Seat Belts - greenhey
It\'s 20 years since seat-belt use was made compulsory , not that people should have needed compulsion . I have read that there\'s 90% compliance , but from my own observation I reckon it\'s quite a lot lower.
I\'ve talked with people who don\'t use their belts, who reckon it\'s a matter of their choice. But surely that\'s too simple .If you don\'t wear a seat-belt ,in many accidents your injuries will be much worse and your likelihood of survival is much lower .Now that has consequences for other people- eg your family, your work colleagues and in a general sense all of us who have to fund the health and welfare services and pay for car insurance.
How about an insurer offering a policy which applies an extra excess -say £1000 - in cases where the driver was unbelted and the consequences were thus increased?
That should either (a) encourage usage; or (b) spread the true cost of this behaviour more fairly
Seat Belts - joe
What a huge subject!

As far as your points are concerned, someone who is injured in an accident through the other driver\'s fault still faces a substantial reduction in thier compensation because they will have been found guilty of contributory negligence.

I am extremely uncomfortable with the argument that since we all fund the health services, we are under a duty to wear seatbelts, or limit risks in other ways. As taxpayers, we have no choice but to fund the health service. This should not be used as a reason by the state to curtail risky activities.
Seat Belts - BrianW
Just think how many lives would be saved and serious injuries prevented if car drivers and passengers wore helmets.
Seat Belts - THe Growler
I hear Nanny talking here. Of course we always belt up, but if every time I got out of bed and had first to calculate the consequences of my actions, or non-actions, on the rest of society, pretty soon I\'d be doodling with my crayons at the funny farm.
Seat Belts - PhilW
I have a mate who never wears a seatbelt, what\'s more he drives an old Volvo which has a warning buzzer which sounds all the time he is driving which drives me mad!! Still, it\'s his choice. But what really annoys me is to see a car in which the adults in the front are wearing belts and young children are in the back without belts or standing between the rear seats. That advert on telly of the teenager who killed his mum then sat back makes an impression on me. Adults are old enough to make their own choice but young kids???........Tell them to belt up or the car doesn\'t move?????
Seat Belts - Morris Ox
Absolutely no sense not wearing the belt these days.

It\'s designed as one component of a safety strategy within a car which also takes in seat design and mounting, airbag positioning and deployment, steering wheel and pedal movement, structural deformation and, of course, the likely behaviour of the human body during an impact.

If you don\'t wear a seatbelt the entire strategy is thrown out of kilter.

In the states I think they still have those huge full size airbags to try to cushion people who don\'t wear belts.

I\'m not going to waste anytime on the issue of belting up children. Failing to do so is criminally negligent.
Seat Belts - slefLX
Kids and belts - I agree completely. I was coming out of a school one day at going home time and the parent(s) were in the front with belts on and the children were loose in the back jumping about! Not only are they a danger to themselves and everyone else in the event of an accident surely they would be a bigger distraction than the mobile phone therby further increasing the risk of an accident where they would be a danger to ...........
Seat Belts - henry k
And 15 cwt vans with kiddy on mums lap. I shudder ever time I see it.
Seat Belts - Armitage Shanks{P}
We get a very poor example re the wearing of rear seatbelts from members of our government who swing in and out of Downing Street with never a belt in sight! I think they have some concession on wearing them, so that they can throw themselves on the floor if somebody shoots at them. With the money they are spending on armoured Jaguars that soon won\'t be an excuse!
Seat Belts - googolplex
I hear Nanny talking here. Of course we always belt up,
but if every time I got out of bed and had
first to calculate the consequences of my actions, or non-actions, on
the rest of society, pretty soon I\'d be doodling with my
crayons at the funny farm.


dangerous business, crayons; I once managed to push one all the way through my lip as a boy.

I agree that the issue of road safety can only be taken so far. There comes a time when we can be accused of being over-protective and, at that point, many people will start to ignore any law.
If non seat belt wearers snuff it as a result, we shouldn\'t further punish their family with financial penalties.

Splodgeface
Seat Belts - No Do$h
dangerous business, crayons; I once managed to push one all the
way through my lip as a boy.


Well that explains your Nom De Chambre Derriere.
Seat Belts - No Do$h
Did anyone catch the "New and Improved" Topgear a few months back where they had two designers in from Jaguar? They commented that due to US legislation, sleek lines and sharply raked windscreens will soon become a thing of the past. The reason being that manufacturers are required to design interiors for the safety of those who don't wear a belt and might otherwise have a brief but painful meeting with the A pillar. Hence A pillars will move forward and upward.

Put simply, the US obsession with freedom to do stupid things and then sue the trousers off somebody else will kill cars like the Elise, the DB7, anything by Ferrari etc.

Nanny, Growler? Sometimes we need one.

Of course none of this applies to F150s as they would have a forward leaning screen if they got any more upright :o) . Anyway I would LOVE an F150 as a second car, ideal for gardening stuff, slinging the mountain bikes in the back, etc, etc.
Seat Belts - doug_523i
I remember Captain Scarlet's car, they faced backwards and drove using tv monitors that showed the road ahead. I wonder why all passenger seats don't face backwards?
Seat Belts - No Do$h
Two words. Travel Sickness.

It's not exactly fun cleaning up after my projectile 3 year old (I thinks she's on the UN list of banned weapons) after a long journey. It would get really tedious if I had to do it every time I got to the end of the drive.
Seat Belts - THe Growler
HMmph. I just took a look at my old truck and I think it actually has rather nice flowing lines. I especially like the fact the front number plate is at an exact height where it appears in Manila taxi drivers' rear view mirrors (for those who use them); as well as being about belt buckle height for the average 5'2" traffic enforcer.

As for US legislation about upright screens, no worries, the Hummer's already there.

