Guilty of not wearing a seat belt.

There I was thinking you slept with a copy of Atlas Shrugged under your pillow.

Re 36

Me? ‘Civil libertarian’? I laughed so much I could hardly spell it. I’m ouraged by that label.

Disgusted.
Tunbridge Wells.

Re 30

‘Scrapping the law’? There has been no suggestion of that. That’s written in stone. You ‘haven’t read one here’ because no one has put it forward.

If, enacting a new law meant scrapping an existing, I would say scrap the seatbelt law and bring in a drug use/drug taking law in the same way that we use drink driving laws aimed at the individual and protecting the majority.

I understand that specific anti drug laws are not in use because of difficulties in devising a roadside test that works in detecting and isolating the type of drug suspected of being used.

My information might be out of date and roadside drug tests might well be in current use.

Of course, and for anyone with an ounce of intelligence that would be the case. But regrettably ‘sense’ isn’t as common as we would wish, so there had to be some coercion. But, at the same time a massive promotion campaign was run (featuring that nice Mr Savile). Both elements combined to contributed to the significant casualty reduction.

I’m going seat belt free in November out of respect for Uncle Jimmy’s victims. :highly_amused:

Here is the valid argument I see:

Laws should exist to protect society at large against the actions of individuals. Laws that exist to protect individuals from themselves, by shifting importance away from ‘don’t kill yourself’ to ‘don’t risk a fine’ don’t benefit society at large, and could be cynically interpreted as a simple means of drumming up funds for the police force. The way I see it, if I were to crash and kill myself, through nothing more than my own wreckless stupidity, then so be it.

Wow, we’ve shot up from 95% to ~100%!!!!!!

Maybe you should be employed as the cycle helmet tzar?…

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

I read the last para of your post #33 as a veiled insult towards any here who have the temerity to question your civil libertarian views. You’re as much of a seat belt wearing sheep as the rest of us, bowing before the diktats of BB…
If you feel the subject is such an breach of your civil liberties, then refuse point blank to wear a seat belt. Ignore the police if they stop you. Go to court and fight for your “freedom”. Don’t wear it but shout from the rooftops about how it infringes your freedoms of choice – that’s hypocrisy.

Re 32

That’s a very pretty sheep. Is it a personal friend ? Can you effect an introduction ?

Re 31

If the NHS wasn’t so preoccupied with treating the illnesses of the world in the shape of medical tourism for all comers then perhaps there would be the resources available. That’s another story.

If we adopted your bond strategy, what do you suggest we do with smokers ? Alcoholics ? Obese binge eaters ? Anyone that does something to excess making them a liability on the public purse ?

Your last paragraph is almost exactly correct. If someone wishes to drive over a cliff, harming only themselves, what business is it of anyone?

Re 29

That’s the trouble with these debates, you get brassed off repeating yourself. If you are by nature or inclination so risk averse that for you the ultimate safety on the road is best demonstrated by wearing a seatbelt – that’s fine, the law was made for you.

For others who are not so convinced by the claimed benefits of wearing a seat belt, there is no choice. They cannot exercise their judgment. Nanny has spoken.

I’m not convinced of its benefits but still I wear a seatbelt on the basis that it might do me some good. I would still prefer to exercise my judgment as an individual and not have the State trying to act the parent. I can make value judgments quite easily.

I’m more often to be found on my ‘wobbly two’ rather than my not so ‘wobbly four’. 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.

Let us return to the theme: Personal freedom affecting the individual. In our endless drive to remove all risk from life, we’re turning the nation into children. We are infantilising adults to the point whereby they lose all sense of personal initiative and responsibility. The evidence for that assertion is seen in these Forums.

Let me repeat in the event that anyone missed it first time arouind: I WEAR a car seatbelt.

Natural selection?

Re 20

Charlie, think it thru’. There is no way that my taking a dive thru’ the windscreen of my car in any way diminishes or enhances the protection of the majority.

John, I agree that education would be better than criminalisation, and I undertand what you are saying in that there may be no direct effect on others should you choose to take the risk of being smeared across your own windscreen, but you are wrong ont he latter – there may well be knock-on effects on lives of others if you are unlucky enough to take a trip into or through yur windscreen…. as has been said earlier, in a society with a finite ambulance and A&E resource, treatment of your injury may be utilising finite resources such as ambulance service, surgeon, care staff etc (and/or assciated funds) that cannot therefore go to the aid of someone else at the same time. So, while you are being wiped up off your car bonnet/dashboard, someone else may be in need of those same resouces for another reason.

