Lucky... 0 #1 December 27, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061227/ap_on_re_us/fallen_officers_1&printer=1 Traffic-related law officer deaths jump By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 6 minutes ago Police officers who can ticket you for not wearing a seat belt sometimes ditch their own restraints, a factor that may have contributed to a double-digit jump this year in law enforcement traffic fatalities, according to a new study. Many patrol car seat belts tangle with gun belts worn by officers, causing some of them to choose access to a firearm over seat belt safety, said Craig W. Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. "There are times, I'm afraid, where some officers think it's to their benefit to not have their seat belt on," Floyd said in an interview. "They're worried that if someone were to start shooting at them and they have to jump out of their car quickly, it might get tangled." The choice may explain the 16 percent increase in officer fatalities in traffic-related crashes this year over 2005, according to the report Wednesday by the Memorial Fund and the Concerns of Police Survivors. According to preliminary statistics compiled through Monday, traffic fatalities claimed the lives of 73 of the 151 officers killed in 2006. This compares to 63 officers killed in traffic accidents in 2005, the groups said. Of those 73 fatalities, 47 involved vehicles, the report found. It's unclear how many of those officers killed were not wearing seat belts, Floyd said. Inappropriate safety equipment and a lack of defensive driver training have contributed to the jump in traffic fatalities, Floyd said. Besides specially-designed seat belts, the groups say patrol cars should have standard fire suppression equipment and front and side air bags. Simple odds factor into the increase, too, the groups said. There are more patrol officers on the roads now than ever — 900,000 sworn officers patrolling the roads compared to 693,127 in 1997, according to federal statistics cited by the report. The traffic deaths outpaced gun-related fatalties as they have in past years. Officers shot to death in 2006 declined 9 percent, from 59 last year to 54, the report said. Over the past 30 years, the number of officers killed in automobile crashes has jumped by 40 percent while the number shot to death during that period has declined by about the same amount. Other causes of officer deaths in 2006 were widespread, ranging from job-related illnesses to aircraft crashes, beatings and stabbings. One officer, was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq: Daniel. J. Kuhlmeier, 30, a special agent of the Air Force's Office of Special Investigations in Washington. The most deadly state for officers this year was California, where 17 died in the line of duty. Virginia took second place with 10 officer fatalities. New York and Texas lost nine officers, while Florida and Illinois suffered eight officer deaths each, the report said. _________________________________________________________________ They write tickets and then don't follow the same laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #2 December 27, 2006 The numbers are a bit vague and I'm sure that some of those officers died as a result of not wearing a seat-belt. The story doesn't say, how many officers were struck and killed by passing motorists while they were out of their vehicles, either. I can't see where 'hipocrite' would enter into it. It states in the story that it is 'un-clear' as to how many officers were killed as a result of not wearing a seat-belt. The article states that "innapropriate safety equipment and lack of defensive driver training have contributed to a jump in traffic fatalities." Not so much the 'not wearing of seat-belts'. Interesting article. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #3 December 27, 2006 QuoteMany patrol car seat belts tangle with gun belts worn by officers, causing some of them to choose access to a firearm over seat belt safety, said Craig W. Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. "There are times, I'm afraid, where some officers think it's to their benefit to not have their seat belt on," Floyd said in an interview. "They're worried that if someone were to start shooting at them and they have to jump out of their car quickly, it might get tangled." That is a valid reason. In Iraq soldiers don't wear seatbelts at times for the same reason. It is a TACTICAL issue, not one of hypocrisy. Now I personally think that it is a poor choice. The seatbelt use would be a better choice than quick access to the firearm since they are more likely to get into a traffic accident than a firefight. I am also disappointed that the police do not have a different seatbelt design for this reason. Also, the story does not show how many fatalities were the result of not wearing a seatbelt. It takes a large number that could have many causes (deaths due to traffic accidents) and by omission tries to imply that all of the officers did not wear seatbelts. But accident reviews show that some accidents result in fatalities even when seat belts are worn. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #4 December 27, 2006 QuoteBut accident reviews show that some accidents result in fatalities even when seat belts are worn. True - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #5 December 27, 2006 QuoteTrue - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can. Of course, but the story takes a large number and attributes the whole number to one cause. The story should have only used the number of fatalities due to police not wearing a seatbelt. And to be really truthful only those that were not worn for the reason they claim. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #6 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteTrue - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can. Of course, but the story takes a large number and attributes the whole number to one cause. The story should have only used the number of fatalities due to police not wearing a seatbelt. And to be really truthful only those that were not worn for the reason they claim. _________________________________ Even that figure, they don't have a number for. I thought it was a poorly written and vague article. Another one of those 'knee-jerk' stories. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #7 December 27, 2006 I see the writer works for the AP. The future of journalism looks bleak. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #8 December 27, 2006 QuoteI see the writer works for the AP. The future of journalism looks bleak. Nah - "Captain Hussein" didn't have ANYTHING to do with that story!! Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #9 December 27, 2006 Ain't that the truth! Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #10 December 27, 2006 I don't wear a seatbelt when I'm patrolling but we have legal exemption. If you have to make off to pursue someone or respond to a spontaneous situation when you have your seatbelt on and are wearing body armour you can often forget you have it on, struggling for a couple of seconds before you remember. I will put it on though if get involved in pursuit or in high speed response call but remove it before we get to scene Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #11 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteTrue - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can. Of course, but the story takes a large number and attributes the whole number to one cause. The story should have only used the number of fatalities due to police not wearing a seatbelt. And to be really truthful only those that were not worn for the reason they claim. _________________________________ Even that figure, they don't have a number for. I thought it was a poorly written and vague article. Another one of those 'knee-jerk' stories. Chuck I think you got it right! And to call hypocrocy They got reasons that may or may not be valid but, if they stop a civilian with a holster and gun belt on in a car they had betten not ticket them"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #12 December 27, 2006 QuoteI don't wear a seatbelt when I'm patrolling but we have legal exemption. If you have to make off to pursue someone or respond to a spontaneous situation when you have your seatbelt on and are wearing body armour you can often forget you have it on, struggling for a couple of seconds before you remember. If you wore it all the time, unfastening it would become just as routine as not unfastening it is now. I'm 100% opposed to seatbelt laws, but can still admit that they've switched my habits. Wearing a seatbelt used to be uncomfortably restraing for me. Now, not wearing one feels wierd. Putting it on and taking it off is a fluid habit that requires zero conscious thought. And I'm still adamantly opposed to seatbelt laws. Give Darwin a chance dammit! Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #13 December 27, 2006 Well, I've jumped out the car numerous times only to find I have handcuffed myself to my seatbelt or that I'm still wearing it and im scrambling like a turtle on its back. Both are potentially serious officer safety issues so you can understand the exemption although I think that actually come about because when escorting prisoners you need to be able to respond or escape any threat. We dont have cages or screens over here unless in a van If I need to I'm out the car before its stopped moving and chasing someone up the road well before the drivers even thought of a place to stop. You'll be surprised what you see just on routine patrol. Its not all 999 / 911 and rushing about the area, proactive policing is hugely satisfying and often happens when you least expect it. However if I was involved in an accident and injured due to not wearing a seatbelt I wouldn't get a penny in damages or healthcare. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #14 December 27, 2006 EXIT SAFETY! It is not just for planes anymore! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Scoop 0 #15 December 27, 2006 Its OK, my feet are running before they touch the floor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #16 December 27, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTrue - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can. Of course, but the story takes a large number and attributes the whole number to one cause. The story should have only used the number of fatalities due to police not wearing a seatbelt. And to be really truthful only those that were not worn for the reason they claim. _________________________________ Even that figure, they don't have a number for. I thought it was a poorly written and vague article. Another one of those 'knee-jerk' stories. Chuck I think you got it right! And to call hypocrocy They got reasons that may or may not be valid but, if they stop a civilian with a holster and gun belt on in a car they had betten not ticket them ___________________________________ Naw! Just shoot 'em... ask questions later. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #17 December 28, 2006 QuoteIf you wore it all the time, unfastening it would become just as routine as not unfastening it is now. Until you snag your radio, your ASP, your OC spray, your handcuff pouch, your holster (sidearm), your mag holder, your AR-15 mag holder, your latex glove pouch or your NADY on the seat belt and you're stuck to your car.