Safe Speed Forums

No, I wouldn't like to see that and I do see the paralells. There is actually talk of imposing a "health tax" on junk foods (and other things that are bad for you) so that these go to the health service to offset the cost of treatment in later years. The trouble is, you could eat 2 burgers in a day and lead an exemplary life for the next 6 months... Pretty impossible to enforce but I think the tax idea has some merit. Possibly make the companies peddling that sh1te pay some of their profits towards it too?





Aye, but this has already been discussed. The numbers of people doing this are tiny compared to the number of people driving. If the cost of treating climbing injuries got anywhere near car injuries, I expect something WOULD be done! Besides, you need to offset the costs wit hthe benefits to society as well. If we weren't allowed to do ANYTHING, the costs of mental helthcare would probably rocket!




NO! The problem is people taking the pi55 out of socialised healthcare! If we all used it responsibly, I think the resources would last out a lot better. I really don't fancy the American healthcare model because from what I've seen, it tends to lead to widespread over-treatment. We are beginning to see a bit of it over here with private healthcare companies being very keen to take on high turnover, quick procedures but you watch them as soon as they get someone really ill - dump them STRAIGHT on the NHS! Besides, I'm not sure I'd like to be poor AND ill in the US!





I'd be interested to see the references. I found exactly the opposite quote on the EuroNCAP website! Again, it's worth bearing in mind that American airbags are rather more forceful in their deployment than European ones (and they come out further). Also, you seem to always imply (and maybe I'm getting this worng here), that all these safety devices CAUSE the injuries. I think it would be fairer to look at the alternatives. If you don't hit your glasses on the airbag, what WOULD you have hit them on? The steering wheel? No thanks!

Well, by the same token somebody could normally use a seat belt and just forget about it (or decide not to use it) on one particular occasion. Should that make him exempt from getting the fine if we're going down the "rules are rules and they're for your own good" path?



So it's O.K. for a small number of people to burden the NHS (and thus all of us) by deliberately placing themselves at risk then? That sort of like saying "Oh, we won't punish him too severely because he only murdered one person, not a dozen."

And once again, look at smoking. By the government's own statistics the number of people who die from smoking-related diseases each year is manyfold greater than the total number of people who die on the roads, belted or otherwise.

So if something becomes so much of a burden that it should be controlled to prevent others from having to foot the bill, why wasn't the sale, manufacture, and importation of tobacco products simply banned outright years ago?



Only when they can and do, which is proven to be the case with both seat belts and air bags.



Yes, you might. Or you might not hit them on anything. Nobody can know in advance whether he'll be better of worse off with a belt or an air bag. That's one fundamental reason why the use of either should be a matter of personal choice.

which would be why this discussion is still running... despite citing having "lots" of references to prove your case you then state nobody can know whether they'll be better of with or without.

Am I alone in finding this a strange thread. Statistically a properly adjusted seat belt will reduct the likelihood of injury in the vast majority of accidents. Of course there will be exceptions, just as if you drove on completely bald tyres there would be some occassions when the grip with no tread would be better than the grip with tread, say on a completely dry and very smooth surface. You could say that if you stop at a red traffic light, there may be a circumstance when you'll get run into from behind, so let's not stop at red lights. After all, there will be many times when you'll not get crashed into if you just drive across on red.
I can't understand why anyone would argue for a statistical minority case over a statistical majority case in terms of personal safety. You want to risk going out through the windscreen? If you do then you must be nuts!

Yeah, but that's a good case to end compulsion.

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

only if considered in isolation; if considered alongside Cooperman's point:

the case is blown out of the water?

_________________
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.

Fair logic, but the bit I have emboldened isn't true.

The benefit is of the order of 10% (reduced likelihood of death). I do have sound science to back that up. I know exactly which scientific paper it was in, but I don't recall the title or the author. Stand by while I have a rummage...

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

...you haven't signed the petition paul ?

something must be stoppng you. what is it ?

