45 Comments - Cal Skinner - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:09 am: The kids do it automatically, so eventually most will do it voluntarily. In the meantime, a nudge from state law will end up cutting the death and serious injury toll considerably, I suspect. - TJ - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:16 am: Yes. While you can’t legislate stupidity, you can definitely make a buck off of it by fining people that are too dumb to take even the most minimalistic precautions to protect themselves. I’m perfectly fine with this. - Mr. Ethics - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:22 am: No - It’s just another revenue enhancement disguised as a safety issue. Getting tired of police standing at traffic lights peeking into my car. - vole - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:28 am: Yes, although I find this inconsistent with the legislature’s position on motorcycle helmet laws. Prolly not too many interest groups representing back seat passengers. - cermak_rd - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:35 am: No. At least right now adults, who are merely choosing to ride with someone else get to choose whether they buckle or not by choosing which seat they ride in. Some disabled and mal-proportioned individuals don’t fit into the seatbelts offered on all cars. While yes, if it’s your car, you can choose a model with fitting belts or get an extender, but what is one to do while riding with others? - amalia - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:38 am: yes. safety first. - Anon - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:40 am: “State data was not immediately available after Thursday’s vote. But nationwide, 1,095 back-seat passengers not wearing seat belts died in 2009, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.” I would like to know how many of those people would have been saved if they were wearing their seat belt. This is an example of too much government. They are trying to generate more revenue. It’s like the the highway going into Springfield- even though for the last two years there hasn’t been construction or construction workers it is sited as a construction zone! - reformer - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:40 am: The battle is long over when it comes to mandatory safety belt laws. Even suburban Republicans are on board. It is true, however, that an unbuckled backseat car passenger is far safer than an unhelmeted backseat motorcylist. - 10th ward - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:44 am: another nanny-gate! trying to control our lives…ridiculous - Small Town Liberal - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:45 am: No. While I have no problem with passing laws to protect people from themselves, I think there can be overreach. This one is kind of hard, I believe an adult should be able to decide whether or not to wear his or her seat belt, and I think the adult in control of the car should be able to tell anyone riding in the back that they have to wear their seat belt. I believe all minors should have to wear seat belts everywhere in the car. So I guess it’s a no, but not a strong no. - PaGo - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:49 am: I’m with Mr. Ethics. No. Same reason. - A Springfield Veteran - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:57 am: There are reasons to oppose this concept; 35 years ago my car was struck from behind by a drunk driver. The car exploded. I was fortunate to exit through a window and I spent 3 months in Memorial Hospital’s burn unit. No one was in the back seat but anyone in the back seat and wearing a seatbelt would have been incinerated. - Anonymous - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 11:59 am: This bill was presented with absolutely no statistical evidence to justify its need. But, then, I suppose the safety evidence is irrelevant anyway, since this is really just a revenue collection bill. :/ - Downstate Commissioner - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:10 pm: NO!! Have you ever tried to get a seat belt on in the backseat of today’s small cars? Totally a pain in the somewhere. My guess is that the sponsor never rides in the back seat, or has a big luxury car or a SUV. Ever notice that bucket seats are almost standard in the front of most modern cars? Same reason, no room for the 3rd person or his seat belt. - 3 beers to Springfield - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:12 pm: No. Government can’t protect everyone from being injured or killed. At some point people have to take responsibility for themselves. I have enormous sympathy for families whose loved ones are killed or gravely injured in accidents. I understand their need to quell their grief by placing blame on the lack of a law and by doing something to “prevent this from happenning to anyone else”. We have mandatory front seat belts; mandatory seats and belts for children. Now we’re talking mandatory backup cameras on vehicles. We have ridiculous warnings on every product manufactured to the point where the print is too small to read. Enough already. - Palatine - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:25 pm: No. Quit trying to tell me how to live my life. - 47th Ward - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:30 pm: No. I’m pro-choice on back-seat seat belt use for adults. Kids? Strap ‘em in, preferably in car seats. But adults should be able to choose. In DC, the taxis have signs saying passengers can be fined if they aren’t wearing seat belts. That sounds like where this bill is heading, and I’m sorry, but it’s a solution in search of a problem. We can’t ensure safety. We can only promote common sense. - Gregor - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:30 pm: Yes, it just makes good sense from a safety aspect. But really, this is just another tool for cops to have an excuse to stop you. - La Grange - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:31 