Texas Seatbelt Laws and 3500

[Mike Ellis]

Well folks,



For some time the Texas seatbelt law did not require drivers of 1-ton trucks to be strapped in at all times. Children were required to be strapped in, but the driver was free to choose. Since the cops here are engaging in a seatbelt enforcement campaign next week called "Click It or Ticket", I decided to check the statutes and make sure my memory was correct.



There have been bazillions of changes to state laws in the last few years, the Texas legislature passed 1500 new laws in one session recently (!), and it didn't surprise me too much to see that the seatbelt code had undergone a couple of changes along the way. If you visit the link below:



http://www.txdps. state. tx. us/director_staff/public_information/seatbelt.htm



and check out section 545. 413, you will see that the term "passenger vehicle" has been redefined to mean a passenger car, light truck, sport utility vehicle, truck, or truck tractor. This was done under Senate Bill SB 113, sponsored by Mike Moncrief, to close the "loophole" that allowed 1-ton truck drivers to avoid having to wear seatbelts. Previously you only had to wear them if your rig was 3/4 ton or less.



So, if you drive a 1-ton Dodge in Texas you now have to buckle up like all the other folks. This info may have been posted before, if so please ignore the duplication.



And before any of you flame me, note that I always make my wife and kids belt up, and until recently have always worn one myself. I just don't like the gubmint FORCING me to wear one. I quit wearing mine back in November last year after a surgery to remove lymph nodes in my groin - belt over a healing scar was pretty darned uncomfortable. Much to my surprise, I found I enjoyed riding around without the belt sawing away on me. Now I find I have to wear one "just because they say so". Grrrr.

 

[Sled Puller]

Yep, not about should or shouldn't, it is about THEM telling ME what to do.



Same with Motorcycle helmets, not smokeys business.

 

[Champane Flight]

Did you say Texas seatbelt law?

> Subject: Fw: Only in Texas

>

> > > Someone's in a Heap'o Trouble

> > >

> > > A Texas State Trooper pulled a car over and told the driver that

because

> > > he had been wearing his seat belt, he had just won $5,000 dollars in

the

> > > statewide safety competition.

> > > "What are you going to do with the money?" asked the policeman.

> > >

> > > "Well, I guess I'm going to get a driver's license," he answered.

> > >

> > > "Oh, don't listen to him," yelled a woman in the passenger seat. "He's

> a smart aleck when he's drunk. "

> > >

> > > This woke up the guy in the back-seat, who took one look at the cop

and

> > > moaned, "I knew we wouldn't get far in a stolen car. "

> > >

> > > At that moment, there was a knock from the trunk and a voice said, in

> > > Spanish,

> > > "Are we over the border yet?"

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

 

[TxDieselKid]

Re: Did you say Texas seatbelt law?

Originally posted by Champane Flight

> Subject: Fw: Only in Texas

>

> > > Someone's in a Heap'o Trouble

> > >

> > > A Texas State Trooper pulled a car over and told the driver that

because

> > > he had been wearing his seat belt, he had just won $5,000 dollars in

the

> > > statewide safety competition.

> > > "What are you going to do with the money?" asked the policeman.

> > >

> > > "Well, I guess I'm going to get a driver's license," he answered.

> > >

> > > "Oh, don't listen to him," yelled a woman in the passenger seat. "He's

> a smart aleck when he's drunk. "

> > >

> > > This woke up the guy in the back-seat, who took one look at the cop

and

> > > moaned, "I knew we wouldn't get far in a stolen car. "

> > >

> > > At that moment, there was a knock from the trunk and a voice said, in

> > > Spanish,

> > > "Are we over the border yet?"

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Dude, what are you talking about, this is totally a Cali story, at least the way I heard it, it was.



Andrew

 

[Don M]

I was just having this conversation with my friends last week and telling them the law did not require the drivers of 3500's to wear belts. I never wear mine. Prolly should in Big D though.

Guess I better belt up now. That Mike Moncrief has no doubt ****** a few farmers off. The loophole was put in for them when driving county and FM roads because they have to get out of their trucks so much when working. Figures.



Don~

 

[RottnDogue]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

Yep, not about should or shouldn't, it is about THEM telling ME what to do.



Same with Motorcycle helmets, not smokeys business.

Yes I agree 110%, Perfect example of TOO MUCH Government, and it Pisses me off... .



Darren

 

[Champane Flight]

Too much....

The helmet laws are a example of too many insurance companys! And of course too much money lineing politicions pockets.

 

[Speedo]

seat belts

note that I always make my wife and kids belt up, and until recently have always worn one myself



... Just a thought, when one person in not belted in and the

vehicle is involved in a violent accident that person can be

a lethal object flying around inside the vehicle if they aren't

ejected.

 

[Scollins]

You know, if people would have just worn their damn seatbelts like they should have for the last 20 years, this law wouldn't be on the books. Personally, I don't let anybody ride in a vehicle with me that isn't belted.



