Colorado Seatbelt Legislation

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
T

The Big Biker

Guest
Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.

Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
law is pushed for ?

This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference

The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
than to go against the wishes of their constituents.

As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
have the same choice with a seatbelt.
 
We have to get organ donations from somewhere, so I see your point.

"The Big Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
> to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
> secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
> violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.
>
> Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
> has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
> benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
> don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
> we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
> law is pushed for ?
>
> This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
> http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference
>
> The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
> law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
> and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
> the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
> know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
> officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
> they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
> than to go against the wishes of their constituents.
>
> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
> have the same choice with a seatbelt.


 
On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 00:26:30 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>We have to get organ donations from somewhere, so I see your point.
>

People have rights to disreguard their own safety. No seat-belt laws,
it's a violation of your liberties!!!!

:p

>"The Big Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
>> to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
>> secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
>> violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.
>>
>> Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
>> has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
>> benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
>> don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
>> we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
>> law is pushed for ?
>>
>> This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
>> http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference
>>
>> The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
>> law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
>> and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
>> the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
>> know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
>> officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
>> they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
>> than to go against the wishes of their constituents.
>>
>> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
>> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
>> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
>> have the same choice with a seatbelt.
>

 

"The Big Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
> to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
> secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
> violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.
>
> Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
> has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
> benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
> don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
> we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
> law is pushed for ?

Give them time, and it too will pass...

> This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
>
http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference
>
> The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
> law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
> and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
> the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
> know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
> officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
> they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
> than to go against the wishes of their constituents.

The last 150 years or so of US history proves that these people don't
serve the interests of the people who elect them.

> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
> have the same choice with a seatbelt.

I agree. If someone wants to use seatbelts (or helmets in the case of
motorcyclists), that should be their decision and not that of some
bureaucrat in a little office somewhere. The nanny state sees us as
incompetent little sheep who must be led by their so-called "wisdom."


 

"Harry K" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well someone who can't see the logic in wearing a
> seatbelt -IS- an
> incompetent.

And any fool that thinks a 4 wheeled vehicle is safe is
a complete and utter IDIOT. As such they should be neutered
for the betterment of our species. You lot in those cars can
just line up on the right side.
MY right you nincompoops!
Sheesh...you idiots, now if you'll give me a moment to
cauterize my K-Bar in the fire we'll get started
momentarily.


--
Keith Schiffner
Assistant to the Assistant Undersecretary of the Ministry of
Silly Walks.
"terrorist organization" is a redundancy


 

"The Big Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once again, our Colorado Legislature is going to make another attempt
> to make our seatbelt law primary enforcement instead of the current
> secondary enforcement of being required to be stopped for another
> violation before the seatbelt law can be enforced.
>
> Since 1996, this issue has come up just about every year and so far,
> has been rightfully squashed. I would figure that our esteemed social
> benefactors in the State House would give up but apparently, they
> don't get it. We don't want an enhanced primary seatbelt law just like
> we don't want a helmet law. If this passes, how long before a helmet
> law is pushed for ?
>
> This information came from the Greeley Tribune.
> http://www.greeleytrib.com/apps/pbc...216/NEWS/112160054&template=printartReference
>
> The article mentioned that the town of Greeley had a primary seatbelt
> law in the town back in 2001 but then it was voted on by the people
> and the people proclaimed no primary belt law. The law was repealed at
> the ballot box. The new state representative, Jim Reisberg thinks he
> know better than the citizens of Greeley and so do the other city
> officials like the Police Chief Branham. These people ought to know
> they serve the interest of their citizens and they should know better
> than to go against the wishes of their constituents.
>
> As adults, the decision to wear a seatbelt should be our choice and in
> fact, there should be no seatbelt law in Colorado. We are currently
> allowed to decide to wear a helmet or not with a motorcycle, we should
> have the same choice with a seatbelt.

This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle at
fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards (on
motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on knee. Any
questions??? W W


 
Warren Weber wrote:

>
>
> This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle at
> fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards (on
> motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on knee. Any
> questions??? W W
>
>
Yes. Are you saying that because it is a good idea to use safety
equipment that it should also be mandated by law? I, for one, don't
believe that the state should tell me what safety equipment I need to
use. I think I'm smart enough to figure that out on my own. What's next?
State mandated condom use for sex? A law making it illegal for me to
hit my thumb with a hammer?

