|
Not necessarily, think unrestrained rear seat passengers.
|
MLC, being a hgv driver, this is always a thorny issue.
I don't use the seatbelt in a truck, to me its a safety related thing.
I won't attempt to tell 'you' why, but for those who have never driven a truck, some of the modern mirror designs are ludicrous, massive mirrors sometimes 2 on the drivers side, mounted too high on the door frame, causing horrendous blind spots, esp on approach to roundabouts and cross roads, apart from the myriad of other everday road obstacles.
So for me its a case of ducking and diving look see around the mirrors to make sure there's no bikes esp hidden in the blind spots caused, sometimes as you approach a roundabout , should there be a car approaching at the corresponding speed, its possible to lose sight of it for several hundred yards at a time.
Do please tell me that most of your colleagues feel the same as you.
Hundreds of officers must have seen me doing this and i've never been stopped once.
No doubt many realise why, are we going to be subject to 3 points as well, it seems odd as its not safe for others if we are belted IMO?
By the way, are the powers trying to put final nails into the relationship between you lot and the public....seems daft to me, vast majority of us know you've far more needed fish to fry.
|
I do give seatbelt tickets out. Always if I see kids unrestrained and sometimes if the drver won't take a bit of advice. £30 is a slap on the wrist and nothing more. People usually take it on the chin.
£60 and three points. When you think that you could receive a ban and lose your livelihood, on the basis of not buckling up, the mind boggles. Drivers should belt and I feel uncomfortable in car without one. I've also been to fatals where the driver/passenger MAY have survived if they were wearing a seatbelt. However, to take such draconian measures is a step to far.
I know that should this materialise, it will go down like a lead balloon with the officers I work with.
|
|
if it was up to me any one not belted up but carrying an organ donor card ....£30 fine, .. no donor card 12 months ban
|
if it was up to me any one not belted up but carrying an organ donor card ....£30 fine .. no donor card 12 months ban
I don't follow this. If you are trying to encourage organ donors then surely you want people to drive unbelted to increase the supply?
|
I don't follow this. If you are trying to encourage organ donors then surely you want people to drive unbelted to increase the supply?
no donor card no organs thats why i said the ban whats difficult about that?
|
|
|
|
My habits changed upon the introduction of the seatbelt laws. Never used to bother prior to that. Now it would feel very odd not to wear one.
I wondered why truckers often don't wear them but GB has just explained.
The only member of our family who still hates the idea is my 86 year old mother. She will put it on under protest but then makes a point of holding it away from her body and huffing and puffing at it. Then again, she objects to most things now so I suppose it is not being particularly singled out. I try to explain to her that holding it like that would be a good way of ensuring that it causes the maximum amount of damage and injury in the event of an accident but she inevitably counters this with, "well, don't crash then" She was an ambulance driver in WW2 and often drove under enemy fire during the blitz and I think she sees some of our modern ways as a bit "wet".
I can't really understand why anyone would want to drive or be driven without one but I do despair that we are yet again being "nannied".
|
|
|
|
deep breath.... I think people SHOULD wear their seatbelts.
I'd accept the lorry explanation... and there's already exemptions for delivery drivers, taxi drivers, emergency services, etc...but I see no reason why everyone else shouldn't wear them and if a hard core refuse, then a decent penalty might focus their minds.
Over the years i've seen people dead who could be alive and people that look like they've been in a knife fight...just because they can't be bothered to put on a belt. Why should my taxpayers money go on increased medical costs because of someone else's selfishness or foolishness.
The people that regularly don't wear them are often the anti-social types who don't give two hoots about other laws either. Decent folk tend to comply. What's the problem?
|
Why should my taxpayers money go on increased medical costs because of someone else's selfishness>>
Exactly!
And not to mention all the extra vital man hours that emergency services have to spend at a fatality or serious injury.
|
|
|
MLC - personally l I'd make it a £100 fine and no points. I'm old enough to remember working in A+E depts before and after the introduction of the seat belt law - the difference was astounding.
It may be a personal thing, but in in a fatal/serious accident the cost of not wearing the belt isn't just borne by the individual, as the state has to pay up for all the emergency services efforts, the NHS time etc., the Coroner etc.
