Yesterday morning, I read an article about police officer deaths.
Citing multiple studies, the article stated that one particular cause of death for police had risen from around 26% of the total fatalities in 1982 to 54% in 2007.
What is activity is putting officers at greater risk? Shootings? Stabbings? Heart attacks?
None of the above.
The cause of death contributing to more loss of life is traffic fatalities.
Specifically, experts believe the problem resides with
police officers not wearing seatbelts:
...Up until 2000, Sheriff Magazine reports, in its May-June 2010 issue, that law enforcement traffic deaths were at about the same rate as the general population, but since then the trends have diverged, with the rate for the general population falling and the rate for officers rising markedly.
So is it that police are less trained or more reckless? Are they more likely to be involved in high-speed chases? Or does it have anything to do with the ubiquitous Ford Crown Victoria?
A "click it or ticket" double standard?
Likely, none of the above.
The interesting finding from the federal government's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Officers themselves aren't buckling up. A surprising 39 percent of officers killed in car crashes since 1996 didn't have their seatbelt fastened. And younger officers might not be doing any better; those aged 20 to 39 account for 69 percent of all fatal crashes, according to Sheriff.
According to the FARS analysis, says Sheriff, 42 percent of fatal law-enforcement officer deaths involve a single-vehicle impact with an object off the road—with the front of the vehicle in 48 percent of crashes. The majority of crashes occurred on a dry, straight, level stretches of roadway.
And 24 percent of fatal crashes involved the ejection of the occupant—indicating the seatbelt wasn't fastened...
Look, there are times when it may not be prudent for an officer to wear his/her seatbelt.
For instance, the officer is involved in a vehicle pursuit and the offenders indicate that they are going to bail from their vehicle and run or confront the pursuing officer. Then, the precious time saved not having to mess with unhooking a belt to access a weapon and/or initiate a foot pursuit can be critical for the officer.
I did laugh at
this retired officer's comment that he "
refused to wear them" for safety concerns. I think he means that he furtively chose not wear a seat belt and was fortunate that none of his supervisors noticed it--lucky as well that a drunk driver did not crash into his vehicle at 70 mph.
In any event, many police agencies mandate by policy that officers will wear seatbelts while operating or riding in agency vehicles.
Requiring officers to use safety belts makes sense for two reasons.
First, the public expects it. If an officer is going to write tickets for seat belt ordinances, he/she best be seen leading by example. Officers driving on patrol without buckling up looks bad, and does detracts from public relations.
Second, police drive fast as a part of the job. Since research has consistently shown that seatbelts save lives; the argument for protecting police officers involved in vehicle collisions is no different than with saving any other driver: buckling yourself reduces the chance that you (the driver or passenger) will be launched at a high rate of speed from a vehicle at impact.
The problem of officers not wearing seat belts should be an easy one for administrators to correct:
Mandate their use and then have supervisors enforce the rule.
The "refusals" by officers will be short-lived, and soon seatbelt wearing will be part of their conditioning.
The resulting effort sure beats reading recent stories like these from
Houston,
Las Vegas, and
St. Louis.
______________________________________
The photo was used from here.