--
TomO
 

> Another point that someone else made here a couple weeks ago is that
> beltless drivers may get thrown out of the driver seat if they lose
> control of the car and then hit another car. So beltless drivers are
> NOT just risking their own necks. They are also risking the lives of
> other people on the road.
>

That is really stretching it. Here in California, new law requires children
under 12 to be in the back seat. Now that has gone too far. Those safety
activists are trying to control every aspect of your life. Seat belt is
enough.

Ben


 
On 5 Jan 2005 18:47:19 -0800, "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>[email protected] Jan 5, 5:15 pm
>
>>People have rights to disreguard their own safety. No seat-belt laws,
>>it's a violation of your liberties!!!!
>
>What about the kids? Don't you think drivers should be required to
>buckle up any passenger under 16.?
>

Opps I forgot you were around. This is big people talk, I was talking
about adults. No run and play. :p

>Another point that someone else made here a couple weeks ago is that
>beltless drivers may get thrown out of the driver seat if they lose
>control of the car and then hit another car. So beltless drivers are
>NOT just risking their own necks. They are also risking the lives of
>other people on the road.

Don't peole risk other people's lives just getting in their car?
Maybe cars should be taken away(or over taxed) from eveyone, other
than the rich and politiccians ofcourse, since they can afford that
lifestyle.

;)





 
On 5 Jan 2005 18:56:12 -0800,
[email protected] wrote:

>Dumbass; by the time of the impact controlling the car is no longer an
>issue.


Seat belt laws are writen for political gain.

They force the stupid to live long and vote often. Let the idiots
kill themselves it's their right. muhahahaha


 

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 5 Jan 2005 18:56:12 -0800,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Dumbass; by the time of the impact controlling the car is no longer
an
> >issue.
>
>
> Seat belt laws are writen for political gain.

And not wearing a seatbelt is made a primary offense for the nanny
state's financial gain.

> They force the stupid to live long and vote often. Let the idiots
> kill themselves it's their right. muhahahaha

Amen!





 

"TomO" <tom@_nospam_towens.com> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> Warren Weber wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle at
>> fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards (on
>> motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on knee. Any
>> questions??? W W
> Yes. Are you saying that because it is a good idea to use safety equipment
> that it should also be mandated by law? I, for one, don't believe that the
> state should tell me what safety equipment I need to use. I think I'm
> smart enough to figure that out on my own. What's next? State mandated
> condom use for sex? A law making it illegal for me to hit my thumb with a
> hammer?
>
> --
> TomO

We live in Colorado, I just think it is smart to use all the protection
available. I would prefer the 3 point seat belts over what is installed by
auto manufactures. I installed seat belts before vehicles had them from
factory. One dark night in my pick up I caught an object step onto the
highway thought it was a small child. I swerved across the road and did a
broad side stop. If I had not been belted in I most likely would have lost
control by sliding across the seat. W W


 
Warren Weber wrote:
> "TomO" <tom@_nospam_towens.com> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
>
>>Warren Weber wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle at
>>>fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards (on
>>>motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on knee. Any
>>>questions??? W W
>>
>>Yes. Are you saying that because it is a good idea to use safety equipment
>>that it should also be mandated by law? I, for one, don't believe that the
>>state should tell me what safety equipment I need to use. I think I'm
>>smart enough to figure that out on my own. What's next? State mandated
>>condom use for sex? A law making it illegal for me to hit my thumb with a
>>hammer?
>>
>>--
>>TomO
>
>
> We live in Colorado, I just think it is smart to use all the protection
> available. I would prefer the 3 point seat belts over what is installed by
> auto manufactures. I installed seat belts before vehicles had them from
> factory. One dark night in my pick up I caught an object step onto the
> highway thought it was a small child. I swerved across the road and did a
> broad side stop. If I had not been belted in I most likely would have lost
> control by sliding across the seat. W W
>
>
I also live in Colorado. I too believe that it is smart to use the
protection available, but I still do not understand whether or not you
believe that such use needs to mandatory by law.

When I ride I usually do wear a helmet. There are some times when I
don't, but they are rather infrequent. I do not want the state
legislature telling me that I am incapable of understanding the
increased risk on those occaisions.