Are we in danger of getting a confused argument here?
We say that speed cameras are bad because they address, at best, 5% of accident causation and that it's the 95% case that should be addressed and legislated for.
With seat belt legislation, however, there seems to be a point of view which is saying that although seat belts may reduce the chance of injury or death in a high percentage of accidents, let's not bother about that, but change the legislation to address the small percentage of crashes where it may be better not to wear a belt and thus accept that casualties caused by not wearing belts may increase.
You can't have it both ways.

How about individual choice for the driver? We won't force you but don't wear one at your own peril. You have only yourself to hurt.

PS. I saw a wicked sign someone painted on the back of a speed camera on the way to Aylesbury, £

Nice one mate

_________________
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.

There's no contradiction there. Nobody knows what type of accident, if any, he will be in before it happens. That doesn't alter the fact that in some of those accidents a belt can make things worse.

You might decide to buckle up and then get in an accident where that belt kills you. You might decide to not buckle up and then get in an accident where the belt might have saved you. Or you might make the "correct" decision where being buckled or not left you with fewer injuries. (And let's face it -- You might be unlucky enough to be in crash in which it really isn't going to make one darn bit of difference either way.)

Let me pose another scenario. You get some illness or suffer some injury, and statistics show you have only a 40% chance of survival without surgery. But the figures also show that of those who elect to have the surgery, 40% of them don't make it through the operation. (Play with the figures up or down if you wish.)

Should the law come along and say that because the percentages are generally in your favor that you should be forced to undergo surgery?

Absolutely.

1) The science isn't good enough to suggest that there ISN'T a net benefit - so the Safe Speed approach is 'no change'.
2) Many people consider the systematic benefit of seat belts to be 'obvious' and I'm not prepared to paint myself as 'anti-safety' without incontrovertible evidence.
3) I suspect that there IS a net benefit from seat belts, although it is small.

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

So, lets cut to the chase.

Paul1966, answer me this.

Which is your preference.
a) Possible whiplash.
b) Possible death.

Just take your pick and end this silly debate.

If you wish to debate the compulsion aspect, i dunno about anyone else, but i think thats for a different thread.

_________________
"Safety" Scamera Partnerships;
Profitting from death and misery since 1993.

Believe nothing- Question everything.

Sigh!!!!

The National Lottery was MADE for people like you! The vast majority of people will never win the jackpot but despite the statistical evidence they STILL keep buying the tickets!

For some bizarre reason, I guess the same perverse logic must apply to not wearing a belt. You'd prefer to take your chances based on a LESS likely outcome!

Sorry to harp on here but I think this is crucial:

What I think it would be fairer to say is:

"You might decide to buckle up and then get in an accident where that belt kills you AND not wearing a belt would have left you better off".

I doubt there would be that many accidents in which BOTH those conditions were satisfied.

Put another way, when a belt kills you, it's usually because it has exerted enough force on you to have done so. The forces are generated by you stopping suddenly so they'd be the same forces REGARDLESS what stopped you - be it the dash, windscreen, airbag or a combination!

We don't know that.

It might be 'usually' because the belt contributes to risk taking, 'usually' because the belt contributes to poor observation or 'usually' because the belt holds you in place while some other part of the vehicle squashes you. (Or several other scenarios.)

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

Nope - that's exactly what this thread was always about - compulsion.

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

Ok OK!!!

How about "When a belt kills you, the mechanism by which it has done so is usually..."

Otherwise we could say that radial tyres and disc brakes are bad because they too can contribute to risk taking!

I think seat belts are a special case because they might contribute to an excessive sense of security without any increase in the ability to avoid a crash.

Radial tyres and better brakes might increase confidence, but they also deliver a compensating increase in the ability to avoid a crash.

The truth is we just don't know enough about the psychological effect of seat belts to be sure, and to make matters worse, we think we can see a substantial risk increase to pedestrians when compulsion came in.

At the end of the day, there's nothing here that I could place a bet on (either way).

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

I am pretty sure now that seat belts (in me anyway) play no part in the risk compensation thing - athough they may have done so at law transition stage (I was not a weearer of belts typically on local roads, though used to buckle up when I got to the motorway back in the 70s).