Perhaps an option is to remove the enforcement law, and to require all drivers wishing to drive without belts to purchase a compulsory “seat belt exemption bond” to the value of the likely extra costs involved in any accident (i.e. costs for longer attendance by emergency services, costs of medical equipmnet used, costs of staff involved in treating a major head trauma rather than a badly bruised chest/abdomen, cost of head trauma hospitalisation and rehab, etc etc etc?

The income from “seat belt exemption” bonds could then be used by the government/state etc to acquire additional emergency and medical services, thus ensuring extra resources were available to treta the increased number of more serious injuries without detracting from level of service available to those in society who are prepared to wear seatbelts.

If/when the bond holder has an accident that sees them suffer injuries that a seat belt would have prevented, they then have to purchase another bond if/when they return to driving (unless of course their experience leads them to see the sense of wearing a seatbelt thereafter).

The value of the bond could be returned once a driver surrenders his licence at the end of his driving career.

Anyone caught driving without a belt and without holding a bond would be prosecuted, with penalty being points on licence and a fine to the value of a bond, with loss of licence if unable to pay.

Make it clear that vehicle drivers are 100% responsible for his/her passengers wearing seatbelts too. 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. So far no-one in my car has ever refused to belt up…

Nanny state – yes, perhaps, but based on common sense and statistics. A State has to do the best for the majority of its population, and taking action to reduce demand on emergency services (and on post trauma hospital care etc) has to be to the benefit of the majority.

Statistics in UK clearly show that wearing seatbelts reduces severity of injury far more often than it “traps” people in a crashed car. Thanks to TV and Hollywood far too many people think cars “flip” into raging rivers, and/or burst into flames, at the slightest shunt than is the case.

Still, “natural selection” usually ensures the “best” equipped survive within a species, so if some portions of the populace wish to chance removing themselves from the gene pool early (via impact with a laminated windscreen) then why should I worry, it will remove those least able to assess risk :dev2:

That all makes sense, to a degree. However I feel it moves the motivation to wear a belt away from common sense. I should feel compelled to wear a belt so that I don’t become a dark mark on the road when I crash, not because there is a law telling me to wear a belt.

Of course, and for anyone with an ounce of intelligence that would be the case. But regrettably ‘sense’ isn’t as common as we would wish, so there had to be some coercion. But, at the same time a massive promotion campaign was run (featuring that nice Mr Savile). Both elements combined to contributed to the significant casualty reduction.

I can see no valid argument for scrapping the law, or the sanctions, today. I certainly haven’t read one here.

Moggy

Re 22,

I am no sheep – I happen to have seen what happens to the individuals who don’t ‘buckle up’ and decide to put the laws of physics to the test. Therefore, I prefer to increase my odds of walking away from a crash, and if that makes me, in your eyes, a mindless “idiot” blindly following the control of the state, fine…

Oh and I also currently drive a Volvo, so that probably compounds your dislike of my personal choices…

You’re not the only driver on the road – there are idiots all over the place just looking for somewhere to “park” their weapon of choice. Refuse to wear a seat belt? Do you also disable your airbags?

As for your reference to cyclists – they are probably the most vulnerable road user and have little in the way of any protection, so to many, the simple styrene pot strapped to their noggin, is all they can do to improve their chance against the idiots in metal boxes. Maybe simply weighing up the risks has worked in this case. But even amongst these road users are the few who believe not wearing a helmet is their right of choice. Even though a simple fall at a low speed can result in serious, if not fatal, head injuries. They probably spout some rubbish about it not being proven that wearing a helmet would reduce injury etc etc. And helmet use is very low amongst the cyclists I see in Cambridge, so I’d challenge your 95% figure.

But you’re OK – you’re unrestrained in your nice safe car and have four wheels instead of a wobbly two.

I think we all agree that wearing a seatbelt is a good idea and we do not need a law to compel us to do so but what about those that wouldn’t wear a seatbelt if the law didn’t compel them?