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #18 December 28, 2006 QuoteThe numbers are a bit vague and I'm sure that some of those officers died as a result of not wearing a seat-belt. The story doesn't say, how many officers were struck and killed by passing motorists while they were out of their vehicles, either. I can't see where 'hipocrite' would enter into it. It states in the story that it is 'un-clear' as to how many officers were killed as a result of not wearing a seat-belt. The article states that "innapropriate safety equipment and lack of defensive driver training have contributed to a jump in traffic fatalities." Not so much the 'not wearing of seat-belts'. Interesting article. Chuck Just simply that they write tickets for the very thing they do themselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #19 December 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteMany patrol car seat belts tangle with gun belts worn by officers, causing some of them to choose access to a firearm over seat belt safety, said Craig W. Floyd, chairman of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. "There are times, I'm afraid, where some officers think it's to their benefit to not have their seat belt on," Floyd said in an interview. "They're worried that if someone were to start shooting at them and they have to jump out of their car quickly, it might get tangled." That is a valid reason. In Iraq soldiers don't wear seatbelts at times for the same reason. It is a TACTICAL issue, not one of hypocrisy. Now I personally think that it is a poor choice. The seatbelt use would be a better choice than quick access to the firearm since they are more likely to get into a traffic accident than a firefight. I am also disappointed that the police do not have a different seatbelt design for this reason. Also, the story does not show how many fatalities were the result of not wearing a seatbelt. It takes a large number that could have many causes (deaths due to traffic accidents) and by omission tries to imply that all of the officers did not wear seatbelts. But accident reviews show that some accidents result in fatalities even when seat belts are worn. How abiut the fact that they write tickets for the very thing they do? I feel seatbelts are a hazzard, but if I do not wear mine ans gte caught, I get a ticket..... that's the hypocrisy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #20 December 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteTrue - but it's still better (in the vast majority of cases) to be belted in rather than rattling around like a pebble in a can. Of course, but the story takes a large number and attributes the whole number to one cause. The story should have only used the number of fatalities due to police not wearing a seatbelt. And to be really truthful only those that were not worn for the reason they claim. _________________________________ Even that figure, they don't have a number for. I thought it was a poorly written and vague article. Another one of those 'knee-jerk' stories. Chuck I think you got it right! And to call hypocrocy They got reasons that may or may not be valid but, if they stop a civilian with a holster and gun belt on in a car they had betten not ticket them Quoteif they stop a civilian with a holster and gun belt on in a car they had betten not ticket them This is what I'm saying. They would tho, if they felt like it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #21 December 28, 2006 QuoteHow abiut the fact that they write tickets for the very thing they do? I feel seatbelts are a hazzard, but if I do not wear mine ans gte caught, I get a ticket..... that's the hypocrisy. Cops also speed, run stop signs, etc. The actual wording varies from state to state, but basically a police cruiser is considered an "emergancy vehicle" and emergancy vehicles are basically excempt from traffic laws. So they're not hypocrites, the law allows for the excemption. What you consider "hypocrocy" is in all actuality your severe lack of understanding of the law. edit: Hokd on foniks werks fer me--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #22 December 28, 2006 QuoteHow abiut the fact that they write tickets for the very thing they do? You mean like teachers talking in class? Remember when Jeff Spicoli "explained" to Mr. Hand the whole "my time... your time... our time" dynamic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #23 December 28, 2006 QuoteHow abiut the fact that they write tickets for the very thing they do? I feel seatbelts are a hazzard, but if I do not wear mine ans gte caught, I get a ticket..... that's the hypocrisy. They also speed, run red lights, carry a gun, have red or blue lights visible from the front of the car...ect. How much you want to bet that if they pulled you over for speeding and you had a pregnant wife in the car they would not ticket you? I was once caught doing 100mph trying to get a guy that was ODing to a hospital. I didn't even get a lecture, I got directions. So, it is not hypocrisy. Just you being pissed off for not getting your way when you want it. They have valid reasons for not wanting to wear a seatbelt. Reasons that could put them in harms way...You do not. Also the article is so poorly documented. Any really critical thinking would show all the holes in the story and the use of leaps of false logic used to tie it together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
astleysean 0 #24 December 28, 2006 "Cops Hypocrites" Yeah, and all skydivers have a death wish. Reminds me of a protestor who said to me at a demo once "You cops, you're all prejudiced". Got a blank look when I invited her to take a moment to think about that sentence. I genuinely hope you never need a police officers help really urgently. I also hope if you do, he or she breaches all manner of minor traffic rules in order to PROVIDE HELP FOR YOU, to the best of his or her ability, regardless of your personal opinion of his or her chosen career. By the way, I've never issued a seatbelt ticket in 15 years and I almost always wear one at work. I just don't like being called a hypocrite. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #25 December 28, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow abiut the fact that they write tickets for the very thing they do? I feel seatbelts are a hazzard, but if I do not wear mine ans gte caught, I get a ticket..... that's the hypocrisy. Cops also speed, run stop signs, etc. The actual wording varies from state to state, but basically a police cruiser is considered an "emergancy vehicle" and emergancy vehicles are basically excempt from traffic laws. So they're not hypocrites, the law allows for the excemption. What you consider "hypocrocy" is in all actuality your severe lack of understanding of the law. edit: Hokd on foniks werks fer meWere you looking for emergency ? Or exemption? As law enforcement I hope you were being sarcasticI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites