Safe Speed Forums

I'm not saying that motorcyclists are not vulnerable or more likely to be injured - I was questioning your use of "needless risks"...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

People still get hurt in cars...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

O.K., assume you have both a car and a motorcycle standing outside and you need to make a journey. It's a nice day, you don't need to haul a lot of stuff back, so you decide to take your motorcycle.

You could make the same journey in the car and -- statistically -- be safer. So isn't your decision to take the motorcycle a needless risk when you have the safer alternative available?

If I had a new and an old car standing outside, one with belts, one without, I could have a similar decision. In that case, the law says I'm free to choose to drive the old car without belts. Yet I'm not free to decide whether or not to use the belts if I take the newer vehicle.

But it's also untrue if you go extremely well prepared. Unforeseen or unforseeable circumstances may still require a dangerous rescue operation.

So I think the argument you are presenting is one about 'reasonable behaviour' - where risk is managed, rather than 'unreasonable behaviour' where risk is ignored.

The risk of causing harm to others is there even with excellent preparation.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

Indeed they do. But the law hasn't banned them because of that risk.

That's kind of the point. People accept the risks of an auto wreck every time they get in a car, and the law allows them to do that. Everything we do in life has some degree of risk, and people assess the potential dangers and decide for themselves whether the potential benefits of an activity outweigh the possible harmful effects. Why should belts and helmets be any different?

I still don't like this "needless risk" term. How about you need to make a journey either in your old car (without seatbelts) or your new car - or you could walk. Which of these methods of transport is the least risky?

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

They shouldn't! You're right.

I know I may come across like a dog with a bone here, but I really don't understand why people are not more concerned with government intervention and the seat belt law is exactly that. The car is fitted with a belt and I should be able to choose to use it or not at my own peril.

It's an option, just like the cigarette lighter or the radio. The belt may save my face or give me whiplash just as twiddling with the radio may distract me and get me into even worse trouble, but we don't outlaw radios, MP3, Sat Navs etc. These are the chances we all take. I am responsible for my own actions.

Most people would wear seatbelts anyway even if there was no law IMHO. If the few who didn't then got into an accident the price they pay would be far worse than any financial burden to us (please believe me on that one). Furthermore, when the minority of drivers opposed to belts start to see people or graphic images on programs with drivers faces smashed-in they would be inclined to wear the belts anyway I think. I prefer education to legislation and this is my beef about seat belts - not their effectiveness, but my rights.

Everything has risk. Do we sit at home and do nothing?

He slept beneath the moon he basked beneath the sun
He lived a life of 'going to do' and died with nothing done.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

What a thread!


Oh yes, it genuinely would be ‘nice’ to choose to wear a helmet for the reasons I gave within my previous post; this doesn’t apply to seatbelts because there’s nothing ‘unnice’ about belting up (when taken on its merits).


Yes, having these ingrained does not make it right, but it does make it phenomenally difficult to remove. Besides, I gave other key differences between legal drug use and not belting up, one of which is the taxes/duty paid back into the system to compensate for the eventual additional burden. In the case of smoking/drinking, giving people the choice is a valid thing to do.


Use of seatbelts can be policed on a large scale without digging too deeply into individual cases; all the enforcing officer has to do is look. Conversely, the swimmer would have to come back to land and show their paperwork proving their ability.


There is a huge difference here. A driver who oversteps their ability can just stop; a swimmer can’t. Swimmers know they have to commit themselves if they wish to swim in waters like lakes.


There cannot be hypocrisy if a net benefit can be demonstrated where there was none otherwise.


This is an invalid comment. On average the belted up taxpayer will pay into society the same as an unbelted taxpayer, this is where the fairness ends for those belted-up.

Thread? I could knitt a jumper.

Ok then, can I say that focusing on the benefits of seatbelts but not the in-car distractions is putting cure before prevention?

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I wouldn't disagree with any of that! YES, the risk of causing harm to others is there with excellent preparation and those brave individuals who volunteer for these duties understand that better than anyone. But surely you'll agree that the risk of causing harm to othes is GREATER without the preparation? I've heard plenty of lifeboatmen and mountain rescuers come back off a "shout" and give their (private) opinions of those they have rescued as a result of their own idiocy!

Why do you have to have one and not the other?

Incidentally, you suggested advertising with photos of what happens if you don't wear a belt - that's exactly what WAS done, extensively, in the '70s. In fact these days, they probably wouldn't be able to get away with showing some of those images on primetime TV these days in this topsy-turvy world we currently inhabit!

Absolutely! What’s the point of living life if you’re not going to enjoy it?
Besides, how can one prove that someone is riding around solely for the thrill of it? (I’ve already given other legitimate non-thrill-seeking reasons).


That’s completely hypothetical. Despite me directly prompting you to demonstrate otherwise numerous times, you’ve failed to do so, so there’s no need to answer this.


Nope, this is where reasoning comes into play; see my next paragraph.
Besides, drivers are overly careful with classic cars (except that one who drove me – like I said, I never rode with him again) and don't usually (or simply cant) get up to a speed where damage could be done.
Adding seatbelts would take away from their historical character. I’m sure there would be an almighty outcry if that was enforced on classics.


Again I say this: if you don’t accept the general consensus then you should petition to determine what the real net benefit really is. Only then can you make an informed choice. Instead you're going for the other extreme.


That’s yet another strawman fallacy. Should I be reading into that?

Now now, I didn't say that. But I do remember reading in MCN that car drivers can now be distracted for up to seven seconds. Belt or no belt, that aint good.

Oh and if anyone thinks MCN exagerated I've seen it for myself many times. Just the other day I saw a woman actually texting someone on the M52

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I don't think so. You'll still be at risk from other road users (not just vehicles).



Rally drivers push the envelope infinitely harder than the typical driver. They expect to crash – regularly (they’re not pushing hard enough if they don’t), at much higher speeds, on roads nowhere near as forgiving as our tarmaced lanes - without any crash barriers. Also, their restraints are genuinely very restrictive, but then they're not expected to regularly turn around to check their blind spots. I have already stated how wearing a helmet may be genuinely discomforting.


Of course not. Firstly there’s the additional cost. Furthermore, the additional drag would add to fuel costs. My car would take up much more room on the road so I would be at an increased risk of being involved in a sideswipe (and fellow cyclists would hate me [even more]) and my car would look and handle just awful.

Or better yet: bring back the Green Cross Code.
Besides, people might prefer banning all vehicles (motorised and otherwise).

Many ideas are transferred from elsewhere. Test pilots take more risks than a motorbike but the helmet was foisted upon me just the same.

We don't drive at breakneck speeds but look how many ideas have come from F1.

Gotcha!

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

No it doesn't, I'm afraid you have become blinkered by your own obstinate and continued embattling of an untenable standpoint, and have failed to understand the arguments addressing this point that have been raised and addressed over and over again.
Sorry, but there's no easy or other way of putting it

_________________
Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical, liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

I don't see how, I don't think it matters anyway. We seemed to have deviated into dodgy comparisons (IMO, sorry Tone) away from what I believe is the nub of the issue.

Tony, Paul1966, could you directly answer the issue raised by Jeff and me in the post here.

Soz dude, I’m not sure who Jeff is and the link took me to somewhere I’m not sure is the bit you want me to see/answer but I hope I haven’t been misunderstood.

So to clarify my stance I am not, and haven’t, tried to suggest that seat belts are a curse. My viewpoint comes completely from the angle of might over right and the omnipotence of government to introduce something without consideration for my rights.

Most recently, something which I know has gotten up the noses of very many caring mothers is the latest law for childrens seats in cars, the age weight etc. of your child and where/how he/she can be restrained. (Here they go again) Any mums out there willing to say how they really feel about it here?

Long before they made yet another law I used to put my little monkey on a bolster seat and the normal seatbelt kept her in place. She was going nowhere! But nowadays I would need an all-singing all-dancing thing at goodness knows what cost.

I do understand your drift Rigpig with the silly argument analogies but I don’t think I’m guilty. Here’s a silly one I just made up.


A horse is a mammal and so am I

A horse eats grass so I must like grass.

The seatbelt law helps keeps me safe.

All laws are there to help keep me safe.


I've gotta go now, until next Wed, but I hope I have I redeemed myself a smidgen or at least put my feelings forward okay on the nanny state.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

I don't understand that either. Even if somebody thinks that seat belts are the best safety device ever invented, I can't understand why he thinks it is right for them to be forced upon a person against his will. Do you want to live in a police state in which you are not free to make your own decisions about your own well-being?



Interesting point there. Did most people wear seat belts where they were available in the 1970s? Not as I recall. Would most people in the U.K. continue to use them in 2007 if the law were repealed tomorrow? Quite probably, because they've become cajoled, threatened, and intimidated into using them and because many accept the supposed beneficial effects without question. Would there be some people who would stop wearing them? Undoubtedly.

It's noteworthy that in the U.S., even in states with primary enforcement, the reported percentages of drivers/passengers buckling up are generally lower than the figures reported in Britain.



Last time I checked, motorists pay a substantial amount of tax into the system as well, especially in the U.K. with its extortionate fuel tax. You're still saying that those who smoke or drink to excess should have that choice because of the extra tax revenue, but belts should be forced upon people for their own good and for society. So which is it really about: Safety or money?



How so? People go for pleasure drives in cars.



Are you serious? Can't get up speeds where damage could be done? As far as British law is concerned on belts, we're talking about pre-1965 cars.

Anyway, how are you going to reconcile that with all seat belt promotions about how it's just as important to buckle up driving around town at 30 mph as it is on a high-speed road?


Darn right there would, just as if the government demanded that they be fitted with ABS, disc brakes, airbags, impact bars, have signals changed from white/red to amber, and so on.

But that doesn't address the issue. If I should not be free to choose not to use belts where fitted, and if driving around unbuckled is such a danger to myself and/or such a potential burden upon society, then why should I be allowed to choose to drive a car which does not have belts? It is inconsistent.



In other words, they are choosing an activity which deliberately places them at greater risk. Rally driving, stock-car racing, and all associated sport should be completely forbidden then, surely?