Colorado Seatbelt Legislation

This site contains affiliate links for which LandyZone may be compensated if you make a purchase.
I do not mind if you do not wear your seatbelt but make sure you are alone
in the vehicle as unbelted passengers have been known to bounce around
within the vehicle which have caused death to others in the vehicle better
yet - take your family with you.
Andrew
"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/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041216/NEWS/11216005
4&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 The law was repealed at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.


 
Do you know of any person in any congress that actually represents the
people? One I know of is in prison because congress didn't like him telling
people about their wastefulness and stupidity, so they "framed" him and got
him tossed in prison.

Larry
Unlock the Universe

"The Big Biker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| <<<Snip>>>
| 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.
| <<<snip>>>


 
Keith Schiffner wrote:
> "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.
>

I do have a death wish, I got married and have 5 kids and 2 grandkids :)

--
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
 
TomO wrote:
> 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.
>

I had one of those with the 390 CI 4 bbl and C4 interceptor tranny.
Damn thing ran like a scalded rat (that is until my sister got rearended
and knocked down a 20 ft embankment).

--
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]>, TomO wrote:

> 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.

Does the car even have the anchor points for the belts? Since you seem
to be using the car as driver why not use belts from a later ford?

I was going to update the belts in my '73 mav but I got used to the two
piece design so it's only an issue if I have a passenger in the car. By
used to it, as in I can use it as easily as modern one piece 3-point
belts.


 

"Keith Schiffner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "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...
>

My sentiments as well. If they can mandate seatbelt use then why not helmets
and safty equipment in the home? Most accidents occur in the home, so it
makes sense to always wear protective clothing and helmet while watching TV.
All mandatory seatbelt laws are illegal in my opinion.


 
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
> > >Motorhead Lawyer Jan 6, 9:07 am
> >
> > >No; *you're* the dumbass and our resident r.a.d troll is correct
> (but
> > only because 'it' is repeating what others have said; still no trace
> of
> > a correct *original* thought). A glancing blow can send an unbelted
> > driver across the seat and the car continues on its merry way,
> > unguided. Wanna know how I know?
> >
> > Hey stupid. You don't need to be hit a glancing blow to lose control.
> > An icy patch can cause it. Or maybe you swerve to avoid a deer. Lots
> > of ways to lose control of a car.
>
> You guys that advocate this as a reason for seatbelts don't get it.
> Once you lose control, it's over. By defintion, you NO LONGER HAVE
> CONTROL. Whether or not you're physically behind the wheel at that
> point is irrelavant.

Sure it is!

My ass has been saved several times because I was able to 'regain'
control due to being belted in.

I likely saved other's lives as well by not hitting them.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
 
Alex Rodriguez wrote:
>
> 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

Isn't it now that way? If it is a secondary law, the cop has to follow
you around hoping you will screw up so he can nail you for the
seatbelt. This means he is going to be paying 'closer' attention to
your lights, signals, coming to a full stop, etc.....

I think it would be better if they could just nail you. Could be
cheaper too.....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
 
benmlee wrote:
>
> > 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

LOL!

That is because the air bags meant for idiots who don't belt up will
kill kids and small adults in the front seat.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
 
Mike Romain wrote:

[seatbelt laws]
> Isn't it now that way? If it is a secondary law, the cop has to follow
> you around hoping you will screw up so he can nail you for the
> seatbelt. This means he is going to be paying 'closer' attention to
> your lights, signals, coming to a full stop, etc.....
>
> I think it would be better if they could just nail you. Could be
> cheaper too.....

Maybe not. Police have an annoying habit of setting up checkpoints to
spot these offenses. The fact that the rest of us are inconvenienced
doesn't matter in the least.
 