pm: For all the people answering no, and who claim that it’s an individual’s right to be stupid — when uninsured or underinsured people get in accidents and preventable injuries result in higher health care costs, guess who ends up footing the bill? What’s more is that the people who get angry about this type of thing are usually the same types who whine about welfare, even though the cost to society of these kinds of preventable accidents are just as high. - reformer - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:34 pm: By my count, eleven House Republicans voted for HB 219, which was sponsored by Beaubien* and Tryon. The other Republicans were Cross*, Fortner, Mathias*, McAuliffe, Mulligan, Pritchard*, Senger, Skip* and Winters*. Six* of them also voted for Lang’s pot bill. - reformer - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:37 pm: Gregor, Mr. Ethis, Pago I doubt cops issue many tickets to those backseat passengers who are currently required to buckle up. Unless the municipal leagues were behind this bill, the monetary motive you attribute is bogus. - Jonsey - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:40 pm: I think it is a great idea. But I also think people in vehicles should also have to wear helmets. Hopefully we are well on our safe way to that day. - Michelle Flaherty - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:45 pm: We could do this another way, by insurance policy. If injured and not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company should be able to waive coverage. your choice, your cost. - dupage dan - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:49 pm: There are different directions to go with this kind of stuff. Raising insurance rates for folk who don’t use common sense safety devices (seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, etc) is one way. However, how does the insurance company know if you are wearing this equipment if the cops ain’t ticketing you for not? People sitting in cars not restrained can become missles, flying about and crushing others in the vehicle, during a crash. Some drivers are not comfortable telling their passengers to belt up - with the law drivers can always appeal to a higher power and not sound preachy. We all here about anectdotal evidence that seatbelts actually cause injuries/deaths. For everyone 1 those stories there are countless ones of people who have been saved by seatbelts, airbags, helmets and the like. I sit here typing because I wore a helmet while motorcylcing - was made fun of by so many. Some of whom are no longer with us for not wearing the brain bucket. Normally I would be against such intrusion so may appear contradictory. I voted yes. The cops are already looking into the car to see if the driver is restrained. Easy Peasy to check out everyone else. - Unbelievable - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:55 pm: 1,00o deaths in a year, nationwide, is a mere fraction of the total deaths. This is an obvious attempt to generate revenue. Most of those backseaters that were killed were probably in such horrific accidents that death was imminent anyway. This state is getting harder and harder to live in by the day. - Kevin Highland - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 12:59 pm: No…as an adult I should be able to make the choice of wearing a seatbelt. - Ghost - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:17 pm: I support this. We taxpayers end up paying the medical bills for emergency treatment for accident injuries if the person in the car has no health insurance. Plus not wearing your belt can result in you being pinned in locations of the car you would not normaly be, brain damage requiring a lifetime of care which usually ends up in a State funded facility after the money runs out, or social security payment to those who can no longer work after their injuries etc. Since the decision to not wear your seatbelt impacts me by havng to cover medical bills, support you if your disabled or pay for longterm care, I want to reduce my cost for your bad decisions. Its not being a nanny when I have to pay the bill for your decision; now if we havea law that says if you choose not to wear a seatbelt, you are unable for medicad, social security, long term care or any other support or benefit paid for by the State, I will support it. - Jimbo - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:24 pm: No, but I don’t support mandatory use in the front seat either. - Bonsaso - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:31 pm: No. Let’s educate the public on the safety of buckling in the backseat, but not set out to penalize them if the don’t buckle up. You might as well require a seatbelt cutting tool while you’re at it so people can get out of the belts if needed. - Boston Brand - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 1:40 pm: I vote yes, because my mother-in-law refuses to wear a seatbelt when riding in the back seat. I think it would be hilarious to be able to tell her she has to “because it’s the law.” In short, I voted yes out of spite. - Robert - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:12 pm: Boston Brand convinced me - I voted yes for similar reasons. - wordslinger - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:24 pm: Absolutely yes. It’s a licensed activity. It will save lives. It SHOULD reduce insurance costs. And it might help the auto industry on their margins in manufacturing cars. Back when Illinois passed the seat belt law, I was a libertarian on the issue as well. I was against it. But years later, I read this remarkable piece in “The New Yorker” that blew my mind on the whole issue. The link here is for New Yorker subscribers, but maybe you can find it for free elsewhere. