Talk:Seat belt laws in the United States

Actual Fines

The fines listed on the article are rather dishonest and inaccurate regardless of what the auto insurance agency funded orginization used as the reference says.... As almost every state imposes numerous additional feels due to whatever pet project fund (head injury fund, scrape the person of the pavement fund, sept 11 security fees etc..) they have going at the moment. in most cases the fines can be many many many multiples of what is actually listed. if anyone wants to do a little project and research your particular states law and then add the "REAL-ACTUAL" fine amount - link to the law and update this page that would be great. Id do them all but then this would be a fulltime job. thanks ;) -Tracer9999 (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seatbelt" or "seat belt"

A consensus should be reached on whether to use "seatbelt" or "seat belt." The title of the article uses the two-word version, but most of the article uses "seatbelt." —Super Rad! (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actual First Offense in Orange County, California = $436.00 for 27360.5(a) violation

Yes, you read that right. $436.00 for first offense. Only $100.00 of this is the actual fine. The rest is fees. And in my case, my teenage son removed his seatbelt without my knowing and since he is under 16, I am also getting charged a point and by statute the penalty cannot be waived even by the Judge. It must either be paid or I must prevail in trial. For Orange County, California see Uniform Bail Amounts link for detailing of penalties and fees. http://www.occourts.org/directory/criminal/jcbailschedule.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.31.184.166 (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and Contradictory

There are multiple areas of this article which are confusing, seemingly contradictory or both.

In the introductory section, the final sentences--"In most states in the US To sit in the passenger seat children must be 4'5 or 11 years old. Those are the recommendations." These are the recommendations or this is the law? This is unclear and provides little usable information.

In the Laws by State chart, the section Who is Covered is very confusing. Who is covered by the law? The entry for California, for instance reads "Age 16+ in all seats" which would lead the reader to believe that only passengers 16 or older are required to wear seat belts. This is certainly not the case.

There is a seeming contradiction in the Secondary enforcement section: "In most states the seat belt law was originally a secondary offense; in many it was later changed to a primary offense: California was the first state to do this, in 1993. Of the 30 with primary seat belt laws, all but 8, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, originally had only secondary enforcement laws." This section seems to state that California was the first to change its law to primary enforcement, then follows by saying 8 states, including NY--the first state to pass seat belt legislation--have always had a primary enforcement law. This is contradictory at worst; confusing at best.

The Damages reduction section is also confusing/contradictory. It seems to say that a person not wearing a seat belt may be liable for higher damages then goes on to discuss states which have taken action not to allow damages to be reduced for not wearing a seat belt. Even if there is not an error in this section, it should definitely be reworked for clarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.251.63 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article states the existence of a federal law without citing it

The first paragraph which states there is a federal law needs to cite it! Where can I find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onawaiowa (talk • contribs) 21:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map badly out of sync with the text

In several cases; map coloring for MO, KS, and Utah is secondary in some cases, primary in others while the text is Secondary. Map coloring for Virgina is secondary while the text there states Secondary Adults / Primary Children. These are need to be brought into sync. Jon (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina Originally Using Primary Enforcement?

I question the fact that North Carolina originally used primary enforcement when it passed its first law on October 1, 1985. According to the "Safety belt and child restraint laws, June 2013" webpage, North Carolina did not use primary enforcement until December 1, 2006. Could it be that it actually switched to secondary enforcement for a while and then reverted to primary enforcement? And if so, when did it start using secondary enforcement? Of course, the December 1, 2006 date for starting primary enforcement could be wrong, but I strongly think that it is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.206.241 (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]