Lakewood’s Police Chief Rob Lawson has reached out to YWN and would like to remind everyone of a new law which was passed last week in the State of New Jersey.
Legislation now requires all automobile passengers in New Jersey to wear a seat belt.
Under the law’s provisions, not wearing a seat belt qualifies as a secondary offense, meaning that in order to be stopped a car would have to be violating a primary offense such as speeding. Each unrestrained rear seat passenger would be responsible for any fine imposed for not wearing a seat belt.
This measure was signed into law last Monday by (former) Gov. Jon Corzine and it took effect immediately.
Under the previous law, all passengers under the age of 18, drivers, and front seat passengers are required to wear a seat belt, but adult passengers in the back seat are not required to wear one.
(Dov Gordon – YWN)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
7 Responses
Its comon sence not a law I dnt move my car unless evrybody is in a belt
This is another excuse for the government to interfere even more, in our lives.
How long before they are telling us what we may eat in our homes and how it must be cooked and how many bites we may eat and how small they must be cut up and how many times each must be chewed.
After all, this all has to do with peoples safety
especially for children so the government must feel the right to dictate all this as well.
Incrementalism, slowly law by law encroachment by encroachment, they will eventually get there.
I’m willing to bet #2 doesn’t use ez pass either.
Tzirel,
How old are your kids?
Under the new law, you have to have a primary offense before you can be stopped and ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Here is the way they will get around that: your left front wheel hits the center line and is considered a “moving violation”. You get stopped and you get a ticketed for not wearing a seat belt. Wherever they have the will, they will find a way to give you a ticket.
#2, very well said! Couldn’t agree with you more, after all the state of NJ is practically bankrupt so its another source of income.
I’d bet #3 supports unconstitutional animal “rights” laws.