In close tally, House rejects seat belt bill

House lawmakers narrowly killed a bill yesterday that would have allowed police officers to pull over drivers for not wearing seat belts. The action reversed an earlier vote approving the controversial measure.

``Seat belts are dead for this session," said Representative Patricia A. Haddad , a Somerset Democrat who supports the proposal. ``I guess the opponents worked hard. . . . That's how things work, and that's the good and bad news."

Opponents brought up the matter without advance notice and without alerting advocates, including some who had planned to be at the State House when a vote was taken.

``It feels like I got hit in the stomach," said James Decoteau , 53, of Springfield, whose teenage daughter Amanda died in a 2004 accident after being thrown from her car. ``No heads up about it, whatsoever."

He planned to lobby lawmakers next week, when he was expecting the measure to be taken up.

``As far as we're concerned, the bill will come back every session until it's passed," said Barbara Harrington , state executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. ``No question. Their vote today is political. It's not about public safety."

Passage of the so-called primary seat belt law would have made Massachusetts one of 26 states where police can stop drivers who m they spot not wearing seat belts. Under the state's current secondary seat belt law, which took effect in 1994, officers can `issue $25 tickets to drivers for not wearing seat belts only after stopping them for another violation, such as speeding or a broken tail-light.

Last week, on a 24-15 vote, the Senate approved a bill identical to the one defeated yesterday, and Governor Mitt Romney said he would sign it if the House went along.

The House passed the bill by a three-vote margin in January, but defeated it yesterday on a vote of 76 to 80. Robert K. Coughlin of Dedham, Jeffrey D. Perry of Sandwich, and Kathi-Anne Reinstein of Revere all changed their votes from yes in January to no yesterday. Emile J. Goguen of Fitchburg changed from no to yes.

Three other opponents of the measure , including Robert L. Rice Jr. and Virginia M. Coppola , who were elected in February, had not been present for the 77-74 vote in January.

``I've been bothered by my vote," said Reinstein, who had consistently voted against the legislation until last year, when someone she knew died in a crash while not wearing a seat belt. ``I've been getting calls from my constituents since January and up to today. I don't think it's right that you're just being pulled over for not having your seat belt on."

The House deadlocked on the bill in both 2001 and 2003.

Supporters, who vowed to refile the bill next year, argued that the law would dramatically cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on Massachusetts roads. At 65 percent, the state's seat belt usage was the second lowest in the country last year, when the national average reached a record 82 percent, according to federal figures.

In some parts of the state, advocates say, usage is actually much lower. A primary seat belt law, they say, would drive up the usage rate 10 to 14 percentage points.

They also argued taxpayers would save the millions of dollars that Medicaid now spends on care for drivers and passengers severely injured in accidents. And , they contend, the state would regain millions in federal highway funds it has lost because its seat belt usage is below 80 percent.

But Massachusetts residents and lawmakers have resisted seat belt laws for more than 20 years, arguing that they encroach on personal freedom. Voters repealed the state's first seat belt law, a secondary enforcement measure that took effect in 1986.

``It's insulting to an adult to tell them that they have to do something that they know they should be doing," Representative Paul Kujawski , a Democrat from Webster, said after the vote. ``It's a bill that's nonsensical. It doesn't do anything but give police another opportunity to stop you, and that to me is absurd."

Rice, a Gardner Democrat who won a special election in February, made his first floor speech yesterday against the bill.

``Driving is becoming more and more stressful for everybody," he said afterward. ``Adding the possibility of being stopped and having a confrontational encounter with the police is not appropriate."

Also, black legislators argue the law would lead to racial profiling, with officers pulling over minorities more often than other drivers.

Supporters were crushed by the surprise reversal. Under legislative rules, the House was required to take a typically routine procedural vote before the bill received final passage. But the January vote was so close, opponents decided to reopen the debate.

``It's extremely disappointing to know the lives of those they love were not more precious," said Gloria Craven , coordinator of Seatbelts Are For Everyone, a coalition of health and public safety organizations and advocates. ``Unfortunately, we'll still see people die and head-injured, and spine-injured, and the taxpayers will pay for it."

Representative Richard J. Ross , a Wrentham Republican, who is also a funeral director, termed ``absolutely ludicrous" the opponents' view that deciding not to wear a seat belt is a personal choice that affects no one but the driver.

``Up until an accident, it's a moot point," he said. ``When there is an accident a whole lot of people are affected. To not acknowledge that is shortsighted."

Andrea Estes can be reached at estes@globe.com.