Maine Considers Revoking Seat Belt Requirement Just Days After 75-Car Pileup

Seatbelt anniversary. File photo dated 24/08/03 of a person using a seatbelt as drivers and their passengers have been urged to 'belt up', no matter how short a distance they are travelling, as campaigners and the Go... Seatbelt anniversary. File photo dated 24/08/03 of a person using a seatbelt as drivers and their passengers have been urged to 'belt up', no matter how short a distance they are travelling, as campaigners and the Government marked 30 years since it was made compulsory for drivers to wear seatbelts. Issue date: Thursday January 31, 2013. Car manufacturers have installed seatbelts since 1965 but it was not until 30 years ago today - January 31, 1983 - that it was made the law for all drivers to buckle up. Seatbelts are estimated to save around 2,000 lives each year, making them an essential part of road safety. To mark today's anniversary, the Government has made a selection of historic THINK! adverts available online. The THINK! campaign provides road safety advice in a bid to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured in accidents. According to the Department for Transport (DfT), soon after the law came into effect in 1983, 90% of car drivers and front-seat passengers were seen wearing seat belts. In 1991 another law change made it a legal requirement for adults to wear seatbelts in the back of cars. See PA story TRANSPORT Seatbelt. Photo credit should read: Haydn West/PA Wire URN:15675099 (Press Association via AP Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — It’s an effort that even the bill’s sponsor acknowledges is poor timing.

Just two days after a 75-vehicle pileup injured at least 17 people in the state, lawmakers in Maine are considering legislation that would allow adults to opt out of wearing seat belts.

Sen. Eric Brakey told lawmakers on Friday that it’s too bad they’re considering his bill so close to Wednesday’s crash on Interstate 95, which is thought to be largest in Maine history but had no fatalities.

“It’s very unfortunate timing that we’re discussing this particular legislation two days after the 75-car pileup that took place on I-95,” Brakey said.

The Republican from Auburn acknowledged that people should wear seat belts and said he hopes the accident serves as a reminder of the importance to do so. But said he believes the mandate infringes on people’s freedom to make personal decisions.

“Government exists to protect us from each other, not to protect us from ourselves,” Brakey told the Transportation Committee, which also examined measures Friday that seek to crack down on people who talk on their cellphone while driving.

Opponents of the seat belt repeal — including the Maine Sheriffs’ Association, Maine Chiefs of Police Association, the Maine Medical Association and several trauma surgeons — argued that repealing the law would be a dangerous move that would inevitably lead to more highway deaths.

“We’re asking people to swap an immediate lethal risk for the threat of a small fine,” said David Burke, a surgeon at Eastern Maine Medical Center. “If that helps keep a few dozen per year out of my trauma room, I’ll take the governance.”

If the bill passes, Maine’s Bureau of Highway Safety would lose almost $500,000 a year in federal grants that pay for educational programs and child safety seats for low-income families, said Director Lauren Stewart, who also opposes the bill. The federal government encourages states to enact certain highway safety laws by tying some funding to them.

Neighboring New Hampshire is the only state that doesn’t mandate seat belts for adults.

The committee also heard testimony on bills that would ban drivers from using hand-held cellphones. Maine now bans distracted driving and texting while driving.

Critics called the cellphone proposal unnecessary, an overreach of government and questioned whether it would be effective.

But Republican Sen. Roger Katz, whose bill would allow people to use hands-free devices, rejected the notion that the proposal is just “another example of intrusion into our personal lives.”

“If you chose to put yourself in harm’s way, that’s one thing. … But when the danger and harm extends to others, then that’s a different story.”

___

Follow Alanna Durkin at http://www.twitter.com/aedurkin

Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Latest News
99
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. They can take away our cellphones while driving, but they can never take our FREE DUMB!

  2. Not likely to happen. The Insurance companies will pitch a bitch and the politicians will cave.

  3. Avatar for jinnj jinnj says:

    infringes on people’s freedom to make personal decisions

    Sure, so do laws that require babies to be in car seats, laws that say you can’t drive drunk, building codes that specify safety features like smoke detectors and stair railings and minimum roof load, and laws that say you can’t have open unconstrained fires in your back yard. Just really dumb Luddite logic!

  4. Growing up, dad always claimed that a seafood diet promoted healthy brain function. Maybe the folks in the state house and those that have elected them should give it try given the lunacy dominating the political process in those parts.

  5. Avatar for vonq vonq says:

    Doesn’t harm others? They must hate their first responders.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

93 more replies

Participants

Avatar for the_scarlet_pimpernel Avatar for paulw Avatar for slbinva Avatar for fgs Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for brooklyndweller Avatar for leftflank Avatar for docmoore Avatar for thunderhawk Avatar for yellowdogD Avatar for inlabsitrust Avatar for twicetheprice Avatar for 1972gd Avatar for frankly_my_dear Avatar for johnscotus Avatar for ottnott Avatar for exspectator Avatar for jrconner Avatar for mikeyz99 Avatar for azjude Avatar for darrtown Avatar for abierce Avatar for seedeevee

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: