.

Local Police: 'No Warnings and No Excuses'

Area police departments kick off the 2012 "Click It or Ticket" enforcement campaign.

Police departments in the region - including Ridgefield- have a message for motorists who refuse to wear their seat belts: beware.

Ridgefield is joining Bethel, Brookfield, Redding and Newtown police departments and highway safety advocates across the country to help save more lives by strongly enforcing seat belt laws around the clock during the 2012 Click It or Ticket campaign.

The effort kicks off today, Dec. 3, and extends through Dec. 16 to help save lives by cracking down on those who don't buckle up.

"Too many drivers and passengers on the road at night are not wearing their seat belts, and it all too often ends in tragedy," said Newtown Police Chief Michael Kehoe. "Our goal is to save more lives, so the Newtown Police Department joined by the Bethel, Brookfield, Redding and Ridgefield Police Departments will be out enforcing seat belt laws around the clock."

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in 2010 nationally, 61 percent of the 10,647 passenger vehicle occupants who were killed in motor vehicle crashes overnight (6 p.m. to 5:59 a.m.) were not wearing their seat belts at the time of the fatal crash, compared to 42 percent during the daytime hours.

Seat belt use saves thousands of lives across America each year. NHTSA statistics show that in 2010 alone, seat belts saved an estimated 12,546 lives nationwide.

Younger motorists and men are particularly at risk. NHTSA data shows that among teen and young adult passenger vehicle occupants in 2010, ages 18-34, which were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes, 62 percent were not buckled up at the time of the crash — the highest percentage of any age group. The number jumps to 66 percent when just men in this age group are included.

While this year's Click It or Ticket campaign runs from Dec. 3 through Dec. 16, Newtown police said motorists should know that officers in the area are out enforcing seat belt laws year-round.

"Those who choose not to wear a seat belt will feel the heat from our officers who will be out cracking down on Click It or Ticket violators," Kehoe said. "Motorists should buckle up every time they go out, both day and night. Our officers are prepared to ticket anyone not buckled up ... no warnings and no excuses. Click It or Ticket."

The above report is based on a press release from the Newtown Police Department.