Growlette is the only person I know who can tell me what all the dings and chimes and buzzers mean when I put the ignition key in. One of them is seat belts, that's why I need her.
Seat Belts - greenhey
Re your comment re "Nanny"...
When the state defines what we should do in a situation where our actions have no eefect on others , I can understand the objection.
Re seatbelts , when people don't use them they have big effects on others- try visiting the A & E of a big hospital and see how much of our money is spent on treating people avoidably injured in cars .I'd rather than was spent on treating unavoidable injuries and illnesses .
I don't care about the effects on the individual
Seat Belts - joe
Your argument would also outlaw motorcycling, rockclimbing, windsurfing, and all other "dangerous sports". None of these activities are "necessary", and anyone injured doing them is entitled to be rescued by the emergency services and fixed up by the health service. As I said before, you cannot use the compulsory health services as a reason for banning personal risk taking.
Seat Belts - THe Growler
Taken to reductio ad absurdum, we'd all be banned from getting out of bed without a full space suit on.

Seat belts make sense, I use 'em but if someone else doesn't want to that's their judgement call. It's like motorcyle helmets, you can argue, as many do that many irreversible spinal injuries are caused by paramedics or passers-by removing helmets carelessly from downed riders.

I don't need Nanny, I'll work it out for myself thanks.
Seat Belts - nick
Unfortunately, Growler, some people do need a nanny to at least point things out, if not legislate against them, with which I'm not so happy. Some folks are just plain dim, or just don't consider the consequences of their actions so need a pretty blunt reminder, like the successful 'clunk-click, every trip' adverts by J. Saville esq.
Taking the logic the other way, perhaps drink-driving, speeding, driving a vehicle with bald tyres etc should not be illegal?
The difference as I see it, is that actions that could adversely affect some one else (drink driving etc) should be regulated, but those things that only affect the person themselves (seatbelts, crash helmets, etc) should only be advised against and the individual can make a choice.
Seat Belts - joe
I agree with your conclusion Nick, although, although this can also produce some fairly uncomfortable arguments if taken to its logical conclusion ie. what about heroin?

What is clear is that there is an unwritten and unspoken acceptance on the part of us all that a certain number of deaths and injuries on the roads are acceptable. Being able to drive where we like, when we like is just so convenient, and if hundreds of people die every year, well that is a price worth paying.

It must be right that less lives would be lost if a national speed limit of 30mph was introduced, likewise full harness seatbelts, crash helmets in cars etc etc. For reasons of cost and convenience, we are not prepared to do this.

Seat Belts - THe Growler
You mustn't confuse vehicle condition with operator behavior. No demonstrably unsafe vehicle, or demonstrably unsafe operator, for whatever reason, should be on the road. Seat belt (helmet) use or lack of does not constitute the safe or unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, nor does it pose a threat to others.

These are devices we are told may (not will) give some protection from the consequences of an accident. Propaganda, "scientific" studies and common sense suggest there is some truth in this. Most of us believe what we are fed and thus follow what we are told is good practice. When the authorities' work is confined to informing and educating, then Nanny is doing the right job. If we choose to ignore Nanny, then that is a matter for us.

It is not the province of the authorities to legislate what we do or don't do inside our homes, and the same applies to automobiles. Then it becomes not about what's good for me, but about what Nanny thinks is good for me, and that's when I bridle. I don't like being shoved around by some seat-warming bureaucrat. Where will it end?

And this is the American viewpoint.

Yes, I always wear my seatbelt. No I don't always wear a helmet if I am riding in my sub-division (where traffic laws don't apply), doing a bar-hop with the guys on Friday nights or cruising down to the beach. I know what I'm doing and I'll take responsibility for my own actions.
Seat Belts - nick
''You mustn't confuse vehicle condition with operator behavior. No demonstrably unsafe vehicle, or demonstrably unsafe operator, for whatever reason, should be on the road. Seat belt (helmet) use or lack of does not constitute the safe or unsafe operation of a motor vehicle, nor does it pose a threat to others.''

Exactly my point, Growler. Only when an action affects someone else should the state intervene. If someone wants to use heroin, even when they have been told of the risks, then they should be able to if they want to and not be made a criminal for doing so. Remember, even Sherlock Holmes used opium! A big chunk of crime is caused by people stealing to buy drugs. If they were legal, the price would drop, and crime would go down. Compare with the Prohibition in the US. It's not the heroin that usually kills addicts, it's variable purity so they overdose, dirty needles spreading hepatitis and HIV and a bullet from a drug dealer's gun.
Not for me though, I'll stick to Chateauneuf-du-pape and decent ale (not in the same glass), though not while driving!
Seat Belts - terryb
>>Remember, even Sherlock Holmes used opium!

Can I just point out that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character? Sorry to disillusion you.
Not for me though, I'll stick to Chateauneuf-du-pape and decent ale(not in the same glass), though not while driving!


Agreed!:o)

Terry
Seat Belts - nick
''Can I just point out that Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character? Sorry to disillusion you.''

Oh no, Terry, he wasn't, was he? Another dream shattered along with Father Christmas. Seriously though, opium use was considered acceptable anong the middle and upper classes in Victorian times. Frowned upon when the working classes took it though.
Seat Belts - greenhey
Hi
Don't agree that wearing seat -belts is a decision that only affects the driver .That's my point - if they were the only ones who endured the consequences I'd let them get on with being stupid to their heart's content.
However their decision does affect others - for a start, immediate family who will lose a loved one or have to nurse them through disability ;then face the economic consequences. More generally we all live with the consequences through funding medical and welfare costs for these people and paying insurance premiums which are higher than they need to be.
The comparison with motorcyclists etc, is misleading. If they want to do that, fine. But if they are too arrogant to avail themselves of the safety devices developed for them , that's up to them but they should accept the financial and other consequences which may result
Seat Belts - joe
If we all were forced by the law not to upset our mums, I would emigrate.
Seat Belts - nick
If I was forced to watch Eastenders, I'd go.
Seat Belts - THe Growler
.......yes, agree, but it is not for the authorities to usurp personal freedom by legislating these matters. Someone else's choice may be "stupid" to me, but he has the right to make it.

