ashe

Joe, all the cars were "my cars". All the electric line and bucket trucks were "my trucks". All the parks, and the plants, all water and sewer lines were "mine". All the staff was "mine".

If the Town/City/County Manager is not of the mind that he has a personal ownership stake in the equipment and the people, that emotional distance will be felt by the staff and the staff will react accordingly.

If you treat the equipment like a commonly owned thing - then you create a type of economic free rider problem where no one takes responsibility for the equipment. Police in particular seem to be able to break a steel ball with a rubber hammer. They can be am amazingly rough with equipment if you allow them. Some public works folks can break a brand new trackhoe as easily as long armed man can pull the cord out of a weed eater.

I have found that Electric Workers, Fire Fighters, WWTP and Water Treatment Plant workers, and the folks that run the computers treat the equipment with kid gloves. Recreation folks are usually pretty good with equipment.

Those that need the equipment to stay safe, to maintain life safety and health standards, or are traditionally equipment starved tend to take care of their equipment. The car is one of the last things a police officer thinks about, but if you are buying new ones 7-8 a year and they all have huge dents in them after a few months, you will hear about it from every barbershop, beauty salon, and whatever passes for Hardees.

Since I was held personally responsible for what happened in the units by the Boards I worked for, everything was personal - it might as well have been mine since it was always my *** on the line.

I still remember the check that went to American LeFrance for a $1,300,000 aerial ladder truck. It felt like it came out of my hide. I remember the first scratch on that thing, but the chief was more bent out of shape than me. (It was dinged by another departments tanker on a mutual aid call way out in the County).

It's important for the employees to know that the manager cares about the jobs they do and the equipment they have like it's his.

Public ownership is an amorphous, esoteric concept that some folks never really grasp, but they can understand that "the manager is going to be pissed if you wreck that new police car when it should have been back at the motor pool".

Another episode down, and Hoppy still can't figure out how to work a seatbelt.

BAZINGA!

One of them complained that they were being singled out - like being forced to wear a dunce cap. I congratulated him on figuring out my intent.

Never underestimate the management value of a defacto "dunce cap". You just have to be willing to wear it yourself.

I made two officers walk for four shifts after they wrecked two of my brand new police cars in the parking lot of a grocery store when they should have been back at the barn due to the icy weather - icy weather in flatlands means Crown Vic's stay home and the Emergency SUV's come out until it melts.

Hoppy walk? Lmao. I'd pay to watch him walk a beat

It's the "government's" road.

You didn't build that road and could not build it - you pay some taxes toward the road and it's maintenance, but by yourself you aren't building highways. Since it's "their" road, they can set "their" rules for using it. You don't own the highway.

Moreover, you don't have the right to create a hazard on the highway that can be mitigated by a simple law. Windshield Wipers, Headlights, Safety Glass, etc, etc.

Finally, if you died in your crash that would be one thing.

Unfortunately what happens more often with the non-use of seat belts is the permanent disablement and the creation of paraplegics and quadriplegics changing people from those that independent to a class of people who are disproportionately in need of public support to live.

You have the right to be stupid on your own property, but not on public property.

If Hoppy is not wearing a belt, he should be warned, reprimanded, and eventually fired if he is not wearing it. Personally, I would make him walk a beat to make him like that belt.

Now, there are times when it's more effective to have the belt off, particularly if you have to jump out of the vehicle, but that's dangerous as well and there has been many a police car wrecked by the officer making a rolling jump out of the vehicle and not getting the car into park.

I never said that they don't saves lives but I still don't think it should be force on use by the government. They can also cost people there live as well and when I took auto tech we were shown a video on a mechanic that was kill by any airbag.

Joseph think about a race car driver that is forced to wear one. There is no doubt they save lives and specifically children.

Air bags are mandatory also on cars. I personally have seen the side airbag save a life.

I still don't think that it should be forced on by the federal gov.

Actually, seatbelt laws are more about keeping my insurance down even if you do something stupid. Insurance is really a social system. Everyone is paying into the pot. If we start having a lot of expensive claims, everyone's premiums will go up. So wear the seatbelt. Especially if you have a badge

Seatbelt laws are bull anyway. If you want to die in a crash, go ahead. Natural selection takes over at some point.

