'Michigan Night Patrol' to crack down on drunk driving, seat belt use
The Michigan Office of Highway Safety Planning is coordinating a crackdown on drunken drivers and unbuckled motorists in Washtenaw County.
“Michigan Night Patrol” involves six local law enforcement agencies using high visibility enforcement and awareness tactics to reduce the number of impaired drivers and those not wearing a seat belt.
Police will be cracking down on drunken drivers and seat belt violators.
File photo
“We want motorists to be aware that law enforcement officers are out there at night,” OHSP Division Director Michael Prince said in a statement. “If you drive drunk, you will be arrested.”
The federally-funded campaign involves television ads, lighted message signs, and advertisements on both Ann Arbor buses and the Internet about the effort. Officers will also wear reflective traffic vests to increase the program’s visibility and hand out informational cards to motorists pulled over for non-alcohol related offenses.
Officers will make stops for all traffic violations, but will enforce the program’s zero tolerance policy for those not wearing seat belts and/or drunk driving.
The program started after studies showed a reduction in seat belt usage at nighttime and a high correlation between alcohol and unbuckled occupants in nighttime fatal crashes, officials said.
Comments
Peregrine
Sun, Apr 18, 2010 : 10:33 a.m.
@Macabre Sunset, You're all over the map. You first accuse an unnamed "they". Then you retreat and say you don't remember who "the liar in question" is. So now we're down to a single individual. But now you're back to a "they" who said they would never do something. And yet you cannot name one of them, let alone two. You also try this argument: "We could achieve a 100% reduction in traffic deaths by banning transportation. Does that mean we should do so, on the grounds of saving lives?". What you don't seem to realize is that some of us are not absolutists but are instead weighing alternatives and trying to find the best among imperfect alternatives. Those who don't wear seat belts affect others in a number of ways. They can hurt other parties in the same vehicle when they go flying. They risk severe injury that can result long-term, expensive care that tap insurance pools that others pay for. And I have to wonder whether repeated exposure to splattered brains takes a toll on our first responders. And to think through the simple act of buckling up, you can a) better protect other vehicle occupants, b) reduce your likelihood of costing all of us lots of money, and c) reduce the impact on our first responders and their families.
Macabre Sunset
Fri, Apr 16, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.
We could achieve a 100% reduction in traffic deaths by banning transportation. Does that mean we should do so, on the grounds of saving lives? While the history of the law helps, what it doesn't do is address the lies told during the passage of the 1985 law. The fact is they did exactly what they said they would never do - revise the law to allow the police to pull you over for suspicion of not wearing a seat belt. That's your basic "slippery slope" argument. The empty promises staved off political fallout in 1985. And this weekend, Washtenaw will become some sort of camp that seems on its face to violate the Constitution (though this sort of thing has been in the courts before and is apparently legal now that the Supreme Court is filled with political operatives rather than legal scholars).
krc
Fri, Apr 16, 2010 : 9:37 a.m.
A correction: In yesterday's post, @treetowncartel noted where the busting was going to be - Fuller Road on campus. TODAY'S 'paper' said it's Washtenaw, but I forgot the coordinates. It is on the front page.
Left is Right
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 9:21 p.m.
Well... I can't imagine that the seatbelt thing at night will stand up in court as a primary reason for a traffic stop. Should get all evidence collected during that stop thrown out. Nevertheless, I continue to be surprised with how willing we seem to be to enact and enforce laws that are pretty obvious 4th amendment violations: the ability of our law enforcement officers to detain pedestrians between 18 and 21 and force them to either submit to a breathalyzer test or pay a fine, for one.
jondhall
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 7:11 a.m.
Checking seat belt usage at night? What a ruse, this is just more government invasion of our rights. No wonder look where the funding came from Washington, or excuse me it actually is coming from China. We will owe China forever! Let me analyze this we borrow money from China to harass our citizens, infringe on our rights. This might just be a Chinese Grant, so we do not have to pay it back?
Lokalisierung
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.
"I think the point is, it will be dark. So they won't be able to see if anyone has a seatbelt on or not..." Duh, sort of a very obvious fact that blew by me. Very good point. We all know police routinely overstep their limits. Every week on Cops is the same thing. "I pulled you over for a civil infraction, open up that cigarette case and let me see what's in there." Wait what? What gives them the right to do that? nothing does actually.
Lokalisierung
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.
"I'm going to ride my bike through there without a light and see if I get pulled over." Ha! Just make sure you have no warrents and you'll be ok.
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
I'm going to ride my bike through there without a light and see if I get pulled over.
krc
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 1:23 p.m.
Y'all make me sick. Thanks to @treetowncartel, you now know where the action is going to be Friday and Saturday - Fuller Rd. on campus. So, either stay away from there or wear your stupid seatbelt while you cruise through. Stop whining! If you don't want to wear your seatbelt, don't! Nobody's fault but your own if you go through your windshield or are impaled by your steering column if you wreck!
Lokalisierung
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.
Little late to be rallying against a law that was passed in 1999 isn't it? It is just like the helmet law though. if people want to die in a crash I say that is their right and all, but this is one of 10,000 laws just like this. The FDA, prescription drugs, handgun licences...etc. I'm all against having my rights taken away believe me, and will rally against new ones, but it's a little late on this front.