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2001/06/11/010611fa_fact_gladwell In a nutshell, it describes the incredible burdens that were placed on the auto industry based on two hypotheses: You’d never be able to cut down on drunk drivers, and you’d never be able to get drivers to buckle up. You couldn’t change human behavior. The article quotes, extensively, the brilliant Daniel Patrick Mohynihan and Ralph Nader, who express their regrets on the tough mandates they worked to place on the auto industry based on the assumption that human beings were too irresponsible. Those assumptions made cars more expensive. You had to change designs. You had to remove the steel, whacking the domestic steel industry. There were terrible consequences for the auto industry. Then along comes MADD, a brilliant grassroots movement. What a remarkable job they’ve done in regard to drunk driving. When I was a kid, drinking and driving was a way of life, socially acceptable and the consequences were relatively small. Not anymore. Not wearing a seat belt was a way of life. Now, I can’t imagine not buckling up. Seriously, when I was a kid, it was not socially unacceptable to drive without a seatbelt, with your child on your lap, and a beer between your legs. Times change. You get smarter. That’s a good thing. Don’t peddle that “nanny-state” or “liberty” stuff. It’s about being a responsible citizen. - Rich Miller - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:29 pm: ===with your child on your lap=== Or standing on the front seat next to you. - What's in a name? - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:31 pm: I voted no. Where do we draw the line. Is mandating a thick winter coat on cold days far off? - A Different Belle - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:55 pm: Put it on–what’s the biggie. - Anonymous - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 2:59 pm: Yes. (a) During a crash, unbelted passengers become projectiles that can strike and injure others in the vehicle, including children. (b) The more injuried you become in a crash, the more the insurance company has to pay out in medical bills. Belted passengers sustain far fewer and less severe injuries, which helps keep premiums down for everyone. - PaGo - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:03 pm: I’m all for safety. I think my big issue is making it a primary offense. Secondary offense, ok, fine. But don’t be snooping in my car like I’m a criminal looking for this offense. @reformer, it happens and it’s BS. Say what you like about coppers, but there are many who profile. ===Seriously, when I was a kid, it was not socially unacceptable to drive without a seatbelt, with your child on your lap, and a beer between your legs.=== And when you got pulled over, rarely did the cops run you through the ringer if you were polite. Now there seems to be a mandate to ticket, ticket, ticket…fine, fine, fine. - thechampaignlife - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:23 pm: I’m pro required belt. I really like the idea of financially penalizing the non-belt wearer that gets in an accident in lieu of the requirement but I don’t think that would practicable in action, at least not by withholding healthcare or welfare services. I can’t see the government allowing a paralyzed person to starve to death. On those that take issue with tickets as a form of revenue generation, would you support this if the revenue from it went to a group other than the government, say the Red Cross? - MrJM - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:35 pm: No. I’m unconvinced. And when it comes to legislation — when in doubt, don’t. – MrJM - downhereforyears - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:35 pm: I have to admit that I was totally against the front seat belt law when originally passed. Got used to wearing the belt and now wouldn’t drive without it. I voted yes on the back seat requirement, it certainly has worked on front seat crashes. - Han - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 3:41 pm: No way. Just another example of government sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong instead of tackling the real problems the state has. - wordslinger - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:03 pm: –And when you got pulled over, rarely did the cops run you through the ringer if you were polite. Now there seems to be a mandate to ticket, ticket, ticket…fine, fine, fine.– I don’t know about that. But it was certainly a different world. Years ago, back in my home county off I-88, I had a couple of occasions to appear before judges on charges (big mixups, involving pool cues upside the head in bars on Lincoln Highway; we all laughed about it later Once, one of the judges was my girlfriend’s dad (great guy, and I really liked that girl; alas, it wasn’t meant to be). The second judge had been my dad’s lawyer before he got elected. Different world. A kid I used to babysit for was a rookie cop, and pulled over a bunch of drunks coming back from a Cubs game, getting off I-88 at Peace Road in DeKalb. A cop just doing his job, it turned out he’d just pulled over the DeKalb County State’s Attorney, the chief judge in Sycamore, a top guy in the sheriff’s office, and a bigfoot defense attorney. They laughed at him and told him they could have the trial right there on the side of the road. It’s not like that any more. That’s good. Buckle up. - Wensicia - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:28 pm: I think with cars that have rear seat doors, occupants should buckle up. I’ve known of people thrown from back seats of cars in serious rollovers. - Strap It On - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:47 pm: Unbelted passengers become projectiles regardless where they’re seated in a moving vehicle. - 3rd Generation Chicago - Friday, May 6, 11 @ 4:49 pm: Yes. Insurance costs affected, police and firemen have less gruesome accident scenes, as well as the ER. Some people don’t do things unless they have to. Read all the ridiculous warning labels/instruction manuals on anything you buy. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.