What's the cost of a fatal - £250k? A serious followed by months in an HDU/critical care could be more.....
|
I think the tester for me is the most famous car accident in recent years, where the only occupant of what must be one of, if not THE safest cars in the world, to survive..was the chap who put his seatbelt on (Trevor Rees-Jones).
I truly believe Princess Diana would still be here if she'd worn a belt...what a waste.
|
No one likes to be forced by the law to do something they aren't used to doing. Like Shoespy I huffed and puffed and thought belts a nuisance at first, having used them very rarely before they became compulsory, and like him I have become so used to wearing them that I now feel a bit naked without. I've had crashes with and without and it didn't make any difference except that without you tend to bend the steering wheel so much that you have to get another one (if the car still goes that is). But of course I have never had a colossal high-speed impact.
Passengers, especially adults, especially some women, can be very awkward about it, unmoved by one's fate as the driver if pulled. I have sometimes found it necessary to be extremely rude to persuade a back-seat adult passenger to belt up.
|
|
|
|
deep breath.... I think people SHOULD wear their seatbelts.
As someone who did get a ticket 15 years back for not wearing a seat belt I wholeheartedly agree. Was returning from our local DIY centre located some quarter mile from my house. Had just bought a new lavatory pan which was wearing a seat belt!. (shades of the Aussie with the beer). Penalty ticket and lecture on valuing my life above that of a toilet has ensured that have always belted up since.
|
I'll clarify my position. People should wear belts, no argument there. If you don't the current £30 fine is fair punishment.
Three points isn't. It's draconian.
|
|
So will passengers attract points as well ?
|
What a great myth that not wearing a seatbelt is just a private decision.
If you don't , I underwrite your risk-taking through my insurance and the taxes I pay to the health and welfare systems that will foot the bill when you fly through the windscreen.
If you were charged a massive excess by your insurer for your behaviour, perhaps mys insurance would cost less. Equally if you paid for the health and other consequences I might think it's OK.But that's not the case now, so anything that makes you chnage is Ok with me.
That of course, leaves aside the moral issues about leaving your family without a father, breadwinner, etc and having to live with the consequences of your choices.
I get really annoyed ( perhaps you can tell) about this- many people who bang on about the extremely remote possibilties of suffering violence in our streets don't take the simplest action to protect themselves from a far more likely source of harm.
|
|
|
So will passengers attract points as well ?
imagine getting pulled over and all the occupants plus driver were over the 12 point threshold collectively , who's walking home drive?
|
The long term UK averages for:
Victims of murder: 800
Fatal traffic accident victims (vehicle occupants only): ~ 1,850
|
|
|
I am for as well - motorcyclists have to wear helmet then so drivers should wear belts -if I was a boy in blue I would do every single one I could find - I would sit at end of an estate road in mornings and wait for them - no if's no but's - Ticket.
If I have a passenger in back of my car and they won't belt up I make them sit in centre of back seat - it's one of my pet hates along with the letterbox window scraper in winter.
|
>>I truly believe Princess Diana would still be here if she'd worn a belt...what a waste.
Perhaps it is right that not everybody should wear a belt.
Personally I'd make it 10 points and £1,000. What's the problem with keeping that particular law.
|
I can't agree that giving points for failing to belt up is a good idea.
Wearing of belts in cars is an obviously good idea - that they save lives isn't in much doubt. That non-wearers stand a better chance of removing themselves from the gene pool is probably not such a bad thing.
I agree with GB's point about how they aren't such a good idea in trucks - I wouldn't dream of wearing a belt in a truck - you need to be able to move around a bit.
Considering that seat belts stop you going through the windscreen in a suddent stop, I can't imagine seat belts in trucks make any difference at all. When you consider the sort of impact that can stop a truck with such violence, and how flimsy truck cabs and headboards are, going through the windscreen is the least of your worries!
Edited by Webmaster on 19/05/2008 at 22:32
|
GB's point was that bad design made belts hard to wear in trucks.