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:09 a.m.
Oh, OK, a third-person account from an anonymous poster on an Internet forum. That's worth paying attention to, then.
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 10:28 a.m.
Fuller road on the U of M Campus is the target zone Friday and Saturday.
Snow
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 10:02 a.m.
@Ed I don't think it's know if the law itself increased seat belt use or changing demographics. When my brother took drivers ed everyone in the family started wearing seat belts. We all rode The Convincer. http://www.qatargas.com.qa/uploadedImages/QatarGas/Media_Center/News/2008/QG%203&4%20seat%20belt%20convincer%20Aug%2008.jpg But the grandparents still did not wear them. The increase in seatbelt use over time may only be because the noncompliant population is leaving the driving pool.
swcornell
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:58 a.m.
I like what they do about seat belts in Germany. If anyone in the car is not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident then the auto insurance doesn't cover the accident! You better believe that the owner of the car will demand everyone put their belts on. They won't even start the car until everyone is belted.
Suzann Roberts
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
All's well and good for most crackdowns but what about turn signals... when in the world are people going to learn what the turn indicator is for?? Thankful we have such a device in the car and don't have to hang an arm out the window as an indicator. PLEASE ticket people for not using their turn signal.. and not to be used at the last minute, either. grrrrr
Wystan Stevens
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:09 a.m.
Your headline announces a crackdown on seat belt USE. But the story warns of a crackdown on seat belt NON-use.
jwally
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:04 a.m.
Duane The point I was making is that a friend was stopped in the "enforcement zone" at 10pm for no reason. The excuse the officer used was that he could not see her wearing her seat belt. It was a well lit area and her vehicle had the normal factory glass, the officer clearly used this as a rouse to get whiff of her breath when she opened her window to address the cop. Barely a bit of difference than a using the sobriety check lanes that are illegal in Michigan and used in other states. No it was not stated in original article, it was my own opinion based on valid points of law and the experience of a friend. Read or reread the 4th Amendment.
Independent_Thinker
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:02 a.m.
Well Slug, they should probably be barricaded to go along with all of the ridiculous speed humps and left turn lighted arrows instead of blinking red lights to match the government lockdown style of Ann Arbor roads.
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:52 a.m.
Good point, Independent_Thinker. Outlawing incandescent light bulbs also comes to mind.
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:49 a.m.
A duane, I think the police have to have probable cause to stop you. so, using the " I didn't know if you had your seatbelt on line" is an open ivitation to stopping soemone without the actual probable cause. I also love it when an officer pulls you over and asks if they know why you were stopped. Its like insert reason i have probable cause to stop you.
Independent_Thinker
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:48 a.m.
Although driving is not a right and can be regulated, "forcing" one to wear a seatbelt is ridiculous as it is a personal choice and only affects the person(s) making that choice. However, the cops are just enforcing an already existing law. I choose to always wear a seatbelt because it makes sense. Drunk driving enforcement, on the other hand, does affect other people and should be strongly enforced. However, I thought all you far left liberal Annarborites loved telling people how they had to act and using government to regulate the actions of people (heavy taxes, gun control, socialized medicine, etc) for some ridiculous utopian communal agenda. I'm not sure what you're complaining about as enforcing seatbelt use is in line with that agenda. I don't consider myself a conservative, I just find the liberal agenda asinine and chock full of hypocrisy with a propensity towards always siding with whatever the weakest course of action is.
RuralMom
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:35 a.m.
My ONLY comment on this would be to TRAIN THE YOUNGER OFFICERS. My husband had an issue with a young/newer officer who pulled him over for NO SEATBELT, in a 1972 partially restored truck. When he stated he had it on, he was accused of not using it properly, then when he showed the lap belt was accused of altering it, once he broke it down that it was ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, the Young Officer was embarrassed. Even though my husband wasn't a butt about it, this officer took offense to being educated and was a nightmare for a time thereafter due to ignorance.
hussflier
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:30 a.m.
This is funny because I was pulled over for a seatbelt violations years ago. As the cop pulled away from the stop he didn't put his on. So I rode next to him with the video on my phone. took this to the police station and showed them they just laughed and told me to leave. real nice police can do what they want when they want. So now when I am bored I will follow a cop everywhere he goes. when he finally gets mad hell stop and ask what I am doing and just tell him following him. This is not against the law so there is nothing they can do about it. it is fun.
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.
jwally, what illegal search and seizure is occurring? Was there something in this news story that involved that?
josemartin
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:02 a.m.
Does this mean they will use high-tech infrared surveillance equipment to spy on me in my car?
jwally
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 7:59 a.m.
Duane Respectively, you missed the point about constitutional law and our 4th Amendment rights regarding illegal search and seizure.
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 7:47 a.m.
Also, it is not the job of law enforcement to decide which laws should or shouldn't be enforced. They are sworn to enforce all the laws, regardless of whether they or you agree with them. The legislature is the proper target for your disagreement.
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 7:37 a.m.
