|
|
|
Seatbelt Law Upgrade (Editor’s note: The following letter was sent two months ago to Sen. President Robert Travaglini by Michael Bradley, publisher of The Bradley Report, in the hope that other points of view would be heard before the current seat belt law, which is now a ‘secondary’ offense, is upgraded to a ‘primary’ offense. Mr. Bradley never received a response from Sen. Travaglini or his office as to whether the letter was received and/or would be considered within the framework of the current debate). To: Robert E. Travaglini March 1, 2006 Dear Sen. Travaglini: I am writing because of the relatively recent vote of the Massachusetts House regarding changing the seat belt law to a primary offense. I know the Senate will soon be taking the issue up - I haven't been able to find a schedule, and I hope a vote hasn't already occurred - and I would like to express a different point of view regarding the issue. In terms of my own background, I am a lifelong Democrat from a family of Democrats who have lived on Cape Cod for generations; my family was one of the few Democratic families in what was a very strong Republican enclave up until fairly recently. I'm sure you know the demographic history. I personally know some of the House members who recently moved the seatbelt legislation forward, and I know that they are well meaning, but there are factors that they overlooked. This is somewhat personal to me, and I would like to explain why. Some years ago, when I was in my twenties, I was involved in the only serious accident I’ve ever had when a rear tire let go and my car slid off rain-slicked Rte. 130 in Sandwich and hit a tree pretty much head-on. The car, a full-size Ford sedan, had a seat belt – just a lap belt in those days – but thankfully I was not wearing it. I was thrown toward the middle of the car and slammed into the dashboard, suffering a badly broken nose and a concussion; however, I lived. I would not have lived had I been held in place behind the steering wheel. The center post of the steering wheel was driven deeply into the back of the front seat, and would have gone right through my chest had I been strapped in place. But there is more to my viewpoint on this subject than just my own accident experience. I largely worked my way through college as a police officer, working with the Falmouth P.D., and the Winchester P.D. I’m a graduate of the former Grahm College and of Suffolk University, with degrees in journalism. During my years as a police officer I mostly worked the night shifts, and unfortunately saw quite a number of serious accidents. What became clear to me was that my own experience was not unique; that is, it is very much circumstance that determines whether someone benefits from the use of a seatbelt. I was present, sometimes as the primary, at accidents where having a seatbelt connected did not help, and I was present at scenes where it clearly did help. And the ratio was about even. But beyond that reality, when I graduated college and went to work as a police beat reporter for The Daily Times/Chronicle in Woburn, the very first efforts to make seat belt usage required by law were underway and I witnessed another phenomenon; that is, very soon after the effort gained traction, a subtle collusion appeared between the police and the reporters. When an accident with serious injury took place and the driver or passengers weren’t belted, that was prominently mentioned in the police reports, and therefore quickly carried into the local newspapers by the reporters. But when there were similar injuries while people were in fact wearing seatbelts, the seatbelt was often not mentioned in the report, and therefore not in the paper. I don’t think there was anything sinister in this, nor do I think it was a conspiracy of any sort; rather I think it was an example of how collective thinking somehow can result in individual direct action, even when not specifically planned. Well intentioned cops were as influenced as everyone else by the increasing barrage of publicity about how seat belts save lives, and therefore were likely to overlook the instances when people were badly injured when wearing the belts, or rationalize that it was simply an anomaly. But the bottom line is that I personally witnessed how the statistics for this particular issue have been skewed. That is why when I ultimately became a newspaper editor I specifically trained my reporters to look for the absence of a seatbelt mention in any accident report. The results were impressive. Once again, it became clear that circumstances were the determinant factors in whether the seatbelt helped or not. And later when I owned and published my own newspapers, and even later when I published newspapers for others, I followed the same approach and had the same result. Personally, I was disappointed but not surprised when seat belt use became codified under the law, but felt that Massachusetts had been wise to make it a secondary offense. In fact, as I recall from the various published reports regarding the original legislation, the proponents of the law promised repeatedly that they would never seek to make the law a primary offense. It is also my understanding that police officers are exempt from the statute, under the concept that they must be free to move quickly in an emergency; however, this somewhat gives the lie to the reasoning involved since police often drive much faster than average traffic, especially the state police. But making the seat belt law a primary offense is simply intrusive. Any police officer who stops someone for speeding or some other infraction knows immediately whether the driver and/or passengers have been belted in, since today’s shoulder harnesses are visible and the physical motions needed to put them on are very recognizable. Anyone who chooses not to wear a belt knows that if they are stopped, the chances are they will also get a seatbelt ticket. They run their own risk vis a vis tickets, as well as insurance and other concerns. But to give the police everywhere the right to stop someone simply if they don’t see the shoulder harness strapping them in is to greatly increase police power, and to do so unnecessarily. It is the old ‘safety at all costs’ argument that implies incremental losses of individual freedom and decision making are necessary in order to assure some sort of cradle to grave security, which isn't attainable in any event. Also, of course, I think it’s worth noting that these are the kinds of issues that drive honest working people away from the Democratic Party. I’m also a partner in a small business here on the Cape, and I know that a great many of the local fishermen, mechanics and builders I deal with are offended by these kinds of laws. As a lifelong and committed Democrat, I think it would be too bad to give the GOP conservatives one more thing that they can use to separate us. Anyway, I wanted to express myself on this to you, since I’ve had such personal experience with the subject. I hope you find the information useful. Sincerely, Michael Bradley |