It all comes back to the crap about "It's my life, so I should do whatever I want. " Well, when your actions have consequences for ME, then I think the government should step in. When your sorry butt is taken to the hospital, and your injuries are very serious (because you were ejected from the vehicle, not wearing your seatbelt) and the hospital bills reaches into the tens of thousands, who pays?? Your insurance, right? Well, because the insurance company has to make up the lost profits from your lame butt, I have to pay higher premiums!!!!!! I'M TIRED OF IT!!!!



WEAR YOUR DAMN SEATBELT AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT.

 

[TxDieselKid]

^^^

Originally posted by Sled Puller

Yep, not about should or shouldn't, it is about THEM telling ME what to do.



Same with Motorcycle helmets, not smokeys business.

Couldn't say it better myself!!!



Andrew

 

[Champane Flight]

Do away...

The real problem lies with that the insurance companys, not with moneys paid out by them, but by not enough money being made for them. So they lobby for these laws, not to protect us, but so they can make more money. We lose more lives from alcohol related illness every year than we do seatbelt violation. Do you see anybody taking action to stop this? No of course not, it is all where the money lies.



So don't tell me I have to wear a helmet. And don't tell me I have to wear a seatbelt. Educate me and I will wear them on my own (which I do) . I don't like the idea of the insurance companys brainwashing us into thinking the higher premiums that we pay are related to higher costs. Why do they raise our premiums? Because they can, and nobody can do a thing about it! They lobbied for No- fault insurance, everybody has to have it. It is greed plain and simple.

 

[Scollins]

[smooch]

Hey Mike, thanks for the PERSONAL attack. Obviously, I can't read (message posted on internet FORUM. ) Did I specifically mention YOU in my post, or any ONE person in particular? I don't think so. The "you" in my post is directed towards the general public.



As for myself not paying a higher premium because of YOU, you are probably correct. However, I am paying a higher premium from the general populace not wearing seatbelts, as well as many other things. If you reread my original post, I clearly indicated WHY the premiums go up (profits. ) The other issues you brought up weren't part of the original discussion. Some of those issus are valid, some not. I've driven in Germany on the Autobahn. I didn't see a lot of driving that I would call "advanced" or even safe!



And, why should rural drivers of one ton trucks receive special treatment? Because they have to get in and out of their trucks a lot? Oh please. UPS has a policy that their drivers must wear their seatbelt while the vehicle is in motion, even if it is only moving a few feet. Are these rural farm folks getting in and out of their vehicles more often than a UPS delivery person?



What is the purpose of goverment anyway? It is to create a safe community. Do they over-react and over-reach at times, YES. If YOU don't like what they are doing, write your congressman and lobby to get it changed. You don't want to wear your seatbelt? Get the law changed, but wear it in the meantime.



As for "educating" people about the benefits of wearing a helmet or a seatbelt, and they will do the right thing? Again, if that was the case, this type of legislation would have no reason for being. For lots of good "education", check out this website:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/airbags/presbelt/index.html

This was set in motion by then-President Bill Clinton in 1997. Nice to see how quickly government can move.



This is obviously a touchy issue. But, I've got the law on my side this time!

 

[illflem]

Originally posted by Scollins

Well, because the insurance company has to make up the lost profits from your lame butt, I have to pay higher premiums!!!!!!

Originally posted by Champane Flight

The helmet laws are a example of too many insurance companys! And of course too much money lineing politicians pockets.

I used to feel much the same way, what business does the government have telling me what to do? Then I got educated. The biggest money drain from folks not wearing helmets and belts is when the public has to pick up the tab for more the serious injuries encountered by lower income uninsured folks.

 

[Scollins]

Originally posted by Mike Ellis

SCollins,



You are correct, you didn't reference me specifically in your original message but when I read the all caps "WEAR YOUR **** SEATBELT AND SHUT UP ABOUT IT" it got my dander up pretty quickly. You didn't mention the "general public" in your post, so I concluded it was directed at me or the other posters in the thread specifically. If I was off base here, my apologies.

I can see how that may have happened. Apology accepted. My apologies if my thoughts were not quite clear enough to make it "impersonal. " I should have refrained from using CAPS.

The other examples I threw in were intended to illustrate other activities that affect the insurance business, I thought the relation was clear but perhaps not.

The relationship was indeed clear. I was hoping to keep the discussion focused on seatbelts, and not the myriad other factors that are involved with vehicle crashes.

I visited the site you posted and checked out the info there, there are plenty of statistics on economics but not a lot of supporting data on the benefits of seat belts. I will root around and see if I can find the fatality rates from the 60's and 70's versus the 80's and 90's, it will be interesting to compare with the NHTSA graph of seatbelt acceptance. If seatbelts, car seats, and improved auto design have helped as much as the NHTSA says, one would think that insurance impacts should have been driven DOWN over the last couple of decades. But the insurers point to lack of seatbelt usage to rationalize the massive increases we have seen.

Another factor is the rising costs of vehicles, and repairing them. Part of the safety features of many modern vehicles is "crumple zones. " Well, these zones fail (as designed) with much less force than before. That typically means more damage, etc. Don't get me wrong, I think the insurance industry is the biggest, legalized scam on the planet. I think they should all be made into not-for-profit organizations. Additionally, tort laws need to be changed, so that the frivolous lawsuits stop.

