SEATBELTS

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

We are exempt from traffic laws, but have a more restrictive agency policy to abide by. I suggest you look closely at our policy which, if violated, could result in disciplinary actions.

No we are exempt from CERTAIN traffic laws.

1st of all, I still dont believe this has actually happened unless somebody can give me names of those involved.

2nd, I would like to remind everybody that, while on duty, LEOs are exempt from traffic laws. Otherwise you would deserve tickets for speeding, run red lights, etc. Seatbelts are part of 316 and not required for LEOs in the performance of their duties.

We are exempt from traffic laws, but have a more restrictive agency policy to abide by. I suggest you look closely at our policy which, if violated, could result in disciplinary actions.

You are only exempt from a few traffic laws while in the active performance of your duties. This does not include while on routine patrol and you don't feel like sitting at a red light so you cut through a gas station parking lot to avoid the light. On the other hand, if you were responding to an emergency and traffic was backed up and it was safer to cut through said parking lot for a quicker response this is excusable. Just like exceeding the speed limit, going the wrong way on a one way street, things like that. Under no circumstance are you exempt from wearing your seatbelt unless you have a doctor's excuse on record that a seatbelt is detrimental to your health and safety if worn by you while in a vehicle. Short answer, wear your freakin seatbelt!

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

Kids,
Don't get all wrapped around the axle on seat belt use. Here is what you should really be concerned with -
Some, if not all insurance carriers view lack of seat belt use as a mitigating factor when calculating how much to pay on a claim. Consider this - you are responding to a call without a seat belt and have a crash. The insurance company will reduce their pay out because your negligent act (not wearing the belt) made your injuries worse. Figure a cost of 25 to 50 percent. Not really worth it. I'll wear the belt just for that reason.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

So if someone is on the clock and they need to get to Krispy Kreme before they close (I know, they don't, just a hypothetical), you think that you're exempt if you run 75 mph because you're on duty?

Apparently whoever wrote the statute assumed that police officers would display at least a minimal amount of common sense but obviously they were wrong. They should have been more explicit in defining "in the performance of your duties".

It's frightening that some of you protect and serve if you aren't any smarter than that.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

Then why is it we can receive a traffic citation from the FHP in connection with a traffic crash or at least being shown at fault. Before you spout off about that which you are obviously not an expert, you might check case law etc. Not all statutes have the corrections that come from case law.

Case law states that while you are on the clock you are covered by insurance etc. It however does not allow you to violate traffic laws just because you want to. It allows you to disregard traffic laws only when necessary to carry out your official duties and with due care. Not wearing your seatbelt is not exercising due care. I guess you don't know that you can be held liable for injuries sustained when you cause an accident when it can be proven you acted recklessly, even if you were on the clock.

Don't let the badge go to your head. You are only making responsible officers look bad. If you want to be irresponsible then go to work for Mayberry. I hear their hiring and this way you probably won't have to worry about not being able to work your side job when we have a thunderstorm either.

Besides policy trumps the statute. And for your info, we are self insured and the policy associated with our insurance states no seatbelt, no payout for injuries and Blue Cross sent a notice to the SO that if an Officer was injured in a traffic crash because of failure to wear the seatbelt, no payout would be made from your health insurance. Do you want to take that chance.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

You are, in the opinion of this deputy, a total and complete moron. I hope you aren't on my shift.

The statute does not say "some" or "certain" traffic laws... it says "shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter while in teh performance of their duties."

If I am on the clock, I'm in the performance of my duties.

You need to dig deeper and check again.