Simple solution - Don't allow trucks to take to the road that can't be used safely with belts in use.
|
Simple solution - Don't allow trucks to take to the road that can't be used safely with belts in use.
That sounds a good theory, but as usual the designers of these and many other things are not using them in the field.
And as NC has reminded us (thanks a bundle), if a truck has stopped hard enough to warrant the use of the belt, there's a 99% chance the belt is only restraining a body anyway. 40+ tons at whatever impact speed doesn't usually forgive the weakness of the cab design.
And for the very small number of instances where the truck belt would benefit the driver, how much risk have other road users been put at due to a non movable driver?
|
>>(thanks a bundle)
Sorry!
A friend used to drive for Walker Steel in Blackburn - he was always frightened of braking hard because of the steel rods on the trailer, the weak headboards on the trailers, and the wafer thin steel of the cabs. He used to make very smooth and considered progress!
|
|
|
MLC, in the several years I have been reading the BR this is the first time I can recall when I don't agree with you. :-(
>When you think that you could receive a ban and lose your livelihood, on the basis of not buckling up
I would say that better lose your livelihood than your life! And one would only get a ban if you had previously received several minor endorsements or one major endorsement. This would indicate a certain carelessness in driving habits, would it not?
Your argument would also apply to a speeding offence if the driver already had 9 points. Do you want to let him off that as well, just because he is facing a ban?
As a former safety test engineer, I know seat belts save lives and reduce injuries. How many KSI are unbelted?
Just what is so difficult about putting one's seatbelt on every time one drives on the road?
|
If we only consider front seat passengers in cars, they are only putting themselves at risk. What right do we have to impose penatlies on people for choosing to take this risk? Where does the nannying end?
Should we penalise smokers for risking their own lungs?
Should we prevent people playing sports? How many serious injuries are caused on the rugby pitches, or on the ski slopes?
Actually, getting into a motor car, or walking by the side of the road is so risky - it should be banned, or the crazy fools who do it should be punished.
|
"Should we penalise smokers for risking their own lungs?"
"We" do - 77% tax on fags - of £5.66 for a packet of 20, £4.18 is tax.
|
"We" do - 77% tax on fags - of £5.66 for a packet of 20, £4.18 is tax.
We may fine them, as is currently the way with seatbelts, but, we don't do anything to remove their ability to continue - there isn't points system
1 point for 20 Low Tar ciggies,
2 points for some Medium Tar
10 points for some Capstans!
|
|
Nothing difficult at all. The argument isn't should the law require us to belt up, nor whether there should be a penalty. My argument revolves around 3 points being a draconian penalty (or not).
|
How many KSI are unbelted?
|
|
As attitude has a major part to play in accidents, those without belts are displaying a signal to society. Possibly an attitude taken through much of their life style. When (if!) stopped, there may be other issues they have forgotten about - like their appearance before the beak.
|
Good idea - points have to be revealed at insurance time, non endorseable offences don't.
If you have an accident and aren't wearing a seatbelt chances are your injuries will be high and your insurance will be the ones paying if you survive, so it is in their interest to weed out those they don't want to insure. 17 year old gets paralysed and needs 24 hour care for 50-60 years - think who pays for that.
Isn't one of the big insurance companies raising premiums for those with driving using a mobile phone endorsements due to increased risk? No seat belt could be similar and once one insurance begins doing this, they will all follow eventually.
|
|
|
|
"I'll clarify my position. People should wear belts, no argument there. If you don't the current £30 fine is fair punishment."
It can't be. Or the government wouldn't be looking at points as well. It appears from looking at other drivers while in traffic that more and more are flouting the law as it stands. Many are younger drivers. I also see many kids unrestrained in the backs of cars when their parents are belted up. £30 punishment has not deterred these people. Maybe in the future points will.
You also say if this is introduced, you may turn a blind eye. I am astounded that as a serving officer your personal feelings are over riding the powers that are bestowed upon you. You should comply as instructed by H.M. government, as you swore an oath to H.M. on joining. Otherwise how many other offences are you going to turn a blind eye to.
I think its time you sought another job.
Westpig, spot on.
|
You also say if this is introduced you may turn a blind eye. I am astounded that as a serving officer your personal feelings are over riding the powers that are bestowed upon you. You should comply as instructed by H.M. government as you swore an oath to H.M. on joining. Otherwise how many other offences are you going to turn a blind eye to. I think its time you sought another job. Westpig spot on.
Ok...I'll come and stand at the bottom of your road and wait for you to drive by doing 32mph. Speeding ticket sir. Or should I turn a 'blind eye' to that. How about all the cars doing 80mph on the motorway, goodness, I'm turning a 'blind eye' to that as well. I should be sacked forthwith.
It's called discretion. A strong word of advice can be far more effective than a ticket.
As for the 'I do what the Government tell me', I think a certain group of our European friends used that excuse a few decades ago.
|
|
I agree with you MLC and support your philosophy. The trouble in life is that some will always see everything in black and white and are unable or unwilling to interpret rules, regulations and laws. For example, as has often been mentioned by other contributors, I think many of us would far rather see a return to our laws being monitored by humans than by machines. Humans can judge a situation on the day. You and those of your colleagues who share your view of intelligent policing certainly have my support.
|
|
|
"As for the 'I do what the Government tell me', I think a certain group of our European friends used that excuse a few decades ago."
No. More recent than that. How about the miners strike. Blind eyes were not turned by your colleagues then. And the result was fat pay packets and restrictions on free movement which we endure to this day.
|
No. More recent than that. How about the miners strike. Blind eyes were not turned by your colleagues then. And the result was fat pay packets and restrictions on free movement which we endure to this day.
I wondered how long it would take for Mrs. Thatcher to get the blame for seatbelts as well! ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not necessarily think unrestrained rear seat passengers.
If a rear seat passenger in one of my vehicles refused to wear a seat belt then they will be asked to leave said vehicle. If one ever questioned my request they would be forcibly removed. End of...
Vbr MD
|
|
|
|
- but if you stubbornly refuse to or simply forget to do up your seatbelt then you are only a danger to yourself.
You're a danger to the economy of the population and the country.
According to Rospa ............ "The cost of road accidents is enormous - research suggests that the real cost of a road accident could be between 4 and 32 times the `bent metal' cost, i.e., a minimum of £2,800. Government figures state the real cost of a fatal road accident to Society is in excess of £1 million."
|
As I understand the seatbelt law, it is the driver?s responsibility to ensure that anyone under the age of 14 is wearing one. It is the responsibility of those over the age of 14 to look after themselves. If this measure is introduced there will be a two tier punishment, those with a licence will receive fine + points, those without a licence fine only. Is this just?
Increasing the fine to a higher level is, I think, a better route. My car goes nowhere until everyone has a seat belt on. The law states that seatbelts must be worn except in defined circumstances. Can we chose which laws to obey?
|
Are the 18+ yr old passengers not responsible for their own seat belts rather than the driver?
|
|
|
|
SNIPQUOTE!According to Rospa ............ "The cost of road accidents is enormous - research suggests that the real cost of a road accident could be between 4 and 32 times the `bent metal' cost i.e. a minimum of £2 800. Government figures state the real cost of a fatal road accident to Society is in excess of £1 million."
Less the value of the victim's old age medical care costs, and pension fund.
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 19/05/2008 at 11:26
|
>> Government figures state the real cost >> of a fatal road accident to Society is in excess of £1 million." Less the value of the victim's old age medical care costs and pension fund.
I assume the government figures have taken all those sort of things into account.
|
|
|
Most interesting thread, especially as we in N.Z. have had exactly this discussion many years ago. When seat belts were made compulsory in cars, 60 pound equivalent fine levied upon the person, driver or pasenger, who was unbelted. Minors up to school leaving age [ 16 ] are the responsibility of the driver.
I took them up as soon as they became available because I could understand the mechanics involved. Fortunatelly, I haven't needed them, but, as mentioned above, I feel "undressed" driving without them.
|
|
|
Less the value of the victim's old age medical care costs and pension fund.
Cynical but true.
I like you Cliff.
Best reg's............MD
|
|
|
|
|
|