--
TomO
 
TomO wrote:
> Warren Weber wrote:
>
>> "TomO" <tom@_nospam_towens.com> wrote in message
>> news:p[email protected]...
>>
>>> Warren Weber wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle
>>>> at fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards
>>>> (on motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on
>>>> knee. Any questions??? W W
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes. Are you saying that because it is a good idea to use safety
>>> equipment that it should also be mandated by law? I, for one, don't
>>> believe that the state should tell me what safety equipment I need to
>>> use. I think I'm smart enough to figure that out on my own. What's
>>> next? State mandated condom use for sex? A law making it illegal for
>>> me to hit my thumb with a hammer?
>>>
>>> --
>>> TomO
>>
>>
>>
>> We live in Colorado, I just think it is smart to use all the
>> protection available. I would prefer the 3 point seat belts over what
>> is installed by auto manufactures. I installed seat belts before
>> vehicles had them from factory. One dark night in my pick up I caught
>> an object step onto the highway thought it was a small child. I
>> swerved across the road and did a broad side stop. If I had not been
>> belted in I most likely would have lost control by sliding across the
>> seat. W W
>>
> I also live in Colorado. I too believe that it is smart to use the
> protection available, but I still do not understand whether or not you
> believe that such use needs to mandatory by law.
>
> When I ride I usually do wear a helmet. There are some times when I
> don't, but they are rather infrequent. I do not want the state
> legislature telling me that I am incapable of understanding the
> increased risk on those occaisions.
>

There's too many people who believe since it's safer, then there should
be laws requiring it instead of allowing us our freedom to choose.

Now, as for the seatbelts in most cars, they are already 3 point
systems. Most racing organizations require 5 or 6 point systems. These
are safer than the standard 3 point system installed in cars. If you're
going to promote laws requiring seatbelts, why not go all the way and
require 6 point systems that are safer (altho they do take several
minutes to connect and adjust) and helmets in cars (since racers where
helmets because of safety, why shouldn't everyone else be mandated to?).
Unfortunately, most of these nanny state promoters never follow their
ideas to these logical conclusions.

Let me decide what I wear for safety, let me decide what risks I'm
willing to take, don't make those decisions for me.

--
Odinn

'03 FLHTI ........... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/ElectraGlide
'97 VN1500D ......... http://www.sloanclan.org/gallery/VulcanClassic
Atlanta Biker Net ... http://www.atlantabiker.net
Vulcan Riders Assoc . http://www.vulcanriders.org

rot13 to reply
 
In article <[email protected]>, tom@_nospam_towens.com says...

>Warren Weber wrote:

>> This family saved twice because of using seat belts. ( other vehicle at
>> fault). Son was wearing all protective gear except knee guards (on
>> motorcycle) hit headon at 70MPH. Bike totaled. Had deep cut on knee. Any
>> questions??? W W
>>
>Yes. Are you saying that because it is a good idea to use safety
>equipment that it should also be mandated by law? I, for one, don't
>believe that the state should tell me what safety equipment I need to
>use. I think I'm smart enough to figure that out on my own. What's next?
> State mandated condom use for sex? A law making it illegal for me to
>hit my thumb with a hammer?

What is even worse is that sometimes the government mandated equipment
can kill you. Airbags are one example of a deadly so called safety device.
The idiots in charge designed the airbags for an aversized male adult _NOT_
wearing a seatbelt. So these nasty devices can, and have, killed smaller
people.
------------
Alex

 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
>
>
>> Another point that someone else made here a couple weeks ago is that
>> beltless drivers may get thrown out of the driver seat if they lose
>> control of the car and then hit another car. So beltless drivers are
>> NOT just risking their own necks. They are also risking the lives of
>> other people on the road.
>>
>
>That is really stretching it. Here in California, new law requires children
>under 12 to be in the back seat. Now that has gone too far. Those safety
>activists are trying to control every aspect of your life. Seat belt is
>enough.

What if your car has no back seat?
-----------
Alex

 
In article <[email protected]>, tom@_nospam_towens.com says...

>I also live in Colorado. I too believe that it is smart to use the
>protection available, but I still do not understand whether or not you
>believe that such use needs to mandatory by law.
>
>When I ride I usually do wear a helmet. There are some times when I
>don't, but they are rather infrequent. I do not want the state
>legislature telling me that I am incapable of understanding the
>increased risk on those occaisions.

