Wash. Rev. Code » Title 46 · Chapter 46.61
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.688 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) For the purposes of this section, "motor vehicle" includes:
(a) "Buses," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry more than ten passengers;
(b) "Medium-speed electric vehicle" meaning a self-propelled, electrically powered four-wheeled motor vehicle, equipped with a roll cage or crush-proof body design, whose speed attainable in one mile is more than thirty miles per hour but not more than thirty-five miles per hour and otherwise meets or exceeds the federal regulations set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.500;
(c) "Motorcycle," meaning a three-wheeled motor vehicle that is designed (i) so that the driver rides on a seat in a partially or completely enclosed seating area that is equipped with safety belts and (ii) to be steered with a steering wheel;
(d) "Multipurpose passenger vehicles," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed to carry ten persons or less that are constructed either on a truck chassis or with special features for occasional off-road operation;
(e) "Neighborhood electric vehicle," meaning a self-propelled, electrically powered four-wheeled motor vehicle whose speed attainable in one mile is more than twenty miles per hour and not more than twenty-five miles per hour and conforms to federal regulations under 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.500;
(f) "Passenger cars," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except multipurpose passenger vehicles, motorcycles, or trailers, designed for carrying ten passengers or less; and
(g) "Trucks," meaning motor vehicles with motive power, except trailers, designed primarily for the transportation of property.
(2)(a) This section only applies to:
(i) Motor vehicles that meet the manual seat belt safety standards as set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.208;
(ii) Motorcycles, when equipped with safety belts that meet the standards set forth in 49 C.F.R. Part 571; and
(iii) Neighborhood electric vehicles and medium-speed electric vehicles that meet the seat belt standards as set forth in 49 C.F.R. Sec. 571.500.
(b) This section does not apply to a vehicle occupant for whom no safety belt is available when all designated seating positions as required under 49 C.F.R. Part 571 are occupied.
(3) Every person sixteen years of age or older operating or riding in a motor vehicle shall wear the safety belt assembly in a properly adjusted and securely fastened manner.
(4) No person may operate a motor vehicle unless all child passengers under the age of sixteen years are either: (a) Wearing a safety belt assembly or (b) are securely fastened into an approved child restraint device.
(5) A person violating this section shall be issued a notice of traffic infraction under chapter 46.63 RCW. A finding that a person has committed a traffic infraction under this section shall be contained in the driver's abstract but shall not be available to insurance companies or employers.
(6) Failure to comply with the requirements of this section does not constitute negligence, nor may failure to wear a safety belt assembly be admissible as evidence of negligence in any civil action.
(7) This section does not apply to an operator or passenger, except for an operator or passenger operating a commercial motor vehicle as defined in RCW 46.32.005, who possesses written verification from a licensed physician that the operator or passenger is unable to wear a safety belt for physical or medical reasons.
(8) The state patrol may adopt rules exempting operators or occupants of farm vehicles, construction equipment, and vehicles that are required to make frequent stops from the requirement of wearing safety belts.
[ 2019 c 173 s 1. Prior: 2009 c 275 s 8; 2007 c 510 s 5; 2003 c 353 s 4; 2002 c 328 s 2; (2002 c 328 s 1 expired July 1, 2002); 2000 c 190 s 3; 1990 c 250 s 58; 1986 c 152 s 1.]

Notes:

Effective date—2007 c 510: See note following RCW 46.04.320.
Effective date—2003 c 353: See note following RCW 46.04.320.
Expiration date—2002 c 328 s 1: "Section 1 of this act expires July 1, 2002." [ 2002 c 328 s 3.]
Effective date—2002 c 328 s 2: "Section 2 of this act takes effect July 1, 2002." [ 2002 c 328 s 4.]
Intent—Short title—Effective date—2000 c 190: See notes following RCW 46.61.687.
Study of effectiveness—1986 c 152: "The traffic safety commission shall undertake a study of the effectiveness of section 1 of this act and shall report its finding to the legislative transportation committee by January 1, 1989." [ 1986 c 152 s 3.]