This has always seemed illogical to me, I suspect the increases are much more likely to be due to the higher numbers of small, lightweight, plastic-filled cars that the market has developed in search of increased efficiency and lower cost. The number of people beginning to call for bans on SUV's and large trucks due to the "disadvantage" that small cars face in collisions with them indicates that others have reached the same conclusion. The huge number of uninsured and unlicensed drivers in many states must also play a significant role, because SOMEBODY always pays even when the instigator has slipped back across the border and is unreachable.

Yes, I agree 100%.

$$$$ based arguments may win in the pocketbook wars, but in a crash F=ma and KE=0. 5*mv^2 are laws with 100% compliance. I guess God and Sir Isaac Newton were more effective legislators than those we contend with now...

Yes indeed! That's why I like to drive my Ram. Besides, I personally have a lot of mass, and I need a diesel to haul my butt around.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

I think another contributing factor to rising insurance rates is the ever increasing population of illegals and others who cannot carry or choose not to carry liability insurance, yet get behind the wheel of a car. Drivers in this category demographically are more prone to accidents given their vehicle condition, level of education, driving skills, sense of responsibility, etc.



Washington State has also jumped on the "Click it or Ticket" bandwagon. It would be interesting to know how many states have recently teamed up on this. Washington also has a big blitz going to crack down on littering, which I am mostly in favor of (another peeve of mine = irresponsible indifferent litterbugs) except for where it comes to the part if you don't have a litter bag in your vehicle you get something like a $85 fine.



Vaughn

 

[Steve M]

Imagine if insurance didn't exist at all. I bet people would be a lot more careful. There would be no slamming on brakes in front of someone to dare them to hit you. No more intentional accidents to defraud the insurance companies. No more fake thefts and arsons. Those of us who are careful could probably save enough by not paying the premiums we now pay to replace our vehicle if an accident or theft happened. I'm 41 years old. Never filed a claim. I wonder how much I've paid in over the years to pay for those who have?

 

[CTabor]

The point is if you live in a free country then it should be free if what I do hurts you or some one else, then make your law if you must to regulate my behavior. But as for as seat belts go I don't hurt anyone if I choose to not wear one. I don't need the gov. are any one else to tell me too,as far as the ones who say they pay more insurance because of people who want to be free. I will pay higher insurance to have a free will and a choice if you want the gov. telling you every move you should move to Cuba.

 

[Goddard]

tell you what. i don't like being told what to do by almost anyone, let alone the gov or some insurance co. if i decide to wear a belt today then fine. if i do not want to wear one then i am not going to! if i get stopped and don't have one on then i will just have to pay the fine. and i will pay the next one too.

 

[Murle]

Statistics are a joke. Look at it this way. If a person is killed in accident and they were wearing a seat belt, you never hear anything about it. But if they were not wearing a seat belt and were killed it seems that they always make sure the public knows they were not wearing a seat belt.



The other day a guy was killed in a truck that was hit by a train. Now this guy tried to beat the train at the crossing. He lost. The truck was just a pile of broken metal. And guess what!!!! You got it. He was not wearing his SEAT BELT. You can bet that this guy will go in the STATISTICS as NOT WEARING a seat belt and his life could have been saved if he had been wearing it.

 

[Vaughn MacKenzie]

Murle, this must be the guy you were talking about. . . not much left of his rig after this little incident



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Truck driver killed in collision with freight train



A southbound Union Pacific Railroad coal train struck a Freightliner flatbed truck Wednesday afternoon at the Bonnie Brae Street crossing.



Scott Alexander, 32, of Ferris, TX was driving southeast on Bonnie Brae toward the highway when the accident occurred at about 13:45.



Denton Traffic Officer James Brett said the impact scattered wreckage for 1,700 feet along both sides of the train tracks. Mr. Alexander remained in the cab for about 300 feet, Officer Brett said, until the cab struck the ground. "He was not wearing a seat belt," the officer said. "And he was ejected. "



The chassis of the truck remained entangled on the train's engine until the train crossed a trestle over a ravine. Then the chassis and the truck's engine fell into the ravine. It took a crane to move it to a wrecker several hours later. Axles and wheels lay about 50 feet south of the intersection on the east side of the tracks, and the bed of the truck came to rest on the west side of the tracks.



Mr. Alexander was taken by helicopter to Harris Methodist Hospital, where he was declared dead on arrival, Officer Brett said. The train's engine sustained some damage and was changed for another engine in Roanoke, TX, he said.



The truck was fully on the tracks at the crossing, which is marked but doesn't have signals or gates, and the train appeared to have struck the truck mid-cab on the driver's side. There was no indication of why the driver attempted to cross the tracks with the train so close, the officer said. "The crew said they were blowing the whistle for the crossing. "



Mark Davis, a spokesman with UP said the train comprised 135 coal cars and two engines. It had picked up the load of coal in Wyoming and was taking it to Halsted, between San Antonio and Houston, Mr. Davis said, and was traveling about 50 mph. "None of the crew members was injured," he said.



- Donna Fielder, The Denton Record-Chronicle, courtesy, Larry W. Grant