Narrow Margin Buckles Up Bill: Belt Debate Heads to Senate

By John J. Monahan
TELEGRAM & GAZETTE STAFF
jmonahan@telegram.com
As seen in the Telegram & Gazette, Friday, January 20, 2006

BOSTON -- "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again" proved a truism for advocates of a primary enforcement seat belt law that was approved by the House yesterday by a three-vote margin after being rejected in tie votes twice in the last five years.

The bill that lawmakers said would allow police to stop cars to check if the driver and passengers are wearing seat belts, passed 77-74 after a high-voltage debate that pitted calls for reducing the carnage on the roadways against concerns over creeping erosion of people's freedom and civil liberties. A second, final vote to engross the bill passed 76-74, after one legislator left for the day.

Supporters listed statistics about lives that would be saved, disabilities that would be avoided, health care and insurance costs that would be reduced by the law, with few questioning that the bill may enhance safety and reduce injuries and fatalities on the roads.

Federal studies suggest the primary enforcement law would increase seat belt use from 66 percent to about 77 percent in the commonwealth, based on experience in 22 states that have primary enforcement laws. The current secondary enforcement law in Massachusetts allows police to issue tickets for seat belt violations only if a car has been stopped for some other violation.

In an attempt to assuage concerns over possible police abuse of constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure, the bill that was approved specifies that police who stop cars "solely" for seat belt infractions, "may not search or inspect a motor vehicle, its contents, the driver or passengers."

Critics said it still went too far.

Arguing that people can be counted on to keep themselves safe, state Rep. James H. Fagan, D-Taunton, declared, "They say we would be safer, thank you very much, but I would rather be freer."

Mr. Fagan joined several lawmakers in complaining that the Legislature was told when it adopted the current secondary enforcement seat belt law that it would not pave the way for a primary enforcement bill later. While supporters claim that the primary enforcement law would not impose insurance surcharges on violators, he said, he did not believe that claim. "This is the first step toward an insurance surcharge” for seat belt violations, he said.

State Rep. Cheryl A. Rivera, D-Springfield, a sponsor of the legislation, said the intent of the bill is simple. "All we want from this legislation is for everyone in the commonwealth to buckle up," she said.

State Rep. Michael E. Festa, D-Melrose, who is a candidate for Middlesex District Attorney, claimed the current secondary law is "not doing the job."

Mr. Festa disputed claims the law would allow police to stop cars without probable cause to suspect a violation. "That is not what would be the case if this law is adopted,” he said. Others dismissed civil liberty concerns, saying police already have more than 300 other reasons for which they can pull a car over.

"This is a law that will save lives; there is no disputing that," Mr. Festa said.

State Rep. Frank I. Smizik, D-Brookline, described his harrowing morning drive to work to make the case that the roads are too dangerous to not wear a seat belt. Massachusetts, he said, has "some of the most aggressive and careless drivers in the country." On the way to work he said, he sees people “running stop signs, going through red lights, talking on cell phones, and making right turns from the center lane.

The prospect that police powers would be expanded also raised concerns about targeting minorities and poor people. Mr. Fagan said he was less worried about racial profiling under the proposed law than harassment of poor people. State Rep. Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn, asked the House members, "Where do we stop being Big Brother and allow individuals to be responsible for their own actions?"

Another Central Massachusetts lawmaker, State Rep. Lewis G. Evangelidis, R-Holden, also questioned the balance between civil liberties and government rules. "We all would agree that not wearing a seat belt is crazy," he said. "The question is, where do we draw the line in government intervention in people’s lives?"

When the first roll call was taken, the bill advanced by a narrow three-vote margin. The bill now goes to the Senate and, if approved, is expected to be signed by Gov. Mitt Romney, who has said he favors the legislation. If the bill becomes law, the fine for violators would be $25.

Central Massachusetts representatives voting for the law were state Reps. Jennifer M. Callahan, D-Sutton; James B. Leary, D-Worcester; and Robert P. Spellane, D-Worcester.

Voting against the bill were state Reps. John J. Binienda Sr., D-Worcester; Mark J. Carron, D-Southbridge; Jennifer Flanagan, D-Leominster; Anne M. Gobi, D-Spencer; Emile J. Goguen, D-Fitchburg; Paul J. Kujawksi, D-Webster; Marie J. Parente, D-Milford; Vincent A. Pedone, D-Worcester; George N. Peterson Jr., R-Grafton; Lewis J. Evangelidis, R-Holden; Paul K. Frost, R-Auburn; and Karyn E. Polito, R-Shrewsbury.