......"arrogance" doesn't come into it. It's about personal choice and accepting responsibility for one's own actions, not surrendering that right to the state. Once that erosion starts, where does it end, with serried ranks of command and control mind police ever ready to tell me what is and isn't good for me.




Seat belts- what will it take? - greenhey
Thre was news this morning of an accident in Essex where the car struck a roadsign .The driver was killed and three people in the car were thrown out onto the road - I don't know how seriously they were hurt.
I'm very depressed that after all these years where the case for seat-belt wearing is uncontestable, and there is a law requiring their use, people still are ignoring it . My personal observation is that compliance- especially re rear belts- is no better than in the low 80%s .
I'm not just depressed by it, but also angry .Why should these people effectively push up my insurance premiums and consume health and emergency services resources because of this behaviour?
A previous poster said that insurance companies often withold payments when they find claimants were unbelted . If that is true, why don't they publicise that fact in the policy documents - for example, applying a £1000 excess in any claim where the driver and/or passenger was unbelted and injuries were thus greater than they needed to be?
Seat belts- what will it take? - Stuartli
How do you know seat belts were not being worn in this particular case - was it stated?

The car too might have been stolen and wearing seat belts would be likely to be the last thought in the minds of its occupants.
Seat belts- what will it take? - David Horn
You try driving a modern car without wearing your seatbelt. I took my brother's new Megane up the drive yesterday (private land, 1 mile long) and didn't wear my seatbelt. The gentle warning beep got louder, and louder, and after about 10 seconds I put it on. It would be a nightmare to drive without it.

What I'd have the car do is disable all the active safety features if the belt wasn't on; ie airbags, ABS, EBD, EBA etc and nag and nag. Given how much the engine is drive-by-wire, limiting the throttle would be a good idea, so it could be moved around a forecourt say, but not driven without the belt on.

I daresay you could get it disabled at a Megane dealership, but I would be asking questions of their competence if they agreed to do it.
Seat belts- what will it take? - LeePower
Anybody getting in my car with me gets a choice, Put the seatbelt on or get out & walk.
Seat belts- what will it take? - Robin Reliant
Why on earth worry? Other people refusing to wear seat belts doesn't effect anybodies safety but their own, and that's their choice/problem.

It doesn't push up insurance premiums, as any personal injury claim would no doubt be void if the claiment was found to be at fault through not wearing a belt.
Seat belts- what will it take? - David Horn
But it does affect other people's safety. The current ads show that someone in the back has enough momentum to kill someone in the front.
Seat belts- what will it take? - Robin Reliant
Your car. Someone in the back doesn't wear the belt, tell them to put it on or walk.

Simple.
Seat belts- what will it take? - pmh
Why worry?

Where do you think the unbelted off side rear pasenger goes when you hit something? Just think about the basic laws of physics and you will understand why I insist my passengers ALL wear belts.



pmh (was peter)
Seat belts- what will it take? - Older_not_wiser
In Cambridgeshire, for the month of July, there were 147 prosecutions for drivers not wearing seat belt.

Drivers.

What's that about then?
Seat belts- what will it take? - David Horn
The "we don't move until you have your seatbelt on" applies in my car too.
Seat belts- what will it take? - THe Growler
Growlette is my nag bag. I'm driving, she's the one who says we don't move anywhere. Actually where I live this is about the only traffic law that's relatively consistently enforced, although many new cars still come out of the factory without rear belts.

They say rear-facing seats are even better and on a recent trip to Scotland my group rented out a Mercedes van so fitted. However, both passengers in the rear-facing seats got car-sick very quickly and said they didn't like the experience at all.
Seat belts- what will it take? - piggy
The "we don't move until you have your seatbelt on" applies in my car too.


I agree absolutely, I even belt up my German Shepherd with a special harness when she`s in my car. I don`t fancy 50kg.of dog loose in my car. Just multiply by a few G`s and the likely result does not bear thinking about.
Seatbelts - greenhey
In our local (Oxfordshire) county news magazine ( generally if it tried really hard it could attain dull)- there is one item I noticed.
Headline "Seat Belts Shock" it says a local study of deaths in road accidents shows 40% of front-seat deaths and 54% of rear-seat were unbelted .
I'm not sure why it's a shock, as everyday observation around here will show you that front belt-wearing must be below 80% and I doubt that as much as 50% of rear-seat passengers use them.This is depsite all the publicity about it over the years.
Two things really puzzle me:
1. How can people drive unbelted when the passenger alongside has belted up? The only, admittedly pathetic, excuse for failure I can think of is that you forgot, but when your passenger does, surely even that story must evaoprate?
2.Why don't more front-seat occupants insist rear passengers belt-up , as unbelted they present a serious threat of death of injury to them?
Each of the deaths or serious injuries in this study represents a massive cost to me and all other taxpayers or insurance premium-payers . That is without the misery and distress caused to those close to them. Where people have contributed to their own demise in this way I resent in effect cross-subsidising their selfish behaviour.
BELTS - Falkirk Bairn
In our extended family all belt up all the time - it is just how I was brought up and how my kids were.

Often people that drive un-belted can be the same lot that do not have MOTs, Insurance etc etc.

