Safe Speed Forums

Because road safety policy is aimed at saving lives and cannot possibly be based on anything as fragile as personal dogma or comparison with other activities.



So was I, but you'd already taken the last thing so I had to opt for the second to last

_________________
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.

And so the wheel turns....

There is some dispute about the benefit to 'road safety' of the effectiveness of seatbelts. Rather as there is here as to the effectiveness of speed cameras.

Or would you rather disagree with that too?

So its not a pointt of principle then its a question of the safety benefits? Back and forth as each argument is punched to the canvas, we switch to the other one, I mean for crying out flamin' loud, how much more of this drivel is there going to be

There are small mutterings of discontent about the effectiveness of seatbelts, mostly it seems uttered by principled fools who are looking for a straw to clutch at in their argument against being forced by the horrid horrid government to wear one when when they drive on the public highway. Most sensible people accept them as valuable safety devices.

There is no comparison at all with the evidence that can be levelled against speed cameras, evidence we can see with our own eyes each time we drive on the roads and watch behaviour around and away from them.

So no, I'm not going to disagree with that too

_________________
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.

Is that an ad hominim attack or your 'properly developed sense of perspective'?

So other than your 'personal dogma' you have no reason to deny others their own choice?

While here there are actually 'mutterings of disconent' (I think you meant to write discontent') about the effectiveness of speed cameras the majority of the public (and certainly the government) appear to disagree.

There is. My guess is that there's >10% probablity that the seatbelt legislation has caused a net loss of life.

But that leaves a ~85% probability that there has been a net benefit.

I'm more worried that there has been a net loss of life amongst certain groups. I suspect that skilled drivers may be just such a group. As per this post in this thread

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

I don't disagree that there have been some lives saved by seatbelts. But having read work by Adams his arguments are fairly compelling.

It is more the compulsion to wear them and the (occasionally perhaps) false sense of security (some) drivers will feel because they are told about how they are 'safer' that bothers me.

I do have more than the stated reasons to deny other (I think you meant to write others) their own choice. The reasons have been documented extensively in this thread.

_________________
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 agree with this. Pretty much the first tenet of the Health and Safety at Work Act is that EVERYONE is responsible for their own H&S and that of those around them. It is not just the responsibility of, to use one of your examples, a fairground operator to ensure your safety - it is both his AND yours. Both must take all reasonable measures to promote safety.

It is for this reason that ALL roadusers must contribute to road safety and not just motorists.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Yes of course. An employer must take steps to guard the safety of anyone who may be affected by his/her activities (not just employees) AND the employee or others must co-operate, that too is enshrined in the act.
The points was we as indivuals are not always uniquely responsible for taking steps to ensure our own safety, others are often involved in the process.

_________________
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.

If you read my post, rather than selectively choose bits from it, you will see it is in fact an explanation for the behaviour of specified individuals.



My father in law has.

Similarly he insists that we leave the key in the door, or very near to it, when we are asleep. He's found bodies behind doors, burned to death, inches from safety. This is not a policy argument, it's a "good practice" argument. I respect his advice, as it was learned through very hard lessons.

The best teacher may be experience, a fool accepts no other teacher.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

That figure of mine you have quoted is only informed guesswork (as noted above).

It's impossible to draw any truly firm conclusion on present data, and we're left only with probabilities and guesswork. Of course, that may be a good reason to repeal the seat belt legislation. It's failed to prove itself in over 20 years.

But like most folk here, I suspect on balance that it has done good.

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

That's a wriggle and it's crap and you know it.

It was YOU that used the 'emotional blackmail' argument.

You could have said: "I value his experience", which would have made the point you are now claiming very well.

Let's take that one bit at a time:



'I don't suppose'... That's YOU speaking...
'Paul 6 has ever'... and aiming at another poster...
'scraped up the remains of a human'... emotional blackmail

The prosecution rests, your honour.

