The Buffalo Police Department is currently mulling over a policy change on officers wearing seat belts on duty, according to the Nov. 23 Buffalo News. Talk of mandating police officers may have come as a result of recent, fatal automobile accidents involving a Buffalo officer and a Cheektowaga officer who were killed while on duty in unrelated incidents, neither of whom were using the safety restraint at the time. The officers protesting any change of policy say their guns, nightsticks, or radios tend to catch or tangle in the belt, making a swift exit from a patrol car difficult or even dangerous. They argue, correctly, that the burden must remain, as it has, on the individual officer to determine if he or she wishes to use a seat belt while on duty.
The city needs to be wary of overreacting to a tragedy for the sake of reacting. Officers who are not driving at high speeds, and who often have to leave their vehicle while on duty, cannot be forced to wear something constraining the expeditious entry and exit of their cars. This scenario is the hallmark of a city police force, who, in addition to having to leave their cars often, drive shorter distances at slower paces than their suburban or rural counterparts.
Urban law enforcement depends on quick reaction time and quick reflexes, and doing anything to slow that is foolish. That is not to say, however, that an officer who is comfortable with a seat belt is acting wrongly by wearing it; on the contrary, bureaucratic regulation is no substitute for the individual officer's comfort level and preferences on the job. These are professionals in law enforcement, and as such, the prerogative is theirs on whether to wear a restraint.
Officers routinely put their lives on the line for the sake of the community, and they know better than anyone the need for preventative safety and caution. As long as the police officers feel comfortable in their job, there should not be a talking head dictating safety policy to the people who have to patrol the streets.
Another problem that comes into question is the enforceability of a seat belt regulation. It would essentially rely on officers to police colleagues and friends over something they may or may not agree with. Even if they were reported for "seat belt violations," there are no appropriate or meaningful consequences that could be levied. In short, there is nothing that any precinct or department could do to ensure their regulations were being adhered to.
This is an ill-conceived initiative with no clear way of being enforced and no clear goal outside of paying lip service to those lobbying for some change. There is no way to bring back the deceased officers that lost their lives in the past month, and there is no consoling the families who lost loved ones, but law enforcement is a dangerous career with a fatal event always in the cards for its practitioners. In spite of this, automobile safety on the job must be left up to the discretion of the individual officer who has to take into account all facets of his or her job.
High-speed pursuits and rural patrolling are not the same as inner city patrolling. In the former, seat belt wearing is only prudent, since the officer does not need to worry about being compelled to exit the vehicle without notice. It must be stressed that wearing a seat belt, in all circumstances, should be a matter of individual responsibility and caution, not of bureaucratic responsibility.
Photo: Meredith Forrest Kulwicki