Every other week our local rag has the story of people being stopped for No Seat Belts and they are then discovered to have a faulty brakes/ bald tyres /broken lights / no licence/ no L Plates / no qualified driver beside learner / no MoT / No Insurance.
BELTS - Aretas
For me, (and for most people I know), putting on a seatbelt is utterly automatic everytime I sit in a car. It is so automatic I even find I have put it on when getting in the car to manoeuvre it 10 yards.

BELTS - Malcolm_L
Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children.
BELTS - NowWheels
Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart
from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has
a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children.


The best safety for the passengers may be if they are belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.
BELTS - Group B
I actually feel uncomfortable without a seatbelt on in the front seat; I'm so used to it it just doesnt feel right without one when setting off driving. I now always put one on in rear seat also, but that doesn't feel as natural, will have to get used to it.

The other week though, I gave my Mum a lift somewhere, and had to remind her to put hers on. She was too busy talking, and as the passenger her brain didnt click to make her think, "got to put seatbelt on". Even though there was a red light on the dash saying "fasten seat belts".

I also have a mate who has been stopped about 3 times by the police for it. He used to drive a delivery van with sliding drivers door in which they were exempt, so it had failed to become an automatic thing for him. I think he is a lot better nowadays...
BELTS - Roberson
The other week though, I gave my Mum a lift somewhere,
and had to remind her to put hers on. She
was too busy talking, and as the passenger her brain didnt
click to make her think, "got to put seatbelt on". Even
though there was a red light on the dash saying "fasten
seat belts".


It annoys me intensely whenever any of my passengers choose not to wear a belt. Forgetting is passable, and I?ll soon remind them before setting off. But on one occasion I gave some people a lift and one had to use the rear lap belt. Just before setting off, I asked/checked everyone had belted up. Indeed everyone had except the one in the middle who rolled their eyes and huffed before putting it on! They knew it was there but didn't want to put it on. Scary thing is, that person is learning to drive, but doesn't seem to understand the basics, or realize they posed a threat to more than just themselves in that situation.
BELTS - Lud
>> Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine
apart
>> from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also
has
>> a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children.
The best safety for the passengers may be if they are
belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a
belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that
perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.


It's natural attrition that keeps the level of maniac drivers down, the negative side of natural selection. Belt suggestion is very sensible though, if a bit radical.
BELTS - machika
The best safety for the passengers may be if they are
belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a
belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that
perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.

>>

Only may be the best safety for passengers, you have some doubt NW? I trust you do wear a seatbelt when you are driving?
BELTS - NowWheels
>> The best safety for the passengers may be if they are
>> belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a
>> belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that
>> perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.
Only may be the best safety for passengers, you have some
doubt NW? I trust you do wear a seatbelt when
you are driving?


Unless everyone on board has their seatbelt fastened, I won't drive off. That includes my belt, even though I fear that wearing mine may make me more inclined to take risks. I'd like to try driving without a belt to see how it affected my driving style, but I'm too much of a coward to risk it
BELTS - machika
Unless everyone on board has their seatbelt fastened, I won't drive
off. That includes my belt, even though I fear that
wearing mine may make me more inclined to take risks.
I'd like to try driving without a belt to see how
it affected my driving style, but I'm too much of a
coward to risk it


I have no doubt it would make you feel very uneasy and I can't see how that would make you a better driver.

You haven't said why you think passengers may be safer with seatbelts. I can't really think of a scenario where they would be better off not wearing them.

My stepson used to think he was safer not wearing a seatbelt, because he was thrown out of his car, following an accident. He was convinced he would have been seriously injured if he had been wearing a seatbelt (he collided with a tree). Some years later, he was the victim of a rear end shunt, that pushed his car into the path of an oncoming car. The ensuing collision left him with a broken neck, which resulted from his unsecured body being thrown around the inside of the car by the force of the impact. He is still convinced he would have been worse off if he had been wearing a seatbelt, although both of the other drivers suffered less serious injuries than he did.
BELTS - Big Bad Dave
"Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children."

Don?t be so dismissive Malcolm, this is clever stuff. It?s not enough to remove yourself from the genepool if you?ve already propogated your bad genes into your horrible off-spring. The prat behind the wheel is helpfully attempting to eliminate the existence of his worthless family to the betterment of future humankind. It?s called altruism. It?s the evolution of evolution. I could probably write a paper on it but I won?t because I?m never ever sober.
BELTS - Lud
Often people that drive un-belted can be the same lot that
do not have MOTs, Insurance etc etc.
Every other week our local rag has the story of people
being stopped for No Seat Belts and they are then discovered
to have a faulty brakes/ bald tyres /broken lights / no
licence/ no L Plates / no qualified driver beside learner /
no MoT / No Insurance.


You'd think they'd have twigged by now, wouldn't you?

When belts became compulsory I grumbled in a reactionary fashion and resented having to wear the things. Now I feel distinctly uneasy without one. Bit suspicious of airbags though.
BELTS - Dalglish
yes, i guess this is a good time as any for a reminder on seat belts. ( since it is now coming up to greenhey's 16 to 18 month cycle ).

Seat Belts - greenhey Mon 24 Mar 03 16:05
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11640

Seat belts- what will it take? - greenhey Sun 22 Aug 04 13:11
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=24820

{Posts now all amalgamated - DD}
BELTS - BazzaBear {P}
How peculiar. Not that it's any less vaild an argument for being repeated.
BELTS - PhilW
"a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children."
In honour of Greenhey's 18 month cycle, I'll repeat mine as follow up to quote above.
I am constantly appalled by the number of unbelted children in cars presumably driven by their doting (?) parents. Worst recently was an old Escort with 8 people in it - 5 adults, one toddler in front on mother's(?) lap, 2 other children, 7/8yr olds, standing between the 3 adults in the back (if you see what I mean).
--
Phil
BELTS - SjB {P}
I drove my sister in law's Volvo V50 last weekend and although this wasn't the first time I had driven a new V50/newS40, it was the first time I had done so with passengers in the back.