COSMO P December 04, 2012 at 05:42 PM
Common injuries from wearing belts in an accident Internal bleeding Broken spine Lacerated spinal cord and paralysis Brain trauma and other head and neck injuries Internal organ laceration Broken bones And more Personally i would clamp down phone use while driving. Much more dangerous and rear ending accidents are sky rocketing.
Blah December 04, 2012 at 05:59 PM
Common injuries from NOT wearing belts in an accident death Sure, clamp down on cell phones, but no harm in also going after people who don't wear seatbelts. "I just happen to think there are laws that have no victims, and present no danger to society. " Lucas logic, 2+2 = 5. Why? Because he thinks so.
sebastian dangerfield December 04, 2012 at 07:33 PM
blah's logic 1- ill mention health care costs. 2-Ill say its death. Blah-tell me, oh wise one, how much does it cost in medical bills from death. . Or are changing your argument? No--2+2 = 4. And its not because i think so, its because it is so. By the way ("never" --the guy who never can admit he is wrong) where injuries occur during an automobile accident--which policy pays for the injuries? auto insurance or your health insurance? Thanks pal. You have 2 questions there to help me to understand 'the truth' 1-injuries covered by auto insurance? or health 2- if you die in an accident --how much hospital coverage do you need. haha
Shredder December 04, 2012 at 09:23 PM
Fu-xu Jr., are you really suggesting that that increased usage of safety belts has increased medical costs by keeping people alive, albeit injured? And do you completely deny the normative argument that society prefers to limit premature deaths?
sebastian dangerfield December 04, 2012 at 09:32 PM
shredder, You are on a tangent. Im responding to the argument, that says its not a victimless crime--because it affects insurance rates. If the law were effective, and the calculation true, then the introduction of seat belts, would translate into lower costs on auto insurance. you cant have it both ways. (blah's argument) not wearing seat belts, you claim increases insurance rates--, But having laws that require seat belts coincided with higher rates.
Shredder December 04, 2012 at 09:36 PM
I think he was talking about publicly funded healthcare
Shredder December 04, 2012 at 09:39 PM
Also, I'm sure you realize you need to determine what the increase would have been without the regulation for your argument to have any validity...
sebastian dangerfield December 04, 2012 at 09:45 PM
Shredder 1) what does publicly funded healthcare, have to do with auto insurance? If i get in an accident, my auto insurer pays medical bills. 2-true. But Im not making any assertions. So the onus is on blah and you to determine the cost of insurance. Blah asserted that i need to wear seat belts to keep insurance rates down. I said its a victimless crime. If you want to prove yourselves correct, you need to show the difference in rates. This was not my argument--just offering one counterpoint to your argument.
Shredder December 04, 2012 at 09:51 PM
Fair
Shredder December 04, 2012 at 09:54 PM
The better arguments are the normative ones and the consequential economic losses associated with injuries (i.e. even if your insurance makes up your income, your employer is highly unlikely to recover anything). Due to the relative low cost of enforcement and compliance, it seems pretty clear that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Blah December 04, 2012 at 10:52 PM
Shredder, I think Lucas just likes to argue, even if he makes no sense. Lucas, suppose for a moment that your auto insurance covers your million dollar medical tab. (It doesn't, but let's see if you get the bigger picture.) Same principle as before. Your $200 a month auto insurance premium isn't going to pay the insurance company back for the $1,000,000 medical bill. The rest of us will collectively cover the costs through our auto insurance premiums. So pick your poison, either our health insurance rates are higher if people don't wear seat belts, or our auto insurance rates are higher. It is not a victimless crime. By you not wearing a seatbelt, the rest of us pay more one way or another.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 01:10 AM
COSMO P @ Blah Bottom line is MONEY. Actually the feds give states millions to pass and enforce seat belt laws in the form of highway funds. Their are states that do not require seat belt usage. So lets see. CT has a seat belt law but not a motorcycle helmet law. So does that make my insurance go up in CT. Or as you say keep me from dying. Now it has been proven that belts cause sereyous injuries when they are used. As does not wearing a helmet. So do we flip a coin on this one. And does my insurance go up because CT does not have a helmet law?
Henry Glawson December 05, 2012 at 01:11 AM
I'm just wondering if that HMMWV that the RPD hasis going to help run down these non-seatbelt-wearing scoundrels. Locking these suckas up would certainly clean up the mean streets of Ridgefield.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 01:18 AM
The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety came upon the starting revelations as it looked at the latest design airbags, which have been around since around 2004, and have become the mandatory standard for airbags since 2008. The study came up with some interesting results. The researchers found that these airbags could actually place drivers wearing seat belts at the time of an accident at a higher risk of death in the crash, compared to people who were not wearing seat belts.
sebastian dangerfield December 05, 2012 at 02:01 AM
Ok Blah Its the same thing as when you posed as never. You just repeat the same thing, without answering a question. So I persist, because by answering, perhaps you will see where you are wrong. Please answer this one question. Look at your auto insurance policy. Mine is geico, so Ill just copy and paste one snippet on my 3 cars. Protects you and your passengers Bodily Injury Liability [Edit] Current Limit: 300,000/$300,000 $366.60 $348.00 $394.20 And then it says in the definition column of body liabilty Bodily injury liability provides protection if you injure or kill someone while operating your car. It also provides for a legal defense if another party in the accident files a lawsuit against you. Medical payments, no-fault or personal injury protection coverage pays for the medical expenses of the injured driver and passengers in your car. There may also be coverage if you are injured by a vehicle as a pedestrian. Now, blah, I can choose 500k or 1million as well. So, are you sure that the auto insurance doesnt pay for the health costs? Thanks man. Easy question. Lets see if you are as interested in being proper about owning up to things, as you are as making sure other people do the 'responsible thing." (is it time to change your sign-in again--same as when you lost the argument about the cost of oil.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 03:01 AM
no harm in also going after people who don't wear seat belts. Why? They can be dangerous. Did you not read my post. Do states that do not have mandatory use have higher insurance rates. Or do we as residents pay more for not having a helmet law. An answer would be nice.
