (Is that shouting?) I also speed a little after I get out of the gorge, and sometimes change lanes to keep from being held up by slower trucks and stupid 4wheelers. I don't think I'm being reckless or dangerous, just kinda going with the flow of the hills and valleys.

One day, I was red-lighted at the eastbound scale after coming out of the gorge. The nice lady came out and told me that "someone" had called in and said I was driving in a reckless manner. She seemed apologetic to even have to mention it, and told me she was only telling me in case I heard something about it from my company later. I told her it was probably one of the several UPS rigs I had passed who were pizzed because THEY couldn't go faster. She laughed.

But lately I've been wondering about technology. I suspect that a quick check of googleEarth maps, which are pretty much "realtime," might actually show a big FedEx truck in the left lane somewhere in the gorge. You think they could "charge" me with a restricted lane infraction based on satellite imagery?

Won't be such an issue after Sep 18th, as I'll be losing this cushy dedicated run, and getting back out around the country a bit more. Maybe only have to deal with the gorge once or twice a week. But.... it's an interesting question, don't you think? When the judge asks the LEO if he "saw" me in the left lane and he says he saw me on his computer from 20 miles away using a satellite, hmm..... I wonder where (or if) they draw the line?

BTW, this whole conversation occurred with my seat belt on and clipped in the slack, much more that 4 inches, position.

Yeah, but you weren't DRIVING at the time. :thumbsup:

[Fredog]

§ 392.16Use of seat belts. A commercial motor vehicle which has a seat belt assembly installed at the driver's seat shall not be driven unless the driver has properly restrained himself/herself with the seat belt assembly.


"properly" is not defined, so it's his opinion, not the law

[snoopyandpuppy]

Lots of points here. First let me say, I have never written an adult driver for a seatbelt violation because I routinely don't wear mine. It would be hypocritical of me do to do so. I will write the driver if children are not properly restrained. My kids are always seatbelted. I don't wear mine because I don't want to be found dead with a seatbelt on and a bullet in my head. I know, I am more likely to be in a car crash than getting shot at.....I'll take my chances there.

Secondly, as someone one mentioned about revenue, as a LEO, I do not write summons/tickets to generate revenue for my employer. It has never been mentioned around my department as a reason to write tickets. (see below about quotas) I normally don't write little things that I may stop you for, ie equipment violations, unless they are numerous or your license is suspended. If suspended, I will write a summons for the initial reason for stop. Generally, a kind warning for something minor will result with the driver saying thank-you and getting the problem fixed. Speeding, disregarding signs/signals and reckless operation of a vehicle will generally get you a summons. Not for revenue but to try and correct driving behavior.

Virginia does not allow officers to stop for seatbelt violations. This is considered a secondary violation and we must have another reason to stop the vehicle in order to write a summons for seatbelts. As far as improper use, if it is worn and locked....good enough for me. I have never seen a code here that defines proper use, clips etc.

Lastly, some departments may have a quota thing for income revenue. This is illegal and I do not agree or participate in it. I do require my employees to issue a # of summons a month. This is a very low number, but it is part of their job and it is a way for me to insure that they are doing their job. This also includes writing summons at accident scenes. I also have set min. numbers for other aspects of their job......again traffic enforcenment is part of their job.

Did I cover it all? If I missed something, let me know.

[Orangetxguy]

Originally Posted by snoopyandpuppy

Lots of points here. First let me say, I have never written an adult driver for a seatbelt violation because I routinely don't wear mine. It would be hypocritical of me do to do so. I will write the driver if children are not properly restrained. My kids are always seatbelted. I don't wear mine because I don't want to be found dead with a seatbelt on and a bullet in my head. I know, I am more likely to be in a car crash than getting shot at.....I'll take my chances there.

Secondly, as someone one mentioned about revenue, as a LEO, I do not write summons/tickets to generate revenue for my employer. It has never been mentioned around my department as a reason to write tickets. (see below about quotas) I normally don't write little things that I may stop you for, ie equipment violations, unless they are numerous or your license is suspended. If suspended, I will write a summons for the initial reason for stop. Generally, a kind warning for something minor will result with the driver saying thank-you and getting the problem fixed. Speeding, disregarding signs/signals and reckless operation of a vehicle will generally get you a summons. Not for revenue but to try and correct driving behavior.

Virginia does not allow officers to stop for seatbelt violations. This is considered a secondary violation and we must have another reason to stop the vehicle in order to write a summons for seatbelts. As far as improper use, if it is worn and locked....good enough for me. I have never seen a code here that defines proper use, clips etc.

Lastly, some departments may have a quota thing for income revenue. This is illegal and I do not agree or participate in it. I do require my employees to issue a # of summons a month. This is a very low number, but it is part of their job and it is a way for me to insure that they are doing their job. This also includes writing summons at accident scenes. I also have set min. numbers for other aspects of their job......again traffic enforcenment is part of their job.

Did I cover it all? If I missed something, let me know.

Ummmmm.....I get it. The state doesn't set "quotas" for LEO's. BOSS LEO's set "qoutas" for LEO's under their supervision.

:deal:



:nixon:

[Scoe]

Originally Posted by snoopyandpuppy

Lots of points here. First let me say, I have never written an adult driver for a seatbelt violation because I routinely don't wear mine. It would be hypocritical of me do to do so. I will write the driver if children are not properly restrained. My kids are always seatbelted. I don't wear mine because I don't want to be found dead with a seatbelt on and a bullet in my head. I know, I am more likely to be in a car crash than getting shot at.....I'll take my chances there.

Secondly, as someone one mentioned about revenue, as a LEO, I do not write summons/tickets to generate revenue for my employer. It has never been mentioned around my department as a reason to write tickets. (see below about quotas) I normally don't write little things that I may stop you for, ie equipment violations, unless they are numerous or your license is suspended. If suspended, I will write a summons for the initial reason for stop. Generally, a kind warning for something minor will result with the driver saying thank-you and getting the problem fixed. Speeding, disregarding signs/signals and reckless operation of a vehicle will generally get you a summons. Not for revenue but to try and correct driving behavior.

Virginia does not allow officers to stop for seatbelt violations. This is considered a secondary violation and we must have another reason to stop the vehicle in order to write a summons for seatbelts. As far as improper use, if it is worn and locked....good enough for me. I have never seen a code here that defines proper use, clips etc.

Lastly, some departments may have a quota thing for income revenue. This is illegal and I do not agree or participate in it. I do require my employees to issue a # of summons a month. This is a very low number, but it is part of their job and it is a way for me to insure that they are doing their job. This also includes writing summons at accident scenes. I also have set min. numbers for other aspects of their job......again traffic enforcenment is part of their job.

Did I cover it all? If I missed something, let me know.

Thanks for all the input. Next time I see the driver who received this citation I'll let him know we've been discussing his situation on here.

[Mr. Ford95]

snoopy I may have it wrong so I will ask you to clarify it, here in VA since the seatbelt is a secondary offense, does the officer have to cite you for that primary offense also before he can write the seatbelt one? I ask only because a co-worker was popped supposedly for his seatbelt alone in Stafford Co. He claimed the officer pulled him and wrote him for the seatbelt only, that he had no other reason to pull him. Wouldn't it make more sense to also write them for a primary so this issue doesn't come up of whether or not you were pulled solely for the seatbelt violation?