Doing so I learned of a feature previously unknown to me; the driver's message panel bore the caption "2 rear seat belts in use".

Neat.
BELTS - SjB {P}
Mods: "new V50" should be just "V50" please; the legacy of a cut and paste error. TVM.
BELTS - PhilDews
23 years ago today since seatbelt wearing in the front became compulsory!!!
BELTS - bell boy
i wont let anyone in a vehicle with me if they ever refuse to wear a belt, many have huffed and puffed but they wont blow my resolution down.Belt up or get out.



--
\"a little man in a big world/\"
BELTS - doug_r1
I don't usually wear a seatbelt, but then I don't drive six foot from the car in front at 70mph, or jump traffic lights three seconds after they've gone red, I wonder if there's a connection.
BELTS - PhilW
"I don't usually wear a seatbelt"
Daft - you are relying solely on your judgement, which may be faultless, and ignoring the idiocy/bad judgement of others. I apologise for the person who made a mistake and pulled out in front of you because he was making a phone call, adjusting his radio, drunk as a lord, being puked over by his kids in the back, having a row with his wife, going too fast, was just plain careless etc. Unfortunately, he was wearing his seatbelt and survived, you, with your perfect driving judgement, (but very imperfect judgement of the rest of the human race), were not, and died.
Oh, and by the way, I did not mention the bloke who jumped the red light as you proceeded across on green and t-boned you. He was wearing a seat belt also.
Do you inactivate your airbags? switch off ABS? perhaps you should, don't want to overdo the safety aspect.
--
Phil
BELTS - BazzaBear {P}
I don't usually wear a seatbelt, but then I don't drive
six foot from the car in front at 70mph, or jump
traffic lights three seconds after they've gone red, I wonder if
there's a connection.

Eh?
Sorry, I don't know if you meant to, but what you just said was 'people who wear seat-belts drive badly'.
Do you honestly believe that? And since there are so many of them on the road (80% compliance according to the figures on this thread) do you not worry about getting hit by one of them? If I were you, I'd wear your seatbelt, just in case!

The twisted logic some people create in order to convince themselves that a terrible idea is a good one does make me laugh.
BELTS - greenhey
Thank you Dalglish!
As a Liverpool supporter I feel particularly honoured that someone with your username should go to so much trouble as to keep files about when and about what I post .
The update you provide actually reminds me of how negligent I have been about not banging on about this more.
I deeply resent the ( what is it?) negligence, ignorance or arrogance of drivers who don't bother to belt up . Like most aspects of "liberty" , if people choose not to bother their choice affects my life too, not to mention the lives of others who depend on them financially or emotionally.
If the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads , where using a belt would have avoided or reduced injury,per year, was instead the result of plane or train accidents, there would be a maasive public outcry about it .
But for some reason we don't take behaviour on the roads seriously.
BELTS - Big Bad Dave
"If the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads , where using a belt would have avoided or reduced injury,per year, was instead the result of plane or train accidents, there would be a maasive public outcry about it"

Poland?s having a day of mourning, today I think, for the 66 people who died in the exhibition hall last week. The story continues to monopolise the majority of air-time on tv. 80 people have died on the roads since then and there hasn?t been a peep about it.
BELTS - Falkirk Bairn
I see in the papers that 4 were killed in a road accident, 2 young children + 2 teenagers + serious injuries to a young woman.

According to today's Express it appeared that none in the Fiesta were wearing seatbelts in what was thought to be a stolen car. The 2 people in the Corsa were only slightly hurt.

Obviously there is more to this tragedy but if all passengers & driver had had seatbelts on the headline might have been

Stolen Car Crashes

rather than

4 killed in Crash
Seatbelts - R75
Don't get me started on this one - it is a pet hate of mine. Many a time I have seen kids without seatbelts rolling around in the backs of cars - one that really got my back up was on the A34 where it passes the M4 (before the new bit of road was there)4 adults in car, all with belts on but one young girl about 10yrs old was standing between the front seats in the back, that time I ended up blasting the horn and shouting every four letter word I could think of at the low life scum who were with her in the car (we were sat at the lights, not moving at the time). They seemed suitably embaressed by my outburst and made her put her belt on. People like that don't deserve to have kids.
Seatbelts - The Lawman
How splendid we all are.
Seatbelts - doug_r1
Yes, I did mean that some people who wear seat belts drive badly, you'll find some people who don't wear seat belts also drive badly, I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that observes what goes on around them.

I don't get t-boned when seatbelted drivers jump red lights because I follow the rule that the green light means 'proceed if it's safe to do so', it doesn't give an absolute right to unhindered passage. I don't drink much, I don't smoke, I don't practice unsafe sex, I don't pothole, or climb mountains, or hang glide/paraglide/parachute, ski, or any number of other dangerous lifestyle choices, so you can forget the cross subsidising argument it's me doing the subsidising, and I'm not complaining.

I've driven for 30 years without a seatbelt, and will most probably drive for the next 30 without one, because I choose not to wear it. Strap drivers in like a racing driver and they'll drive like one. In how many of these 140mph+ speeding cases recently was the driver not wearing a belt?
Seatbelts - David Horn
I think the rest of the world calls this natural selection. I dunno if you have children - hopefully not - but if you did/do, would you make them wear their seatbelt or would you rely on your "perfect" driving to protect them?

