So, forgot to mention I got a ticket a few weeks in good ol' Wake Co.

"The officer named below has probable cause to believe that on or about blah blah in the county named above you did unlawfully and willfully OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE ON A STREET OR HIGHWAY IN FORWARD MOTION WITHOUT HAVING THE PROVIDED SEAT BELT PROPERLY FASTENED ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S BODY WHILE THE DEFENDANT WAS A REAR SEAT OCCUPANT OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE."

"Vehicle Type TAXICAB"

So should I get a lawyer, go to court myself to see if anything can be done or pay the $10.00 fine. This was on a checkpoint on Capital Blvd btw at 2:30am.

12/15/2009 8:26:59 PM

Ten bucks seems like a pretty minor fee for violating a pretty simple rule. I'd say pay it and be done with it. Shouldn't show up on your insurance as points or anything, yeah?

12/15/2009 9:31:59 PM

demand a trial by jury!

12/15/2009 9:57:30 PM

I suggest slapping yourself in the face for getting caught for something as simple as that.

12/15/2009 10:25:52 PM

Im more interested in the taxicab designation. That and when you saw the checkpoint you still didn't put on the seatbelt?

12/15/2009 11:12:00 PM

Why would you not wear a seat belt? Idiots like you baffle me.

[Edited on December 15, 2009 at 11:17 PM. Reason : /]

12/15/2009 11:17:35 PM

Why would you need to wear a seatbelt in the back seat?

12/15/2009 11:19:41 PM

Quote :

"Idiots like you baffle me."

12/16/2009 12:07:43 AM

Those pussies must have changed the law:
Penalties
Drivers and Front Seat Occupants Ages 16 and Older
» Penalty of $25.50
» $100.50 court costs
» No driver license or insurance points are assessed.

Rear Seat Occupants Ages 16 and Older
» Penalty of $10
» No court costs
» No driver license or insurance points are assessed.

Eh, when I want to wear one I'll wear it. When I don't, I won't.

12/16/2009 12:37:58 AM

this law change was all over the news back when it was enacted

12/16/2009 12:51:44 AM

Quote :

"Why would you need to wear a seatbelt in the back seat?"

I really hope that was a joke.

12/16/2009 1:35:20 AM

i believe he was unaware that NC law was relatively recently changed to require passengers in the back seat to wear a seatbelt

12/16/2009 1:42:45 AM

^ding ding. People over 16 can still ride in the back of trucks, or did they change that too?

Ha yea I was asking for it, but we were in a cab at 2:30am so draw your own conclusions . We were actually in stopped traffic and a cop walked by with a flashlight. The checkpoint was still 200 yards ahead. He tapped on the window and asked for my license.

The problem I have is I didn't "OPERATE A MOTOR VEHICLE"

12/16/2009 9:26:23 AM

I withdrawl my previous statement as I didn't properly read the OP.

However, in most cases I don't know why people don't wear seat belts in back seats. I don't let anyone ride in my car without wearing their seatbelt in the back seat b/c the last thing I want to happen is a frontal impact with the force of my rear seat buddy slamming into my seat, crushing me between the seat and steering wheel. No thanks.

12/16/2009 9:56:57 AM

^^Thats just the charge language. It still applies. Like the charge language for expired registration ends in "knowing the same to be expired." Well just because you didn't know it wasn't expired doesn't mean you can't be charged.

12/16/2009 1:30:00 PM

I would plead not guilty. I have a feeling they are not going to take an offense to trial that the maximum punishment is a $10 fine.

12/16/2009 3:39:06 PM

Not guilty by reason of mental defect.



Just say not guilty when you show up. They may say "don't do it again" and toss out the ticket.
IIRC, rear passenger seatbelt violation is a secondary charge and not a stoppable offense. Though, if you were already stopped by traffic, I don't know how that works.

12/16/2009 4:14:14 PM

it's 10 bucks man

12/16/2009 5:04:43 PM

No such thing as a secondary charge. If you observe someone in the backseat w/o proper restraint or the driver, etc you can conduct a traffic stop.

12/16/2009 5:33:03 PM

Its stupid not to wear a seatbelt, but I don't think it should be a law to wear one (outside of making sure kids are buckled).

If you don't want to then its your own damn fault if something happens.

12/16/2009 8:18:10 PM

Quote :

"If you don't want to then its your own damn fault if something happens."

but if you are at fault for an accident and the other person was not wearing their seat belt, you may be responsible for far more medical bills than if they were wearing the seat belt.

that is why these laws exist. they are there to protect your wallet, not your health.

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 8:23 PM. Reason : and a cash cow for local gubments]

12/16/2009 8:23:05 PM

^ definitely a concern but I would imagine that your liability is limited by their negligence in that situation, but then again I don't know enough about that.

I reserve the right to retract my statement after we receive an expert opinion.

12/16/2009 8:42:48 PM

seat belt laws keep insurance rates lower

12/16/2009 8:50:58 PM

^^ The law term for what you're talking about is comparative negligence. I'm not exactly an expert, but I took a law class once

Supposedly (according to wikipedia) north carolina is one of the few states that still allows contributory negligence as a complete defense...meaning in tort cases, if you can prove their negligence contributed you can get out paying anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributory_negligence

Quote :

"Contributory negligence is a common law defense to a claim based on negligence, an action in tort. It applies to cases where a plaintiff has, through his own negligence, contributed to the harm he suffered. For example, a pedestrian crosses a road negligently and is hit by a driver who was driving negligently."

Quote :

"Most jurisdictions in the U.S. have modified the doctrine, either by court decision or by legislation, to comparative negligence. Under comparative negligence, the jury reduces the award to the plaintiff by the extent of the plaintiff's contribution to the harm. In England and Wales, the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 had a similar effect (the similar, current doctrine being termed Acts of the claimant). Maryland, Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia retain contributory negligence as a complete defense to negligence."

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 8:55 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2009 8:55:29 PM

^^^ Apparently not. I only say this because when my wife was in an accident, the other party decided to run off the road and into the woods for the "dramatic effect." He was fine after the accident, but of course, filed a medical claim even though the insurance co. decided that we would each take care of our own parties claims, due to the fact that each party contributed to the altercation. What baffles me (and enrages me greatly) is that they still have the medical case open to dispute as a separate claim because "the accident would have never happened if my wife had not failed to yield." Then again, the same could be said about his excessive speeding, thus leaving him to burden his own BS health claims. W/E. RAWR RAWR RAWR.


^yeah. we are in that process at the moment, which is BS because I feel like this is a no-brainer...

[Edited on December 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

12/16/2009 9:00:05 PM

Quote :

"No such thing as a secondary charge. If you observe someone in the backseat w/o proper restraint or the driver, etc you can conduct a traffic stop."

imho this is more about giving police one more way they can get "probably cause" to pull someone and possibly snoop some drugs or
other charges.

By the way shoudl not the taxi driver get this ticket not the passenger????

As far as I am concerned those who don't wear a seat belt are just helping uncle sam. I think its bullshit that we need a nanny state government
ensuring we "buckle up".

12/18/2009 11:24:24 AM