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

I'm quite happy with the content of the post above, but since there is a possibility that it could be misconstrued, I have PM'd Handy and assured him that I intend no offence.

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

Ok, it may be emotive but does that make it invalid?

We are supposed to belong to a mature and advanced society within which we all have certain rights but often conveniently forget our responsibilities - or at least elevate our rights above them.
The job of clearing up after motor vehicle crashes must place a certain amount of stress and trauma on the emergency services and even the most steadfast and obdurate of individuals must be affected by what they see. Sure, these people choose to do their jobs, but it would be a very crass society which, as a collective, chose to dismiss their feelings out of hand; we should instead be thankful that someone wants to put themselves in their position.
So anything that society can do to ameliorate the situation must be a good thing surely? OK, so a few people have their 'rights' over-ridden in the process but, as my mum used to say when my brother got the last ice-cream and there was none left for me.....Tough!

_________________
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'm sure that seatbelts have indeed saved some careless drivers from becoming ex-drivers but I have not seen any work that shows the compulsion to wear seatbelts to be a common good, but I have read work (by Adams) that suggests the numbers 'saved' are not as great as the proponents of the belts would like to believe.

I remain a full supporter of the individuals right to choose whether they wear a belt or not.

If road safety policy is intended to overcome the huge tragedies of death and life-changing injuries, I think that road safety policy can afford to neglect the sensibilities of the cleaners uppers. In short it makes no real difference to the important work of saving lives.

Of course if the cleaner uppers need support, we should give it to them, but that's entirely a different objective and a different argument.

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

A second-hand story (so I know that makes this invalid by my own criteria) but I have a mate, a long time biking buddy, who is a paramedic. I remember asking him once how he felt about gory RTA's.

His reply? "It's what I've trained for"

Agreed. But, and its a big theoretical 'but' because there are a whole gamut of other factors, if it boiled down to a simple question of rights i.e. that of the individual to chose not to wear a belt versus that of the cleaner upper to have the need for support reduced, I'd choose the latter any day.
But you're probably not surprised to read that are you?

_________________
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.

Are you having a laugh? Did you completely bypass the last three pages of this thread? I explained why many times. You never acknowledged any of those explanations. Go back and read please!


No! People are in no way (genuinely) inconvenienced by belting up, the same can’t be said for classic car owners who would stand to lose their car.
I don’t know why you keep bringing this example up. I’ve already demonstrated how classics are a worthy exception, which you didn’t dispute.


Apart from the fact you would get no funding for it. Besides, that applies to private land only - people can drive on private land without belting up – including you. People have much more freedom on private land, that may seem inconsistent to you but it is in fact the lesser of a huge and obvious evil (please don't tell me that I have to explain this too).


It’s not that subjective. Repeating myself - yet again:
Restrictive: what bodily car control function is impaired by belting up and by how much?
Uncomfortable: There is a defining characteristic which creates discomfort, that’s how you notice it. So, in what way do you feel uncomfortable? What part of your body is uncomfortable? What do you notice? You can’t just say ‘it is’ and just expect us to believe it (especially given your form on this debate).


You had better run for the hills because there’s a heckofalot the government forces us to do, that’s why they’re government – they ‘govern’.
Have you ceased arguing the supposed dangers?


Nethertheless, you can’t dismiss the fact that the general consensus is that non-belters will be forcing everyone else to pay for their utterly needless risk. Does this outweigh our freedom to choose? Considering the scale of the consequences: Yes! In fact I would now insist upon it, especially after consideration of the issues raised in this thread; so does the rest of society judging by the failure of the petition. That alone “demonstrates the strength of public feeling” !

Actually it might be more valid than you think.
The attending emergency services will be able to make a much better judgement of the situation than you or I ever could having read the event filtered/coloured by the press, perhaps even by politics.

Moreover, Handy’s description implies the 'human' was no longer in the vehicle – somehow insufficiently restrained and ejected.......