Also, what would you do if someone pulled out into your path on a roundabout, or some other unavoidable incident?
Seatbelts - AlastairW
Doug, are you in the UK? If you are you should be getting fixed penalties every 5 minutes for not wearing your belt!
YOU may be very careful, but you can't guarantee that you won't get run in to by the next drunk/reckless driver/lunatic or whatever.
You carry on as you are though, just so long as you don't cost the NHS too much to put you back together!
Seatbelts - PhilW
"Strap drivers in like a racing driver and they'll drive like one."
Daft again "I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that observes what goes on around them."


--
Phil
Seatbelts - Vin {P}
"I've driven for 30 years without a seatbelt"

Pal of mine was driving up the A1 in the dark at 70mph. A car came out of a side road immediately in front of him (so immediately that my friend didn't even have time to hit his brakes). He T-boned it, but survived, largely due to a seatbelt preventing him launching through the windscreen. He wasn't exactly driving like a racing driver. I was a passenger of his for MANY thousands of miles and I would class him one of the safest drivers I have ever had the luxury of being driven by.

I sincerely hope that nothing like that ever happens to you, or you will most likely die.

V
Seatbelts - BazzaBear {P}
Yes, I did mean that some people who wear seat belts
drive badly, you'll find some people who don't wear seat belts
also drive badly, I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that
observes what goes on around them.


So if both classes of driver have some proponents who drive badly, why point out only one of the classes?
What you're doing, however perfect your own driving, is putting your life in the hands of these other people that you observe and don't trust. It's quite a ridiculous standpoint, were you to put any thought into it. You are vociferously arguing that there are very dangerous people on the road (who drive like racing drivers, and I wouldn't disagree), yet refusing to protect yourself against them, or that is the claim you are making.

In reality, I would guess that you refuse to wear a belt for one of two reasons:
1) You're a low level anarchist, and this is your small way of 'sticking it to the man'.
2) When the government first tried to force you to wear a belt, you found it uncomfortable. Shame really, had you persevered, you'd have found, like the rest of us, that you stop noticing it at all, and indeed start to feel weird without one on.

In either of these cases, having picked a nonsensical reason for not protecting yourself from death or serious injury, your mind has come up with the ludicrous reasoning that, were you to put your seatbelt on you'd instantly turn into a raving lunatic.
As I said before, it truly is amazing to see the veneer of 'reasoning' that people (in general, not just yourself) are capable of constructing in order to hide from themselves the bizareness of the decisions they make.
Seatbelts - doug_r1
It would require police on the road to issue penalties for not wearing a seatbelt, and as we know cameras don't detect anything but speed.

I had an incident this morning with Mr seatbelt wearer in a Mazda 6, he joins the motorway, crosses the hatching, I indicate and move to lane 3, and he sweeps across both lanes and then slows, because he's now behind the van I was behind, forcing me to take avoiding action in almost zero degrees. I'm on a motorbike with twin headlights on dip, and I'm wearing a high visability jacket, but he was belted so that makes him a good driver, eh?

A seatbelt will protect me from death? So nobody wearing a belt has ever died in a traffic accident? I think you'll find a seatbelt MIGHT save someone from death or injury, but while Mr Mazda and his like are on the road it may not, but then it's easier an cheaper to pick on me and not the real cause of danger on the roads.
Seatbelts - Baskerville
Assuming that the original poster is right, around 80% of people wear seatbelts to drive. So 40% of deaths come from 20% of drivers. This suggests that either un-seatbelted drivers have more (or more serious) accidents (i.e. they are worse drivers) or not wearing a seatbelt is a bad plan. Which do you think it might be?
Seatbelts - BazzaBear {P}
I had an incident this morning with Mr seatbelt wearer in
a Mazda 6, he joins the motorway, crosses the hatching, I
indicate and move to lane 3, and he sweeps across both
lanes and then slows, because he's now behind the van I
was behind, forcing me to take avoiding action in almost zero
degrees. I'm on a motorbike with twin headlights on dip,
and I'm wearing a high visability jacket, but he was belted
so that makes him a good driver, eh?

Well, you're arguing against a point which no-one has made. No-one claimed that everyone wearing a seat-belt is a safe driver. Higher up the thread you claimed that everyone wearing a seat-belt is a bad driver, but you seem to have backed down from that slightly.
Do you think that the Mazda driver is a bad driver because he was wearing a seat-belt? Or just because he's a bad driver full-stop?
And the point remains, you see all these bad drivers on the road all the time, yet you don't want to protect yourself against them by wearing a seatbelt. Especially strange because it appears that you protect yourself against them by wearing a hi-viz jacket on your bike (and presumably a helmet too).
A seatbelt will protect me from death? So nobody wearing
a belt has ever died in a traffic accident?


I think you should consider checking the meaning of the word 'protect'. Yes, a seatbelt will protect you from death. That doesn't mean that it will guarantee survival, it means it will increase the chances.
Seatbelts - The Lawman
No-one will get anywhere by arguing that seatbelts are in themselves a bad thing, either because they encourage drivers to drive irresponsibly or because they may in certain circumstances hinder an escape from a crashed/burning vehicle.

Everyone in their right mind accepts that you are safer if you are belted up.

The problem many have is the leap from that statement to the proposition that it should be a criminal offence to drive unbelted.

There is a libertarian argument to say that leap is not justified, but that argument is doomed. Judging by people's expressed views (and voting habits) is is pretty clear to me that the nanny state is exactly what most people want.
Seatbelts - Baskerville
The unbelted driver is likely to cost the nation more in the event of an accident. It's inefficient to let them continue to do it at our expense since we could spend the money more profitably elsewhere. Is that nannying enough for you?
Seatbelts - AN Other
The DoT missed a real coup on seatbelts after the Princess Di death, probably because they were worried about offending sensitivities.

The bodyguard was the only occupant of the car to wear a seatbelt, and was the only one to survive. Just think of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves had Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi.
Seatbelts - Number_Cruncher
I wear a seatbelt because SWMBO tells me to. I know my place!