Something else that no one has mentioned is that this new law is another
excuse for cops to start prying into your business. They can pull you over
and then say they thought you were not wearing a seatbelt. Once they have
you pulled over they can start fishing for information from you. They will
ask for permission to search your car. "If you have done nothing wrong, then
you have nothing to worry about. " UGH!
-------------
Alex

 

"Odinn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SNIP
What a load of raving by fools in cars...proves once again
they are nothing but monkeys in cages flinging their poo.

> There's too many people who believe since it's safer, then
> there should be laws requiring it instead of allowing us
> our freedom to choose.
>
> Now, as for the seatbelts in most cars, they are already 3
> point systems. Most racing organizations require 5 or 6
> point systems. These are safer than the standard 3 point
> system installed in cars. If you're going to promote laws
> requiring seatbelts, why not go all the way and require 6
> point systems that are safer (altho they do take several
> minutes to connect and adjust) and helmets in cars (since
> racers where helmets because of safety, why shouldn't
> everyone else be mandated to?). Unfortunately, most of
> these nanny state promoters never follow their ideas to
> these logical conclusions.

Yep and heaven forbid they find out how many more operators
of cars and such suffer debilitating head/C-spine injuries
compared to motorcyclist on a percentage basis of number of
injury accidents. Poor fools don't know how dangerous those
damn cars are...and convertables. OH MY! NOTHING to protect
in case of a roll over. Ought to be a law against those
things...


> Let me decide what I wear for safety, let me decide what
> risks I'm willing to take, don't make those decisions for
> me.

Amen brother amen...I think we'd both agree that not
utilizing safety equipment is, well foolish and signs that
one has a death wish.

--
Nefarious Necrologist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<:(3 )3~ <:(3 )3~ <:(3 )~ <:(3 )~


 
Alex Rodriguez wrote:

>>I also live in Colorado. I too believe that it is smart to use the
>>protection available, but I still do not understand whether or not you
>>believe that such use needs to mandatory by law.
>>
>>When I ride I usually do wear a helmet. There are some times when I
>>don't, but they are rather infrequent. I do not want the state
>>legislature telling me that I am incapable of understanding the
>>increased risk on those occaisions.
>
>
> Something else that no one has mentioned is that this new law is another
> excuse for cops to start prying into your business. They can pull you over
> and then say they thought you were not wearing a seatbelt. Once they have
> you pulled over they can start fishing for information from you. They will
> ask for permission to search your car. "If you have done nothing wrong, then
> you have nothing to worry about. " UGH!
> -------------
> Alex
>
I didn't even think of that. My everyday driver, when the weather is too
cold or I have to transport too many people, is a 1963 Ford Galaxie.
Seat belts were optional on this vehicle, and mine did not come with
any. Sounds like I'll be getting stopped quite regularly.

I have been looking for a set of original belts for this car, but
haven't found any that I considered worth buying yet.

--
TomO
 

"TomO" <tom@_nospam_towens.com> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
SNIP

> I didn't even think of that. My everyday driver, when the
> weather is too cold or I have to transport too many
> people, is a 1963 Ford Galaxie. Seat belts were optional
> on this vehicle, and mine did not come with any. Sounds
> like I'll be getting stopped quite regularly.
>
> I have been looking for a set of original belts for this
> car, but haven't found any that I considered worth buying
> yet.

Tom, screw the bastards and drive it as original if you
wish. If you want seatbelts(that were an option) Even better
as you are choosing for yourself not having it forced on
you. Realize that some asshole county mountie will want to
push the issue and it's your DUTY to make sure that he and
the administration get there comeuppance publicly in a court
of law.

I sincerely believe it's every Americans duty to ignore
stupid laws...

--
Nefarious Necrologist 42nd Degree
Some people ride, some just like to show off their butt
jewelry once in a while.
Dum vivimus, vivamus
<:(3 )3~ <:(3 )3~ <:(3 )~ <:(3 )~


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Minninglow BOAT claim, in progress December 2015.
Replies
0
Views
721
Davidss
D
D
Pindale BOAT claim, in progress Dec 2015.
Replies
0
Views
859
Davidss
D
mutsnutz
found this on a site today
Replies
1
Views
1K
disco924
disco924
BOOMER
Time For A National Greenlaning Initiative?
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
muddydisco4
M
ukadamwest
Snow Tomorrow
Replies
19
Views
2K
wammers
wammers
Back
Top