Odinn wrote:
> TomO wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> I had one of those with the 390 CI 4 bbl and C4 interceptor tranny. Damn
> thing ran like a scalded rat (that is until my sister got rearended and
> knocked down a 20 ft embankment).
>

Mine also hase the 390, but it is a three-on-the-tree. And yes, it's a
lot of fun blowing away all these kids in their Hondas and whatnot with
the fart cans and all. 'Course it takes some practice to pull off that
power shift from 1st to 2nd with that thing.
 
Brent P wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, TomO wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> Does the car even have the anchor points for the belts? Since you seem
> to be using the car as driver why not use belts from a later ford?
>
> I was going to update the belts in my '73 mav but I got used to the two
> piece design so it's only an issue if I have a passenger in the car. By
> used to it, as in I can use it as easily as modern one piece 3-point
> belts.
>
>

Nope, not even the proper mounting. I've been watching e-bay on and off
looking for the original belts. Frankly, finding and installing belts
'just because' has not been a high priority for me on this vehicle. I
did however recently get a new set of springs, ball-joints, bushings,
tie rods, etc. so I can at least aim the thing a little better than I
can right now <g>

--
TomO
 
In article <[email protected]>, TomO wrote:

> Mine also hase the 390, but it is a three-on-the-tree. And yes, it's a
> lot of fun blowing away all these kids in their Hondas and whatnot with
> the fart cans and all. 'Course it takes some practice to pull off that
> power shift from 1st to 2nd with that thing.

I nearly bought a '70 galaxie XL vert like that.... my mav has
3-on-the-tree as well and the 1-2 shift is the trick for certain.


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

>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.

You can count on it. You can also count on the cop giving you a hard time
too. Eventually they will start asking you to give up your rights so that
they can go poking around your car. As Nancy use to say 'Just Say No!'.
--------------
Alex




 
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andres Rodriguez wrote:

> I do not mind if you do not wear your seatbelt but make sure you are alone
> in the vehicle as unbelted passengers have been known to bounce around
> within the vehicle which have caused death to others in the vehicle

Yeah? Well I *do* mind if you don't wear your seatbelt, 'cause unbelted
drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked
unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
unable to control the car and prevent additional, more major subsequent
incidents -- like hitting other cars or pedestrians or cyclists.

Belted drivers, on the other hand, overwhelmingly tend to remain conscious
and in control position even after initial collisions, so they can keep
control of the car.


 
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, TomO wrote:

> 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 doubt it. I've driven many, many miles in cars old enough not to have
belts (or to have only lap belts not visible through the front or rear
windshield) in places with strict belt usage laws, and the only time it's
ever come up as an issue, it's worked to my advantage:

"I clocked you going 16 over the speed limit. That's a $250 fine and 3
points. But, I also didn't see a seatbelt when I pulled you over. That's
a $25 fine and no points."

"But officer, the car only has lap belts. I still have it on,
see?"

"Perhaps you're not understanding me. Which one do you want? The speeding
ticket or the seatbelt ticket?"


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

http://www.ssnake-oyl.com/

Their website is poorly designed and doesn't show their full range of
products; they have exact-match Ford type belts.

DS
 

"Mike Romain" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:
>> > >Motorhead Lawyer Jan 6, 9:07 am
>> >
>> > >No; *you're* the dumbass and our resident r.a.d troll is correct
>> (but
>> > only because 'it' is repeating what others have said; still no trace
>> of
>> > a correct *original* thought). A glancing blow can send an unbelted
>> > driver across the seat and the car continues on its merry way,
>> > unguided. Wanna know how I know?
>> >
>> > Hey stupid. You don't need to be hit a glancing blow to lose control.
>> > An icy patch can cause it. Or maybe you swerve to avoid a deer. Lots
>> > of ways to lose control of a car.
>>
>> You guys that advocate this as a reason for seatbelts don't get it.
>> Once you lose control, it's over. By defintion, you NO LONGER HAVE
>> CONTROL. Whether or not you're physically behind the wheel at that
>> point is irrelavant.
>
> Sure it is!
>
> My ass has been saved several times because I was able to 'regain'
> control due to being belted in.
>
> I likely saved other's lives as well by not hitting them.
>
> Mike
> 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

The core issue is still, does the Government have the right to decide for
you what is safe and then force you to do it.