However, I do agree with the libertarian views expressed in Lawman's closing paragraph.

Number_Cruncher
Seatbelts - Big Bad Dave
I remember reading some statement or other from Mercedes at the time saying that it was an easily survivable accident for rear-seat passengers had they been wearing a belt - there was very little trauma to the rear of the cabin.

I always fancied my chances with Di funnily enough. I?m sure she would have enjoyed a bit of rough from Manchester.
Seatbelts - IanJohnson
I am with Number Cruncher - If I chose not to wear a belt, and the only person injured/more seriously injured is me then why should the government care. If they don't want to pay then say so and pursue non seat belt wearers for the cost of treatment. You could also carry this across to reduced insurance payouts as they were not taking due care of themselves.

There are parallels with crash helmets for motorcyclists (I presume doug r1 wears one of those), and smoking related diseases but that is another thread and not for this forum!
Seatbelts - machika
I am with Number Cruncher - If I chose not to
wear a belt, and the only person injured/more seriously injured is
me then why should the government care. If they don't
want to pay then say so and pursue non seat belt
wearers for the cost of treatment.


The only people that would benefit from such a policy would be the lawyers, who would be employed in pursuing such repayments.
Seatbelts - NowWheels
The DoT missed a real coup on seatbelts after the Princess
Di death, probably because they were worried about offending sensitivities.
The bodyguard was the only occupant of the car to wear
a seatbelt, and was the only one to survive. Just think
of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves had
Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi.


I spect that Greenhey might have preferred that situation too :)
Seatbelts - Lud
Just
think
>> of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves
had
>> Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi.
I spect that Greenhey might have preferred that situation too :)


Unless the nation found her involvement with Greenhey traumatic, of course. But history would have been changed, because the late Princess would have been belted securely into Greenhey's unobtrusive carriage travelling at a sedate speed through some unpretentious British town, instead of screaming through Paris underpasses at 200 miles an hour with her boy friend's father's stoned lackey at the wheel.
Seatbelts - Lud
Judging by people's expressed views
(and voting habits) is is pretty clear to me that the
nanny state is exactly what most people want.


Alas Lawman, you may well be right.
Seatbelts - machika
People drove recklessly before there were cars with seatbelts, so I fail to see how wearing a seatbelt makes anyone drive more recklessly. One might as well say that a quieter car makes people drive more recklessly, or one with better handling.
Seatbelts - doug_r1
I think you'll find studies show that drivers subconsciously expect or desire a certain amount of risk, remove some through a safety feature and they compensate to replace that risk.

Funnily enough I pulled up at my sister's house yesterday in front of two police officers, I got out of the car and said hello and went in the house, they were checking tax discs so I was ok. I didn't feel I'd 'stuck it on the man' for some reason.

Yes I wear a helmet, ask anyone who has ridden without a helmet what it's like to be hit in the face by a bee at 70mph and then tell me they are a 'safety helmet'. It's really hard to ride fast without one, with one riding is like a playstation game, you're looking at life through an oblong, just like the telly. They protect you if you fall off or hit something, but what if they contribute to the cause of the accident?

As my experience yesterday showed, wearing high viz clothing and having lights on is no use at all if drivers don't look before pulling out.
Belts - greenhey
Yet another tragedy this week when a young girl went through her windscreen in an accident in Essex.
My observation is that even now failure to wear belts must be at least 20%.
It doesnt look as though education or policing is enough to deal with this.
If people , who must know the consequences, fail to belt up they do not, to my mind, have the right to make me share in their ignorant or lazy decision. But I do, because I pay taxes and insurance , so I subsidise the consequences of the failure to belt up.
How about if insurance companies applied - and told the insured up front- an excess in cases where there is injury and the driver was unbelted.
Belts - BazzaBear {P}
I think someone else pointed out the frequency with which you start threads about your pet subject of seatbelt usage last time ;)
I most certainly don't disagree with you, it's ridiculous that anyone fails to belt up nowadays, but if you feel as strongly about it as you do surely there are better places to vent your spleen in the hope of having an effect. I would guess that the type of person who frequents HJ already wears their belt anyway.
Perhaps you should write to your MP and ask for something to be done, public awareness adverts or something?
Belts - Dynamic Dave
I think someone else pointed out the frequency with which you start threads about your pet subject of seatbelt usage last time


And have now all been amalgamated into one thread.

DD.
Belts - neil
Erm, so that would work, how, exactly?

Something like "if you go through the windscreen, you'll be horribly maimed... and oh by the way we won't pay the first £250 quid of your claim?" Somehow doesn't add to the sense of danger, somehow!

On the other hand if you eamn damages being reduced because of contributory negligence in not wearing a belt... surely that happens now anyway?

N
Belts - bell boy
On the other hand if you eamn damages being reduced because of contributory negligence in not wearing a belt... surely that happens now anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as far as im aware it does certainly ,the criminal injuries board certainly do.
anybody who doesnt clunk click dont get to ride in my cars ever.................
Hard to believe - greenhey
Out for a walk last night, I saw a LR Discovery drive through our village. 2 guys in the front, both unbelted. Sadly not unusual.
But the passenger had a small child on his knee, completely unrestrained. What does it take ? Ironically I would bet that this "adult" if asked, would claim to love the child but it wouldnt register that he might at any moment crush it to death on his way through the windscreen.
What gets me is the fuss about the risks to children from paeodophiles, when if we examined the reality of the dangers most childrne face this kind of thing is far more of an issue.
Hard to believe - Lud
How often do you crash greenhey?