It's not illegal to remove the tags on mattresses. The directive on those tags is for merchants, not consumers. So, no, they couldn't come in to my home on that premise, or any other premise without a search warrant. If you're trying to tie that to checking for seat belt usage when they said they wouldn't, Ed already explained a few comments above that when the law was originally enacted it was not a violation for which an officer could pull you over. However, the law that replaced it makes it one for which they can. It's very entertaining to watch AnnArborites some times (and not just around elections). Every time there is an article about some law being enforced, the citizens who regularly violate that law speak up with, "Don't the police have anything better to than give people tickets for [insert my favorite law to violate here]?" Actually, were are fortunate to live in a town that is safe enough that, 23.75 hours of the day, no, the police don't have any more serious laws to enforce.
jwally
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 7:16 a.m.
EyeHeartA2 Thank You My point exactly. Civil Liberties and Constitutional Rights are becoming a thing of th past.
shumom23
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 7:06 a.m.
Go after drunk drivers and selt belt violators please! how many people have been killed in the last six months by a drunk driver in Washtenaw County? We have had ten people killed in the last three months by drug overdoses and yet this town, this state, this country ignores the fact that we have a major problem with drugs in our country. Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor are infested and we just turn our head! Our youth do not stand a chance while our cops are worried about seat belts oh please!!!!!
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 6:49 a.m.
Inquiring minds want to know, what accident prone roadways will they be targeting this weekend?
Duane Collicott
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 6:33 a.m.
Bring on the typical AnnArborite complaints about law enforcement officers enforcing the law!
jwally
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 6:32 a.m.
The Michigan seat belt law first came (198..?) as a secondary violation. Meaning that you could only be cited for non seat belt use only after you were stopped for a primary violation (speeding etc..). There was a 1 year grace period for everyone to get used the law. After that it became a primary offense and all was fair game. I witnessed and talked one person stopped during the initial local "Michigan Night Patrol" enforcement zone a few weeks ago at the intersection of Michigan Ave, Hewitt, and Ellsworth Rds. The agencies involved were MSP, Washtenaw County, Pittsfeild, and the University of Michigan. I saw 5-6 cars stopped within a 3 block area at once. "Sobriety Check Lanes" are illegal in the State of Michigan. These officers were arbitrarily stopping drivers on the basis of not being able to visualize if the driver was wearing their seat belt. I'm sure there were others who had taillight or other malfunctions. Given the fact that it was after dark and that most modern cars have a certain amount of tint to their factory glass leaves me to believe that this was nothing more than a 4th amendment violation of search. The friend I spoke with told me the officer that stopped her was polite, but stuck his face through so far through the drivers window that she thought the cop was trying to give her a kiss. In reality he was trying to get a sniff of her breath. He then apologized for having pulled her over because he "didn't she her wearing her seat belt". She has always has worn her seat belt since she has had a drivers license. He then let her go on her way with a quick lecture about the importance of seat belts. DUH! I'm against drinking drivers, but I'm also against illegal search. Go ahead. Flame me out.
Trevor Staples
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 6:17 a.m.
Thanks for the fact-check/clarification, Ed. I hope Annarbor.com gets into a habit of refuting comments that include "facts" that are just not so. Seems many times the comments become the story, and there is no process by which to clarify what the truth of the matter is (who did what, when). Seems like for this story it simply took a search of mi.gov to find out details of the law. It's too bad more commenters don't use the machine they're using to read annarbor.com to get information before posting to annarbor.com.
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 10:40 p.m.
It was a long time ago. Sorry, just don't remember the liar in question. But they were very clear when the seat-belt law was passed (I'm guessing it was about 25 years ago) that it could only be cited in conjunction with another offense. Could have been Blanchard. I was stopped in 1987 for speeding, and the officer reminded me of the law, but only ticketed me for the speed itself. I didn't wear a belt then, started a couple of years later when I bought a car that had a shoulder restraint rather than just the lap belt. But I remember the seat-belt law was controversial then for that reason. A politician can actually make promises. It's called writing legislation. Instead, they prefer slogans and broken promises. It's more politically expedient in a world where there are only two parties and everything's about insipid sound bites.
Peregrine
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 8:06 p.m.
@Macabre Sunset and Craig Lounsbury: Please list those persons referred to by the first "they" in "they swore up and down that they would never, ever make a traffic stop solely for that reason".
Craig Lounsbury
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 8 p.m.
"But no one in government can make a personal promise that binds all government for eternity." while you are correct it doesn't stop them from mouthing the promise. So I suggest Macabre Sunset is correct.
Peregrine
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 7:42 p.m.
@Macabre Sunset, Who swore up and down? If a given politician made that pledge and then reneged, you have an issue with that person. But no one in government can make a personal promise that binds all government for eternity.
b master b
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 7:20 p.m.
Oh no I've got to find a new route home from the bar
Macabre Sunset
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 6:20 p.m.
I always use a seat belt, but I remember when the law was passed, they swore up and down that they would never, ever make a traffic stop solely for that reason. I guess a promise from a politician is worth only its weight in hot air.
Ignatz
Tue, Apr 13, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.
Going after drunk drivers? OK. Going after those not choosing to use seat belts on themselves? Bull.