Hoppys big fat *** would surly be considered a lethal object being thrown from wreckage.

So I suppose those exempted people are safer being thrown clear of the wreckage. Interesting.

Another forced in the face law so they can collect money

� 20-135.2A. (See Editor's note) Seat belt use mandatory.

(a) Except as otherwise provided in G.S. 20-137.1, each occupant of a motor vehicle manufactured with seat belts shall have a seatbelt properly fastened about his or her body at all times when the vehicle is in forward motion on a street or highway in this State.

(b) Repealed by Session Laws 2006-140, s. 1, effective December 1, 2006.

(c) This section shall not apply to any of the following:

(1) A driver or occupant of a noncommercial motor vehicle with a medical or physical condition that prevents appropriate restraint by a safety belt or with a professionally certified mental phobia against the wearing of vehicle restraints.

(2) A motor vehicle operated by a rural letter carrier of the United States Postal Service while performing duties as a rural letter carrier and a motor vehicle operated by a newspaper delivery person while actually engaged in delivery of newspapers along the person's specified route.

(3) A driver or passenger frequently stopping and leaving the vehicle or delivering property from the vehicle if the speed of the vehicle between stops does not exceed 20 miles per hour.

(4) Any vehicle registered and licensed as a property-carrying vehicle in accordance with G.S. 20-88, while being used for agricultural purposes in intrastate commerce.

(5) A motor vehicle not required to be equipped with seat safety belts under federal law.

(6) Any occupant of a motor home, as defined in G.S. 20-4.01(27)d2, other than the driver and front seat passengers.

(7) Any occupant, while in the custody of a law enforcement officer, being transported in the backseat of a law enforcement vehicle.

(8) A passenger of a residential garbage or recycling truck while the truck is operating during collection rounds.

(d) Evidence of failure to wear a seat belt shall not be admissible in any criminal or civil trial, action, or proceeding except in an action based on a violation of this section or as justification for the stop of a vehicle or detention of a vehicle operator and passengers.

(d1) Failure of a rear seat occupant of a vehicle to wear a seat belt shall not be justification for the stop of a vehicle.

(e) Any driver or front seat passenger who fails to wear a seat belt as required by this section shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a penalty of twenty-five dollars and fifty cents ($25.50) plus the following court costs: the General Court of Justice fee provided for in G.S. 7A-304(a)(4), the telephone facilities fee provided for in G.S. 7A-304(a)(2a), and the law enforcement training and certification fee provided for in G.S. 7A-304(a)(3b). Any rear seat occupant of a vehicle who fails to wear a seat belt as required by this section shall have committed an infraction and shall pay a penalty of ten dollars ($10.00) and no court costs. Court costs assessed under this section are for the support of the General Court of Justice and shall be remitted to the State Treasurer. Conviction of an infraction under this section has no other consequence.

(f) No drivers license points or insurance surcharge shall be assessed on account of violation of this section.

(g) The Commissioner of Motor Vehicles and the Department of Public Instruction shall incorporate in driver education programs and driver licensing programs instructions designed to encourage compliance with this section as an important means of reducing the severity of injury to the users of restraint devices and on the requirements and penalties specified in this law.

(h) Repealed by Session Laws 1999-183, s. 3, effective October 1, 1999. (1985, c. 222, s. 1; 1987, c. 623; 1991, c. 448, s. 1; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 5, s. 1; 1997-16, s. 2; 1997-443, s. 32.20; 1999-183, ss. 1-3; 2002-126, s. 29A.3(a); 2005-276, s. 43.1(g); 2006-66, s. 21.11; 2006-140, s. 1; 2006-221, s. 21(a); 2007-289, s. 1; 2007-404, s. 2; 2009-376, s. 12; 2009-451, s. 15.20(j).)

When I the last time you saw any of the snail mail delivery gang using a seat belt? maybe most of them are planted in place by sitting on the shifter.

Just who is going to do anything about it surely you don't think that another cop is going to give them a ticket. That is a perk of being a JBT they can harass and ticket people for all kinds of things that they themselves do.

Have you seen the size of some of our officers? Most couldn't use a seatbelt extender if they had one to fit.