Guilty of not wearing a seat belt.

What she actually meant was that she was going to do exactly what she wanted but yet she still expected ‘society’ to come and pick up the pieces. That is the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions!

Agree. The society of today seems to be one of rights not responsibilities. Not a standpoint i can agree with.

Re 75

No it’s not. It is their choice. They have made an informed decision. It isn’t about the rights and wrongs of seatbelt wearing, it is about the legal compulsion that backs it up.

One of my sons was killed when a ladder he was on slipped. If he’d been wearing a crash helmet, he might have survived. He wasn’t and he didn’t. Should crash helmets be compulsory when using a ladder ? No. It is not a matter for State interference. Educate to persuade people by all means and leave it at that.

Wearing a seatbelt clearly saves lives and injury. Millions of people drive cars everyday, the potential for death and injury from a car accident is high just due to that fact.
The sad event of your son’s death is not however due to an activity that the majority participate in every day. I’d wager that few of us here have been up a ladder in the last week or two, yet all will have driven their cars if they possess a licence.
Education is undoubtably necessary and important but in the case of seatbelts legislation is sensible to reinforce that simply due to the number of participants.

What the law doesn’t compel me to do – at least at the moment, is to have such insurance in place when I’m taking a stroll along a leafy byeway having a drag on a fag!

Well, it is down to the risk I suppose; there are plenty of people in Britain today who will fall over and immediately start looking for somebody to sue!

Personally, I agreed wholeheartedly with the indoor smoking ban; even if I (or the bar staff) didn’t contract cancer through secondary smoke it used to make my clothes stink. It did ‘hurt’ the smoker but their habit could give somebody else cancer so, sorry, tough on the smoker! I’m not so bothered about outside; except if I’m eating.

Anyway, I thought most smokers wanted to give up anyway? Smoking bans and high tax / duty have got to help haven’t they?

I would also instigate a ban on showing smoking, in any form, on film of TV, except for existing films where it cannot be removed (and I would rather the films were not banned).

I think the real issue here is compulsion, or the ‘nanny state’, versus personal freedoms. Perhaps the wearing of seat-belts is not the best illustration to be arguing about because the impact on others will be minimal (although it is very far from a victimless crime).

How do people feel generally about the responsible attitudes, or lack of them, in today’s society? There has always been something very ‘British’ about certain aspects of our society: cheating was frowned-upon, corruption was not tolerated, or at least not tolerated to the extent that it seems to be in almost every other country, there was respect for the rule of law, the truth was an absolute not just your ‘version’ of events, nobody felt they were owed a living (or benefits), there was a half-decent work-ethic and people, on the whole, took some measure of responsibility for all their actions.

Now, even to me, that sounds a rose-tinted view of the past, but is there some truth in it?

I was watching something on TV the other night where a young woman was arguing her ‘right’ to inject heroin; her argument was that it was her decision, she was old enough to decide, and she was only hurting herself. The interview took place outside the local A&E where she had just been released after her second overdose that year.

What she actually meant was that she was going to do exactly what she wanted but yet she still expected ‘society’ to come and pick up the pieces. That is the opposite of taking responsibility for your actions!

Re 75

No it’s not. It is their choice. They have made an informed decision. It isn’t about the rights and wrongs of seatbelt wearing, it is about the legal compulsion that backs it up.

One of my sons was killed when a ladder he was on slipped. If he’d been wearing a crash helmet, he might have survived. He wasn’t and he didn’t. Should crash helmets be compulsory when using a ladder ? No. It is not a matter for State interference. Educate to persuade people by all means and leave it at that.

Re 67

Precisely so. What the law doesn’t compel me to do – at least at the moment, is to have such insurance in place when I’m taking a stroll along a leafy byeway having a drag on a fag ! Anything could happen affecting just me, I might trip over the match I’ve thrown away after lighting my exotic substance. The permutations can go on almost without end.

Most of you seem to be quite happy in Nanny’s embrace, so perhaps I’ll leave it there.

If you are killed for not wearing a seatbelt it hurts your family.
If your son or daughter is killed while driving isn’t that a pretty strong reason to make it compulsory?
I wear my seltbelt and don’t even notice it’s on.
Whiplash is better than dead any day.

I wear a seat belt and have since long before they were made compulsory. If the compulsion was removed I’d still wear a seatbelt. (Had seat belts in the rear become a compulsory fitting earlier I would still have my real front teeth)

I never wear a cycling helmet. If they were made compulsory I would.

That’s how it is. The law on seatbelts won’t change. Simply get over it.

Moggy

Well, perhaps not quite as mad as you think, Snaf. Fortunately I can ride reasonable distances on cycle ways and along the seafront so I rarely have to use public roads. I have tried a helmet but am just not comfortable wearing it………sorry for making you cringe!!:)

I knew you were mad charlie… It makes me cringe everytime i see somebody cycle by without a helmet.
It’s generally not the cyclist that will make the error it’s the other muppets on the road.

There are a great many cyclists around here, including yours truly, and the rule of thumb seems to be, if the cyclist is in Lycra they are almost certainly wearing a helmet, if not they are probably helmetless. And before you ask – I am not in Lycra!!:D

I live in a ‘touristy’ area popular with cyclists. I would estimate that helmet wearing is almost 100%. I’m waiting for a ‘saddle belt’ law when riding a bike.

Next time I am in town I’ll do a helmet count…

While stood on a street corner waiting for the OH, I carried out my helmet count – 30 cyclists went by and only 6 were wearing helmets – that’s just 20% of cyclists. If I’d carried on counting it would have been lower as the next dozen or so weren’t wearing helmets either!!!

I’ve no doubt that many will applaud the proposed extention of non smoking laws into public parks and open spaces regardless of the chipping away by the State of what is left of personal freedom.

“Personal freedom” to consume and then exhale noxious, harmful fumes? Nice.

Why the hell should i have to inhale secondary smoke as i’m walking down the street or any other activity outside?

What about my “personal freedom” not to be poisoned or at the very least not to have to smell the stench of cigarette smoke?

Why is it deemed unacceptable and apparently against personnal freedom to require people to keep the environment in the state it is in? Why is it acceptable for people to impact others with their desire to slowly kill themselves and then also expect the rest of society to pick up the healthcare costs?

Anybody defending smoking on a personal freedom ticket is a selfish idiot in my opinion.

The ‘picture’ you paint suggest that we should all carry individual, no limit, comprehensive, third party liability, compulsory insurance – just in case!

Which is exactly what the law compels you to do to drive on the public roads in this country. 😉

Re 63If the ‘domino’ effect as described, impacted on our daily lives, then none would get out of bed to so much as buy a newspaper !.

If you smash up your car, and body, every time you buy a newspaper, maybe that would be a good idea.

The most seemingly insignificant of human activities could, by your reckoning, unleash a trail of destruction, turmoil and death as to rival some of the content of some rugby league matches

.
Killing yourself, in a car accident, might be trivial to you, but not others who have to clean up afterwards.

The ‘picture’ you paint suggest that we should all carry individual, no limit, comprehensive, third party liability, compulsory insurance – just in case !

Only if you have a rather lurid imagination.

In any case, your scenario is already in place and serves to deal; on a daily basis, with your examples. These examples are, fortunately, a minority, because education about the general good sense of wearing a seatbelt has had effect. My general complaint is about compulsion.

Seems we’re arguing pointlessly, then, since the compulsion is aimed at the “I know best” fraternity, not those with the intelligence to see the value of wearing belts.

We will, mindful of our thoughts about the evils of smoking, see that compulsion extended against the remainder of the population who still smoke. I’ve no doubt that many will applaud the proposed extention of non smoking laws into public parks and open spaces regardless of the chipping away by the State of what is left of personal freedom.
Some nanny minded interfering politician intent on making a cheap headlne or two and getting his/her name into Hansard will promote this measure thus ensuring even more firmly that the State is holding our hand when we cross the road – by the approved crossing – of course

It has actually already been denied (do you really think they’d dare to do it just a few months before an election?)

Re 63

If the ‘domino’ effect as described, impacted on our daily lives, then none would get out of bed to so much as buy a newspaper !

The most seemingly insignificant of human activities could, by your reckoning, unleash a trail of destruction, turmoil and death as to rival some of the content of some rugby league matches.

The ‘picture’ you paint suggest that we should all carry individual, no limit, comprehensive, third party liability, compulsory insurance – just in case !