Blah December 05, 2012 at 03:31 AM
Lucas, why are you always so difficult? You said it yourself. Your insurance covers $300,000 of YOUR health costs. Who covers the the other $700,000? Why is this so hard, or is it that you are just that difficult of a person? The rest of us cover the additional costs. That makes all of our insurance rates go up. If some people don't wear seatbelts, it costs the rest of us money. It is not a victimless crime. You just proved it with your own insurance policy. By the way, you are mistaking me for someone else. I've seen this with you before. You think everyone who disagrees with you is Paul D. You need to understand that there are many MANY people who disagree with you. COSMO, I think there should also be a motorcycle helmet law. Same idea, if riders don't wear helmets, it costs the rest of us money. I'm curious, what is the rationale to not having a helmet law?
Shredder December 05, 2012 at 04:10 AM
Blah, great point --if someone chooses the lowest tier of bodily injury protection, the insurance company still pays the rest of the cost for free and just raises everyone's rates as a group.
sebastian dangerfield December 05, 2012 at 05:31 AM
blah 1- who were you before? 2 No blah--i mean honestly--do you think you are smart? and you cant grasp a concept? 1- I keep saying its auto insurance. You keep saying its not auto insurance. Im proving to you, if you get in an auto accident, its the auto insurance. Am I correct or incorrect on which insurer covers me . (pretty clear). 2- come on--are you kidding??? I chose 300k liabilty insurance. the minimum in ct is I believe 20k/40k Now, think. Ok. Im going to ask you to think. Why would I choose to pay more to insure myself for 300k instead of 20k if the rest of "you" are going to cover me? When you answer that-you will win the prize.
sebastian dangerfield December 05, 2012 at 05:34 AM
shredder--haha --exactly. this guy doesnt get it. Hey Ill insure my house for a buck and if it burns down, "you" can pay the replacement cost. the answer of course, is--I have to sell my assets, and pay for my damage. The rest of you dont pay. It's on me.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Got it the state should have a helmet law. So that they get more highway funds. And how does this relate to my insurance premium going down. When this state went mandatory insurance my rated doubled. Can you explain that. So if the state passes mandatory helmet use my insurance will drop like a rock.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Blah so you bottom line for all problems is as follows. Their aught to be a law.
sebastian dangerfield December 05, 2012 at 05:56 PM
blah Sorry, I dont see your answer. I kept saying medical costs are covered by the auto insurer. You said "it's not". Now that you are proven wrong, you go away? I never get the type of people, who are finger waggers, and "i follow the letter of the law, types, who pretend to be 'good' people--never admitting when they are wrong. If you want to act as though you are virtuous--how about demonstrating a tiny element of integrity--and be honest. Remember--you are anonymous. So it's even more puzzling, how difficult it is , to do the right thing---which you so loudly tell other people all the time to do.
Blah December 05, 2012 at 09:34 PM
Luca, amazing watching you in action. Same thing over and over again. The Patch can run a story about how the weather will be nice tomorrow, and by 100 posts later, you are adamantly decreeing that "haha", you are right and everyone else is wrong because you have proven that Elvis lives on Mars. The only thing you've managed to prove is it's never worth responding to you. By the way, insurance rates go up when there are more accidents.
COSMO P December 05, 2012 at 10:43 PM
If that is true then why does the state not change the driving age. That will save us tuns of money .And also lives. As proven time after time people that drive under the age of 18 have more accidents and more sereyous accidents then when they drive at 18 years old. So your theory should apply to drivng age as i see it. So once again Ct has no helmet law and the driving age is 16 and we have to wear seat belts or get a ticket. makes no sense to me. Other than as i explained to you several times it is all about federal money . And the money the fines bring in to the state.
Ali Abdulah December 05, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Blah - I and 99.9% of Patch readers are in absolute agreement with you. The old chap really needs help.
Christine T December 06, 2012 at 01:17 AM
I actually didn't read the previous responses. I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt....but my feeling is that you shouldn't be penalizing people who do not wear their belt. They are only harming themselves if they get into an accident. You should be penalizing people who talk on their phones or text, or drive under the influence...because those are the people who will cause accidents with others and will potentially cause an accident with an innocent person.
COSMO P December 06, 2012 at 01:46 AM
COSMO P 8:40 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012 LANSING (WWJ/AP) – Michigan lawmakers have voted to repeal a state law that requires motorcyclists to wear helmets. The state Senate took a final vote on the proposal on Wednesday. I agree with Christine Using electronic devices while driving post a much greater risk than someone not wearing a belt. My friend was rear ended by a person on a cell phone and pushed his car in to 4 other cars at a stop light. So what is more dangerous. A person not wearing a belt and injures himself (debatable) Or someone hitting 5 cars talking on the phone. The phone talker is more danferous in my eyes.
Blah December 06, 2012 at 03:52 AM
Patch editors, please read the comment posted by Fu-Xu at 9:58 this evening. I think we have patiently put up with this poster for long enough. He must be banned. Children read this website. They come here for the sports scores and for the school news. Should they really be seeing the filth put up by Fu-Xu? Can you please remove his post and ban the poster. Lisa Buchman, I see you are a newer editor, just to make you aware, this has been going on here for far too long. Thank you.
COSMO P December 06, 2012 at 11:13 AM
@ Blah I find it startling how you don't understand what some are saying on this issue. Here is a fact 28-30% of all accidents in this country are caused by talking and texting while driving. That represents 1.4 million accidents and another 200K for texting. This represents millions of dollars in injuries and deaths. So please tell me how many accidents are caused by not wearing a seat belt. Your logic is way off as the body builder points out. All i want to know is with this increase use of electronic equipment and the skyrocketing of accidents and deaths because of it, Why clamp down on belt use. I would clamp down on distracted driving that has a 30% higher risk. Sorry to say Blah your priorities and evaluation of this issue is way off. Has your insurance increased 30% because of cell phone driving? You do make a very bad argument.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something