Guilty of not wearing a seat belt.

By your scenario police had better go our and start arresting women who have children they cannot aford and the sleazy men who screw them.
That would be protecting scociety.

Good plan.

Moggy

This is the crux of the matter really.

The police have a duty to protect life. Wearing seatbelts saves lives and reduces injuries. Therefore, if a police officer turns a blind eye to a driver or passenger not wearing a belt could he be accused of neglect of duty?
Sure, by not wearing a seatbelt today you may feel you’re standing up for your right to “freedom of choice”, but the injuries suffered by a car occupant not wearing a seatbelt, the emergency service resources that are involved in attending crashes, the costs of hospital treatment and post hospital recovery, the cost to your employer if you are off work long term etc etc.
It all adds up and if you happen to lose a limb or suffer a severe head injury, it could change your life for ever.

Just so you can say, “I stood up for my right to not wear a belt”….
.

YOur scenarios are artificial BS politicians use to pass their god wannabe laws.

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.

******* children and welfare cost far, far, far more money to all than the sky-is-falling scenario you made up.

By your scenario police had better go our and start arresting women who have children they cannot aford and the sleazy men who screw them.
That would be protecting scociety.

Because you’ve always used them doesn’t mean it is a ‘non issue’. I too use them but, it should not require legal compulsion aimed at the individual. 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 ? And if you are in a coach, no one gives a toss.

And on that point, I see that smokers are about to be again ‘screwed’ in terms of where they can or cannot smoke eg. parks and open spaces.

Wearing a seatbelt in an automobile is just common sense.
The fact there is a law to make the people do it, well…there are a lot of laws out there that state the obvious for the stupid.

It keeps the politicians happy and employed.
They became mandatory here in the mid-60s (one car in my collection came with them fitted from the factory in 1963)…and as a side note, the USAF required them for any vehicle driven on an installation a few years before that. I’ve always had them and always used them so it’s a non-issue.

Re 9

No, and you can’t ‘polish a turd’ either.

But you can roll in in glitter!:D

Interestingly, the windscreens of modern vehicles are not just designed to keep the wind, rain and bugs, off our face; they are actually a structurally significant part of the vehicle. I cannot quote an exact figure but the windscreen accounts for about 30% of the ‘stiffness’ of the A-frame of the vehicle under certain conditions; that, and the fact that all windscreens are now laminated, must have an impact (sorry!) if you are unlucky enough (or stupid enough) to come into rapid contact with it.

Air-bags have made a massive contribution to your chances of surviving a head-on impact, and a massive contribution to reducing serious or permanent injury, but air-bags are also designed to work in conjuncture with (often pre-tensioning) seat-belts. Air-bags can also be dangerous and some air-bag systems, I believe, were designed not to fire if the seat-belts were not being worn!

Actually I think the reason that seat-belts are less regulated in coaches is that, in an ‘average’ accident (and I appreciate that there is no such thing), a larger-mass vehicle, like a coach, tends to keep going, over or through, whatever it hits, whereas a smaller-mass vehicle, like a car, tends to stop suddenly, effectively hitting the passengers at (or near) the speed that the vehicle was travelling.

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

I travelled at various times on four different public service vehicles (coaches) full with unrestrained passengers. That is, unrestrained by seatbelts not behaviour. With about 70-80 passengers in various stages of relaxation, an accident might have produced some rather interesting moments.

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.

A tale of two Snafus. Very strange.

jonny g regularly gets quite confused by there being people with similar names meddle.

I do hope that whilst he is getting what he pays for some other poor soul is not suffering due to jonny having the good fortune to have had his little mishap earlier than the other chap.
(That is presuming jonny is being naughty and not wearing his seat belt.)

If ones “freedom” is so important doesn’t one feel justified in breaking laws that are truely unjustifiable, otherwise one is merely one of the sheep…

A tale of two Snafus. Very strange.

I think that the driver has the responsibility to ensure that all ‘pax’ wear seat belts. If not, he would be in trouble, not the passengers.

Re 9

No, and you can’t ‘polish a turd’ either. I entirely accept responsibility for my actions and deficiencies. I expect rescue because that is what I pay for.

Oh dear.

If my pax don’t want to wear seatbelts then I tell them to get out and walk or call a cab, as I will not drive them…

Is it still the case that passengers in taxis are not required to wear seatbelts?

I find it strange that although children are required to sit in a child seat or on a booster seat in a private vehicle, that is not the case in taxis or cabs…

Or buses!

I acknowledge that there was some chatter about legal compulsion but it was quietly shelved. Education did the trick.

Did it? Not everywhere though…

Children under the age of 14 will have to wear a helmet when cycling after a new law came into force in Jersey.

The legislation was originally approved in July but the Transport and Technical Services Department decided to delay its introduction until October.

The department says this was to give parents time to buy helmets that met international standards…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-29428094

‘Spect the bit about international standards will grate on you a bit…;o)

And most of you act like sheep !

You might find that useful when you make your attempt at getting into power.

For the umpteenth time, the seatbelt law affects only the individual.

It didn’t in that road safety advert Julie knew her killer – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

How about a law that means you can get fined if you don’t tie your shoelaces? I tie my laces so that I don’t fall and break my nose….

Don’t believe there is a statistic to qualify any requirement here.

Mind you, it would have been amusing to have continued the whole clunk, click, every trip thing with Jimmy Saville – the punishment being the threat of being locked up with him if you didn’t: such a shame he snuffed it when he did…

And I was always amused with having to wear a hard hat on site – most of the time, if anything heavy being demolished or built was to fall on you, its only purpose would be to preserve enough of your skull for a quick identification to be made.

Sounds fair enough to me.

Nice to see you posting kev.

It’s simple, driver involved in accident was not wearing a seatbelt, leave him to die at the side of the road. That should be the opt out point. You don’t want to wear a belt then fine, you suffer injury as a consequence of that ‘value judgment’, then find and fund your own care. Same with motorcyclists not wearing a helmet. I would also suggest that any motorcyclist who comes to grief whilst wearing short trousers and short sleeved shirt (or vest) should have the same principle applied to them Find and fund your own care.

Regards,

kev35

John

I think you’ll find that most of those who attend the Speed Awareness course do so to avoid the points on their license.

I remain to be convinced that further “education” of drivers would make the slightest difference. After all every driver was “educated” prior to passing the test. We all have sufficient experience of qualified drivers to find their education wanting.

Re 43

What licence ?

Victor Meldrew impersonates me !

Digressing slightly if you have a photo licence check the expiry date. I have a paper licence until march next year.
John if you update your photo send them a picture of Victor Meldrew!:D

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20968886

Glad I brightened up your dreich Monday morning…

FYI, roadside tests do exist for drug driving and have done for about 10 years. They are based on “impairment assessment”, as detecting the type of drug used can only be done by urine or blood analysis – and we can’t have the fuzz taking the p!ss at the roadside even more than they do now, can we…

…if I were to crash and kill myself, through nothing more than my own wreckless stupidity, then so be it.

Presumably if you weren’t killed but recieved a serious brain injury or broke your neck and became a paraplegic you’d expect your car insurance or the state to take care of you for the rest of your life? Either way your stupidity is costing somebody other than yourself. In fact I cannot believe that not wearing your seatbelt doesn’t invalidate your car insurance; maybe it does and you haven’t read the small-print.

The assertion that the ‘nanny state’ makes us less responsible for our actions may not be as simple an argument as it seems; remember, in the case of wearing seatbelts, the ‘nanny state’ only influences those who are too irresponsible to do what has been proven to benefit everybody.