You think seatbelts are safe, so you don't argue with them, but what happens
in the future when they pass a law you disagree with?

Perhaps they decide to require you to keep your hair cut down to 1/4 inch or
less, to avoid the possibility that it may get caught on something in the
future.

Since we've already established the precident that the government makes all
decisions about personal safety you wouldn't have a problem with that would
you?

I am the only one responsible for my safety, because I am the one who will
be injured or killed if I don't keep myself safe. I will not allow anyone,
Government included, to mandate to me how to keep myself safe.

They may advise, they may mandate safety devices be installed, but they will
not dictate to me what I must do in my private life.

All arguments about society, or dangers to others are nothing more than
smoke screens to try and force compliance.


 

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> I do not mind if you do not wear your seatbelt but make sure you are
>> alone
>> in the vehicle as unbelted passengers have been known to bounce around
>> within the vehicle which have caused death to others in the vehicle
>
> Yeah? Well I *do* mind if you don't wear your seatbelt, 'cause unbelted
> drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked
> unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
> unable to control the car and prevent additional, more major subsequent
> incidents -- like hitting other cars or pedestrians or cyclists.
>
> Belted drivers, on the other hand, overwhelmingly tend to remain conscious
> and in control position even after initial collisions, so they can keep
> control of the car.
>
>
Total Bull****. The only reason the government has pushed the seatbelt issue
is so the cops can find your body easier after a crash, it will still be
strapped into the seat.
My wearing a belt or not does not affect you AT ALL, except in those
delusions you have, and I do not grant you the right to decide for me what
is safe or not safe, because in the end, it's still your opinion over mine.

I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in several
emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference, NOT
ONCE did I lose control of the vehicle, NOT ONCE have I had a wreck worse
than a very minor fender bender, and NOT ONCE in 35+ years of driving would
wearing a seatbelt have been anything motre than an inconvience for me.

Perhaps if you seatbelt advicates would take the time to actually LEARN how
to drive safely the seatbelt issue would disappear, avoiding an accident is
the only way to insure you survive.


 
The Ancient One wrote:

> I have been driving for over 35 years, in that time I have been in several
> emergency situations, NOT ONCE would a seat belt have made a difference,

Do you ride roller coasters without engaging the restraints? If so,
could you share your secret as to how you actually remain seated in the
proper position during the rapid changes in direction that one commonly
encounters on those rides? FYI, if involved in a motor vehicle
collision, the force(s) that act upon your vehicle and the occupants are
greater than what one would experience in a roller coaster.
 

"Daniel J. Stern" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Andres Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> I do not mind if you do not wear your seatbelt but make sure you are
>> alone
>> in the vehicle as unbelted passengers have been known to bounce around
>> within the vehicle which have caused death to others in the vehicle
>
> Yeah? Well I *do* mind if you don't wear your seatbelt, 'cause unbelted
> drivers are easily knocked out of control position and/or knocked
> unconscious by relatively minor incidents. When that happens, they're
> unable to control the car and prevent additional, more major subsequent
> incidents -- like hitting other cars or pedestrians or cyclists.
>
> Belted drivers, on the other hand, overwhelmingly tend to remain conscious
> and in control position even after initial collisions, so they can keep
> control of the car.
>
>Dan I agree with this. A out of control driver can cause added crashes with
>other vehicles. I lost a good friend that refused to use a seat belt. A
>drunk driver coming toward him came into his lane and rolled his car of of
>the road. He was ejected from the car and it rolled over him. Crushed him.
>His wife had on her seat belt and only received a cut finger. They had to
>cut the car apart to remove her. So sad because of his attitude about
>belts. W W


 
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