 | | Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Michigan has switched from secondary to primary, you can be stopped for just a seat belt infraction instead of the collateral damage (Has to be a second ticket) that CO uses. (...) Right... and that's one reason I support seat belt use, (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Scott Smallbeck
|
| | | | | (...) Funny this conversation is going on right now. I just got a ticket for my son having his shoulder strap looped around the back of the seat. I just looked up the regs and this law is not enforceable unless I was pulled over for some other (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Susan Hoover
|
| | | | | | | (...) You should also research your locality's seat belt laws. In some states, the seat BELT is required, but not the shoulder strap. Maybe in yours too? (IMHO, a lot of shoulder straps are dangerous if you are shorter than the average male. Mine (...) (24 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | Law just changed. A seat belt infraction, if spotted, is enough reason for you to get pulled over in Michigan now. Sorry about that (I think it may have been March 1 that it changed) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Peter Callaway
|
| | | | | | (...) So if I read this correctly, the wearing of seatbelts is not mandatory in all US states? This is mandatory in all states and territories of Australia (putting on my seatbelt is second nature to me when I get in the car). I can't understand (...) (24 years ago, 19-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) It is mandatory, on pain of losing federal highway funds (a case of using the purse power to get a state to pass a law instead of passing a federal law. I personally feel it's wrong to do that, but I digress). What is not mandatory is the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Matthew Wilkins
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes: <schnip!> (...) If I may expand on what Larry has said here; In some US states, drivers are supposed to ensure that they themselves, and their passengers are belted at all times while the vehicle (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Duane Hess
|
| | | | | | <snip> (...) Definitely agree here. And if you think I've got an opinion on this, you should hear my wife's comments when she sees someone else's unbelted kids in a moving car. In some ways I'm glad the other car is moving, so she can't completely (...) (24 years ago, 21-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | (...) But would it work if some participants refused to recognize the validity of evolution? Steve (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Trying to understand —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) to (...) Sure--just like biological evolution. Dave! (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
