In California they can pull you over for being beltless. Been

Wow, that could play havoc with your master plans.

I thought it was weird that, for a time or in some places, you wouldn't get smacked down for being beltless unless you'd aroused the cop's suspicion some other way.

Really? I mean, by law, or just because it's kind of hard to tell if someone's beltless unless you pull them over for reckless driving first?

I mean, by law, or just because it's kind of hard to tell if someone's beltless unless you pull them over for reckless driving first?

In Michigan, it was by law, because I remember bitching at the idea of changing it, that it might be a way for cops to nose their way into people's cars and find evidence of other stuff.

Which just makes me go @@ and suggest the criminals put on their seat belts.

Griswold, that's a remarkably level-headed policy. However, closed-book take-home test? What the hell?

Aha. I found more.

To encourage the use of seat belts, states have passed laws to let cops pull over unbelted drivers. To encourage passage of those laws there is a federal incentive of $500 million.

By Jan Goehring

Buckle up. It's the law," say the roadside signs. And it's true, it is the law in every state except New Hampshire. In some states, however, the signs could read: "Buckle up or get pulled over," reflecting a move toward stronger enforcement of seat belt laws.

In most states a driver must commit some kind of moving violation before he can be cited for failure to wear a seat belt. But "primary" or "standard" seat belt laws enacted in at least 16 states and the District of Columbia now allow police officers to pull a driver over when they notice that she is not wearing a seat belt. More than 20 states considered legislation this past year to strengthen seat belt laws. The laws are designed to increase seat belt use and decrease deaths and injuries on the roads.

Opponents object to primary enforcement on the grounds that it is too much government intrusion into our lives, and that drivers should be allowed to make their own decisions about wearing seat belts. Others are concerned that it will give police another way to harass minorities by stopping vehicles on the pretext of belt violations.

I know UVA makes a Very Big (and Pooh-Cased) Deal out of theirs in the same way a lot of smaller schools do -- part of the school's identity and tradition and the Jefferson thing yadda yadda -- but not having gone there, I can't say much about how it actually plays.

I can, I went there. I appreciated the Honor Code, and still remember it "on my honor, I have neither given nor received aid on this exam". Technically, you were also supposed to report any knowledge of someone else cheating. It is student run, and if a professor has an allegation of cheating, they must report it to the student run Honor Committee, and the Committee takes it from there.

it was a nice thing in college. I didn't have to take tests in a cramped lecture hall with 300 mouth breathers, I could go take the test under a tree on the lawn if I wanted. I literally got a final that was a folder over piece of paper that was stapled shut. the professor said "take it whenever you want to, it's closed book, take 3 hours, and make sure that it's in my mailbox by 5PM on the 15th" It was nice, the trust. It was a shock when I went to law school and was required to put my backpack against the wall before I took an exam.

There was actually a hyooge scandal a few years ago, where a physics professor did a comparison of papers for a "how things work" class, and about 100 people got busted. The committee investigated and prosecuted all of the offenses, and some people did not graduate. UVA's honor code is single sanction -- if you're guilty, you're out.

Anyone know what the font name for the typical college shirt, a la this [link] is?

brenda, I've seen it called "college"

Opponents object to primary enforcement on the grounds that it is too much government intrusion into our lives, and that drivers should be allowed to make their own decisions about wearing seat belts.

That's always the argument I heard when Wisconsin was considering such a law. The same argument is made against mandatory motorcycle helmet laws.

Which when you think about it is weird, as an unbelted driver of a car is still gonna be far safer than a helmeted person riding a motorcycle, so why not ban motorcycles? Or convertibles, as you could fly out of one in an accident or get crushed if it rolls over?

If the law is on the books, the decision's being taken out of a driver's hands. Just because you can't get busted for just that infraction doesn't make it not an infraction. Laws that don't get enforced (or are irregularly enforced) annoy me. Tidy up the freaking books, willya?