In any case, your scenario is already in place and serves to deal; on a daily basis, with your examples. These examples are, fortunately, a minority, because education about the general good sense of wearing a seatbelt has had effect. My general complaint is about compulsion.

We will, mindful of our thoughts about the evils of smoking, see that compulsion extended against the remainder of the population who still smoke. I’ve no doubt that many will applaud the proposed extention of non smoking laws into public parks and open spaces regardless of the chipping away by the State of what is left of personal freedom.

Some nanny minded interfering politician intent on making a cheap headlne or two and getting his/her name into Hansard will promote this measure thus ensuring even more firmly that the State is holding our hand when we cross the road – by the approved crossing – of course.

I’ve recently returned from a rather pleasant visit to a place whre there were no people with higher education, sporting vulgar acronyms.

Croydon?

I travelled at various times on four different public service vehicles (coaches) full with unrestrained passengers.

What happened, did you fire the chauffeur? I mean, having to travel with…riff raff, how absolutely common! And on an old coach as well…

That is, unrestrained by seatbelts not behaviour.

Thank goodness you clarified that; we could have been confused about your meaning of the word ‘unrestrained’ on a thread about seat belts.

With about 70-80 passengers in various stages of relaxation, an accident might have produced some rather interesting moments.

Interesting? I fail to see how 70-80 people in various stages of relaxation being involved in an accident could be described as ‘interesting’.

So yes, the seatbelt law is responsible, commonsensical and its adherants say that it saves numbers equivalent to the population of London – every year – except in coaches.

Did the coach have seat belts fitted or was it over 14 years old?

Coaches made or first used after 1 October 2001 are fitted with three point seat belts or retractable lap belt in all forward and rearward facing seats.

Passengers over the age of 14 years must wear a seat belt in coaches. They must be notified of the requirement to wear a seat belt (this is usually by a notice on the vehicle, an announcement or a film). Each passenger is legally responsible for wearing their seat belt.

The law does not yet require passengers under 14 years old to wear a seat belt. However, all passengers are strongly advised to wear seat belts or the correct child seat on all journeys.

http://www.childcarseats.org.uk/the-law/other-vehicles-buses-coaches-and-minibuses/

So you see the law in Britain requires that coaches first used after October 2001 must be fitted with seat belts which must be worn, unless the passenger is under 14 years old.
Did you break the law, John?

Since when did it become the duty of the State to protect the individual from the consequences of their carelessness and stupidity particularly when only that individual’s safety and well being is at stake ?

Which is fine, when it doesn’t affect others, but that is rarely the case. Leaving aside the required attendance of the police at any accident involving injury, there’s also the ambulance crew(s) and fire crew(s.) As well as picking up your body parts, they might well have to risk their lives to get you out of the wreckage, plus the charming job of hosing down the area to remove all of the signs of your blood (upsets the public, you see.) There’s then the staff at the A&E, who try to repair the damage, and, if they can’t, there’s the staff of the hospital morgue, who have to try to make you presentable for the poor sod who has to come to identify the remains. In the meantime, a police man or woman (often of junior rank) has to go and inform your family of your death.

Police are required and have duty to enforce laws and that is it, no matter the laws bias.
There is nothing in any duty laws that say police are to protect and serve, that is a political gimmick..

That might be true in the U.S., but not here:-
CODE OF CONDUCT FOR POLICE OFFICERS
1(a) The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life
and property, the preservation of the Queen’s peace, and the prevention and detection of
criminal offences. To fulfil these duties police officers are granted extraordinary powers; the
public and the police service therefore have the right to expect the highest standards of
conduct from them.

It should be a matter of personal choice. Since when did it become the duty of the State to protect the individual from the consequences of their carelessness and stupidity particularly when only that individual’s safety and well being is at stake?

If it didn’t have any impact on the workload of the NHS or my car insurance premiums I’d probably agree with you…

…but it does.

Now insurance companies could decide not to pay for the care of the individual who has exercised his right to head-butt his windscreen and now will have to live the rest of his life as a paraplegic but then the care of said individual would fall on the state, or rather the taxpayer, wouldn’t it.

Honestly, today, there are very few ‘rights’ that we can exercise that have NO effect on anybody else!