Physicians—Immunity from liability regarding safety belts: RCW 4.24.235.
Seat belts and shoulder harnesses, required equipment: RCW 46.37.510.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1987–2019 · leading case: State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 14× “We must decide whether RCW 46.61.688 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
Lowe v. Est. Motors Ltd., 410 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 4× “See Cal Veh Code, § 27315(d); Wash Rev Code, § 46.61.688(3). Only the California statute provides that evidence of nonuse by a rear-seat passenger may be used to show negligence or to mitigate damages.”
State v. Muhammad, 451 P.3d 1060 (Wash. 2019). “3d 1184 (2004)(regarding RCW 46.61.688's cross-reference to the federal motor vehicle safety standard 208).”
Patterson v. Horton, 929 P.2d 1125 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “330, § 745) (requiring parents and legal guardians to secure infant passengers with appropriate restraining systems) and RCW 46.61.688* *** 5 (prohibiting the operation of a motor vehicle in which passengers under the age of sixteen are not properly restrained).”
Clark v. Payne, 810 P.2d 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 5× “RCW 46.61.688 does not define negligence.”
State v. Cole, 871 P.2d 656 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “RCW 46.61.688. Traffic infractions, as distinguished from misdemeanor traffic offenses, result in the issuance of a "notice of infraction”.”
State v. Chapin, 879 P.2d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Upon observing that Chapin was not wearing his seatbelt, a violation of RCW 46.61.688(3) and (5), Zander then had authority to request Chapin’s identification pursuant to RCW 46.”
State v. Chelly, 970 P.2d 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “12 RCW 46.61.688(3); ROW 46.63.020. 13 Former RCW 46.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 14× “We must decide whether RCW 46.61.688 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
State v. Davis, 126 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “In that case, the defendant challenged RCW 46.61.688, which requires most drivers and passengers of motor vehicles to wear seat belts.”
Forsberg v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 769 F. Supp. 33 (D.N.H. 1990). “Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1229-c (McKinney 1986); Okla.Stat. Ann.”
State v. Malone, 150 P.3d 130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 46.61.688. Certain traffic violations may be grounds for arrest.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.688(2) — 3 cases
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). “We must decide whether RCW 46.61.688 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
State v. Davis, 126 P.3d 827 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “In that case, the defendant challenged RCW 46.61.688, which requires most drivers and passengers of motor vehicles to wear seat belts.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). “We must decide whether RCW 46.61.688 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.688(3) — 8 cases
Lowe v. Est. Motors Ltd., 410 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. 1987). “See Cal Veh Code, § 27315(d); Wash Rev Code, § 46.61.688(3). Only the California statute provides that evidence of nonuse by a rear-seat passenger may be used to show negligence or to mitigate damages.”
State v. Eckblad, 98 P.3d 1184 (Wash. 2004). “We must decide whether RCW 46.61.688 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness.”
State v. Chapin, 879 P.2d 300 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “Upon observing that Chapin was not wearing his seatbelt, a violation of RCW 46.61.688(3) and (5), Zander then had authority to request Chapin’s identification pursuant to RCW 46.”
State v. Chelly, 970 P.2d 376 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “12 RCW 46.61.688(3); ROW 46.63.020. 13 Former RCW 46.”
State v. Cole, 871 P.2d 656 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). “RCW 46.61.688. Traffic infractions, as distinguished from misdemeanor traffic offenses, result in the issuance of a "notice of infraction”.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 46.61.688(6) — 2 cases
Lowe v. Est. Motors Ltd., 410 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. 1987). “See Cal Veh Code, § 27315(d); Wash Rev Code, § 46.61.688(3). Only the California statute provides that evidence of nonuse by a rear-seat passenger may be used to show negligence or to mitigate damages.”
Clark v. Payne, 810 P.2d 931 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 46.61.688 does not define negligence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.