Laws in society are like that. Most people ‘obey’ the law because it is what they would do if there was no law, not because the law compels them.

And if a law compels you to do something you would do anyway…..what control have we surrendered?

Re 20

Charlie, think it thru’. There is no way that my taking a dive thru’ the windscreen of my car in any way diminishes or enhances the protection of the majority.

The value of educating rather than compelling can be seen in that rather useful initiative by the Dept of Transport and the Police in offering errant speeding motorists the chance to attend a Driver Awareness course rather than accept a conventional penalty.

This changes attitudes better than anything that I know. It is based on education or, rather re-education. And, it works !

That all makes sense, to a degree. However I feel it moves the motivation to wear a belt away from common sense. I should feel compelled to wear a belt so that I don’t become a dark mark on the road when I crash, not because there is a law telling me to wear a belt. Surely you want an army of road users belting up in the morning because of the former, rather than the latter? Are you not at risk of kicking off a chain of laws that override common sense? 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….

… the Police exist to serve the best interests of society, why would they punish me for committing a crime against myself? Is there a good argument I’m missing here?

Research proved that seatbelts would reduce the casualty toll on the roads so, a long while back, all new production cars were fitted with seatbelts.

Use rates were low, so a law was brought in to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory (Front seats only at that time). It’s no use having a law without sanctions for breaking it.

Usage rose, casualty figures fell.

Simples

Moggy

I strongly disagree with these opinions. Wear a seat belt if you like, it might save you from injury or death but, why does it have to be compulsory ?

This is my issue here. I wear a seat belt every time I drive, and I would be an idiot if I didn’t. The Police can advise me to wear one, but I don’t understand why I can face prosecution if I don’t bother. I’m being punished for placing myself at risk.

I don’t wish to die in a road accident, so I will wear a belt every time. When I worked for the Royal Mail I saw many of the guys in the van not bother. The logic being that for every mail bag dropped off, the ‘clunk click’ would add up to a whole extra five minutes on shift. This issue arises because the RM pay you to work a shift, say 5:30 to 14:30. Therefore you are motivated to finish at 13:00, knowing full well that that extra 1hr 30 can be spent at home, or down the pub, whilst still on the company clock. Petty. However, the post men obviously didn’t consider it a risk, though in the days of sliding side doors one of the boys had toppled a van whilst turning too quickly, not been wearing a belt, and slid out and under the still toppling van to become a dark mark on the road and little more. Again, he was the only victim of his own crime here.

Re 21

Like the others who can’t distinguish the core of an argument, you trumpet a similar line in idiocy. The examples you illustrate (for want of a better description) are examples that could, if taken to their ultimate conclusion, affect the lives of perhaps many others.

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

Re 19

Your extension of the argument borders on idiocy. Of course laws are made with the majority in mind. Seat belt law is a law made against the individual connected with an act that has no consequences that affect a majority – don’t start informing me of grieving relatives etc.

What is wrong with education ? Educating drivers to accept that it is probably better for their personal safety that they should wear a seatbelt and then leaving it at that.

It won’t have escaped your attention that there has been a recent explosion of cycling enthusiasts. By my reckoning a clear majority – in excess of 95%, wear a safety helmet. All accomplished without compulsion. I acknowledge that there was some chatter about legal compulsion but it was quietly shelved. Education did the trick.

If that can be done for the one, it can be done for the other.

Most of you appear to me to be just a whit too keen to surrender control of your personal lives to Big Brother – the State. The State delights in control – it doesn’t always do so for the best motives.

Nanny, nanny, nanny. Don’t drink too much; don’t eat too much; don’t smoke; don’t fornicate without a ‘skin’; don’t sit in the Sun; wear a seatbelt; don’t eat an apple or anything else while driving; do what we tell you; we know best.

And most of you act like sheep !

It’s a bad law. It removes personal choice. Any law that removes personal choice is a bad law. Am I beginning to get thru’ ?

“I’m sorry son, but I want you to experience the joy of being a free man and not oppressed by bad laws. Yes, I know we’re doing 90 mph (another bad law?) but take that damn seat belt off now!…”

I’m sure there are many who would say that not allowing them to drink and then drive, while they are over the limit, is also against their rights of freedom of choice and is a bad law.