I don't think they were risking much where the child was concerned, but if there had been any plod around as vigilant as you they might have risked being pulled and having the pants bored off them (or even a fine).
Hard to believe - Kuang
I don't think how often you crash is necessarily the point - how about emergency stops that would cause the passengers to be thrown forwards, something that can happen quite frequently in small villages where there may be kids playing and family pets running around?
Hard to believe - Dalglish
seatblets -

pugugly may have fun joining this up with the thread here (started march 2003, last reply august 2006):
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11640&...f

a risky business dalglish - as I found out this morning..PU.
Hard to believe - Dalglish
p.s.

previous amalgation by dynamic dave as per

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11640&...e

Belts - Dynamic Dave
I think someone else pointed out the frequency with which you start threads about your pet subject of seatbelt usage last time


And have now all been amalgamated into one thread.


DD.

www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11640&...e

{And merged again once more - DD}
Hard to believe - greenhey
Presumably if you only crash once in a thousand journeys this makes it OK.
What gets me is the stupidity of people who get concerned about remote risk but through ignorance or laziness allow greater risk in their everyday lives.
Today a neighbour has a visitor who has a young child .They arrived in a gross Navara hightop - but presumably they think it's nice. And the child is properly belted in a child seat. However on this 04 tank they have gone to the trouble and expense of adding a bull bar . Now in my opinion it's not the look of it - it's hard to make the car look worse anyway. It's the irnoy of protecting their own child but going to some trouble to increase the risk to others .What's that about?
Hard to believe - Manatee
How often do you crash greenhey?
I don't think they were risking much where the child was concerned but if there
had been any plod around as vigilant as you they might have risked being pulled
and having the pants bored off them (or even a fine).


The adults have a choice, and arguably don't need nannying - the child doesn't, and does. IMHO of course.
Hard to believe - Lud
True of course Manatee. I make children put belts on in my car. But I do find it strange that people are so sharp-eyed with the passing traffic, and that they bother to get indignant about it.

It has often been pointed out that times have changed, that we used to stand on front passenger seats with our heads out of the sunroofs of fast-moving cars, stand on running boards (look it up whippersnappers), sit in pickup truckbeds or trailers, or ride in the load area of estates or even the open boot of a car, and that of course there was no such thing as a safety belt when I were a nipper...

Now that we have all this safety equipment and legislation, what's stopping everyone from letting others use it or not in peace? Are we all practising for some future time when we will all be plod spying on each other, like a barrel of crabs?
Hard to believe - yorkiebar
I have to assume then Lud that when you buy any car you totally ignore the Ncap safety ratings?

If you do use the ratings I have to wonder why. The seat belt cannot be classed as anything other than the most basic safety feature in every car.

I agree it is not necessarily needed on a 100 yard trip to the shop; but then neither is the car essential for that. But if you travel anything further than that then surely it is?

Dont want to see everyone shopping everyone in over it but its exactly why speed cameras rather than traffic police are such a bad idea.

And if you dont wear a seatbelt, or make children in your car wear one, and do have an accident then i personally think you should be guilty of a very serious crime and relevant punishment; possibly even as high as manslaughter !
Hard to believe - Lud
I have never had cause to check NCAP safety ratings.

I wear seat belts and make others wear them in my car.

I just don't take much interest in what anyone else does or doesn't do.
Hard to believe - yorkiebar
How often do you crash greenhey?

I don't think they were risking much where the child was concerned, but if there had been any plod around as vigilant as you they might have risked being pulled and having the pants bored off them (or even a fine).


This sounds like you consider seat belts of no real benefit.



I have never had cause to check NCAP safety ratings.

I wear seat belts and make others wear them in my car.


This sounds different to above post?
Hard to believe - bathtub tom
Darwin, and survival of the fittest.
If people are stupid enough to risk their own and offsprings lives, then it's probably no great loss to society if they pay the ultimate cost!
Hard to believe - rustbucket
Darwin and survival of the fittest.
If people are stupid enough to risk their own and offsprings lives then it's probably
no great loss to society if they pay the ultimate cost!

That would be true if the out come was as you say to pay the ultimate cost, but in reality its ussually injury which has to be delt with by the emergency services and the cost to the rest of society financially.
--
rustbucket (the original)
Hard to believe - Lud
It is my choice to wear belts (hated them at first though) and make others wear them.

It is the choice of other people not to wear them, to make their children stand on the car roof with their hands tied behind their backs, etc.

I am very seldom moved to interfere with what they do or don't do, or to make a clamour about it.

If, say, I knew someone well who was a poor driver and didn't make their children put their belts on, I might try to think of a way of persuading them to do so. If I didn't know them, I wouldn't presume to interfere.
Hard to believe - yorkiebar
Its not actually your choice whether to wear a seat belt or not. It is required by law ?

And how would you feel if you were involved in an accident that resulted in the death of a child in the other car; whether the accident was your fault or not? You would not feel any guilt or remorse for the rest of your life? Or are you so unfeeling it wouldn't matter to you?
Hard to believe - Lud
For God's sake yorkiebar!

There is a significant difference between some disaster actually taking place and a lot of people faffing about how it might take place.

How people feel in the event of some disaster is of no consequence here. But if you think anything I have said makes me an unfeeling, callous or psychopathic person, then you don't understand plain English.
Hard to believe - yorkiebar
Hmm, I think that answers my thoughts !

Plain english is clear and unambiguous btw, and of a consistent opinion !

Hard to believe - Lud
Groan. Think what you like. You will anyway.
Hard to believe - Lud
Looking back up this newly amalgamated thread, I see that the Growler was very sound on this subject, just like me.
Hard to believe - bell boy
my post of jan 06 still stands as well
Hard to believe - Pugugly {P}
Ok then !
Hard to believe - Marc4Six

tinyurl.com/yqwazr
 

Ask Honest John

Value my car