Safe Speed Forums

Oh sure..... But do you really think that there are no financial reasons behind many of the seat belt laws?

In America, many states have passed mandatory belt laws not because there was any call for them directly, either from the people as a whole or the state legislators, but simply because the government made it a condition for receiving federal highway funding -- Pass a seat belt law, or we cut your funding. New Hampshire is now the only remaining state with no compulsory adult belt law.

This is exactly the same federal blackmail which was used to implement the 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s. The Feds had no legal authority to demand (by legislation) that states introduce the limit, so they just withdrew funding from any state which refused to cooperate.



But the arguments you're using to support compulsory belt use are (a) we must force people to protect themselves for their own good, and (b) it benefits society as a whole (e.g. NHS costs).

What difference does it make whether the harm occurs in a few seconds or over a long period of time?



Yes. But that in no way negates the arguments I've put forward against compulsory belt use.

Essentially, YES! If you want to reduce this to such simple terms, that's the kind of answer you're forcing me to give. Answer me this. Howmany standees were killed or seriously injured on urban buses in the UK this year? In fact, how many were injured in the same circumstances last year? ...and the year before that?

Now answer me this:

How many people would be screaming if the government DID abolish standing places on public transport and "forced" us to wear seat belts on buses "for our own good" on the basis of no real evidence that there's a problem???! (would I be doing you a big injustice by assuming you'd be somewhere near the front of the queue)??? You can't have it both ways!



That's because you're expecting a "yes" or a "no" to a problem that is too complex for a"yes" or a "no " answer.

Speaking as a fat person who doesn't take enough excercise and has a desk job with a lot of stress, I'm clearly NOT very enthusiastic about a government-mandated diet. On the other hand, I am also conscious of my moral obligaitions to the society in which I live. I would not, therefore, be ENTIRELY averse to exploring the idea of a reasonable amount of tax on junk food / extreme sports equipment / etc - in the same way as fags and booze are treated now...

...BUT ONLY IF IT GOT DIRECTLY SPENT ON THE COSTS INCURRED IN FIXING SUCH PROBLEMS AS MIGHT BE CAUSED BY THOSE LIFESTYLE DECISIONS. (as opposed to being frittered away on (say) ridiculous wars).



I think my views on that are already well known and if not, see above!

Believe me, I would wholeheartedly support your right to not wear a seat belt IF I could think of a way of you doing it that would guarantee that nobody esle would loose out as a result of your decisions. In much the same way, I would like to excercise my "right" to drive on the wrong side of the road whenever I felt like it but I accept that if we live in a society, we need to abide by generally accepted rules / conventions / etiquette or it will simply become impossible.

How am I trying to have it both ways? Yes, I would certainly be there complaining about belts being made compulsory on buses. In fact this is already in the pipeline with new EU directives due to be implemented in 2009.

In case you'd forgotten, there were quite a number of people "screaming" about the imposition of the car seat belt law as well. That included several prominent M.P.s, from as far apart in the political spectrum as Enoch Powell and Michael Foot (although as Prof. Adams sets out in his paper, possibly for slightly different reasons).



Well, we might be finding some common ground there. Next thing, you'll be suggesting that all the money collected in road tax should be spent on the roads -- Now there's a "radical" idea!

Sorry, I think I took your comment about "...but the people who might get hurt while standing on a bus can go hang just because they are far fewer in number?.." a bit too literally, I guess!


Incidentally, I'd be very interested (in fact positively disturbed!) if you could point me in the direction of any new EC law that is going to mandate wearing and / or fitment of belts to urban buses in 2009! (as I'm involved with the bus industry and it could seriously affect our business)!



Lots of people scream for lots of reasons (for AND against) whenever a law is introduced. So what?

...and yes, I think road tax should be spent on roads - but it's not that radical, it's been moaned about for years!

I remember reading something about it when the new child-seat laws came into effect last year. I was more concerned with the car aspects at the time and didn't pay too much attention to the bus side, but as I recall it was a proposal to make the use of belts (where fitted) compulsory.

I'll try and dig out the reference.

No it's Ok ta. I know about that one. It's the "where fitted" that gets urban buses off the hook and there are no plans for that in the forseeable future within the EC.

I'd already found the applicable ruling anyway: It's directive 2003/20/EC, the same one which was responsible for the change in the child seat laws last September, and the same one which has now made it completely illegal for the youngest children to ride in classic cars at all.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/s ... l=guichett

The forum software doesn't seem to like the link, whether I add separate descriptive text or just leave it as is. You'll have to copy & paste.

Yeah, it has trouble with the ! character.

You can use www.tinyurl.com to generate a redirect with a clean address string.

I've done it with yours: Link

Thanks!

Just received through one of my groups:




http://www.whas11.com/news/local/storie ... fbe8d.html

The problem is that for every one of these there may well be ten of these:another thread


My point being: you can't quote single articles/events as and when then occur and expect overall support your position.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

whatever....

Honestly Paul, I'd thought better of you! I thought we'd agreed that quoting individual incidents was pretty meaningless in what is essentially a statistical game! Several pages ago you were quick to cast doubt on the words of a coroner when it suited your purpose and now all of a sudden the eyewitness account of Mr. Skaggs is worthy of mention!

Tsch ..tsch...


Incidentally, I thought of you today! I got e-mailed a new EC proposal for making Emergency Brake Assist mandatory on passenger cars!

Ooh then there would be even more skidding around speed cameras.

_________________
Andrew.

My point in quoting that was really against those who say that such instances (i.e. where the belt would have made things are worse) are so rare as to be inconsequential ("One in a million chance.") Instances like this do appear quite regularly, which I think dispells the myth that they are so rare that they should be discounted from any argument.

On a slightly different tack, one thing I haven't thrown into the debate here yet is the inequal application of the law.

Somebody mentioned taxi drivers a while back. If belts need to be forced upon people to protect them "for their own good," then why should taxi drivers be exempt?

Does it make sense that somebody who spends his entire day driving around is not required to buckle up, but you or I are to be forced to do just to drive to the supermarket and back?

Why should police officers be exempt while carrying out their duties? Given the type of situations in which they might become involved (pursuit etc.), one could argue that they are more likely to be involved in a collision and thus need protection.

I'm afraid quoting just one instance does not do anything of the sort, it does not help your argument. Besides, even having one unbelted escape in three casualties could still warrant belts to be of overall benefit.

Except to the one-in-three people who comes out worse off. You're back to the government playing Russian Roulette with people's lives, which it has no right to do.

I do understand and appreciate your point, but would doing otherwise be allowing you to play the same game?

My overall point being: we should try to determine the odds so we can make an informed decision - that's why I cannot justify signing your petition. I suspect others see it the same way. So far 5 people have signed it; one of those is you, another is critical feedback.

Basing road safety policy on cherry-picked examples is what got us into this mess in the first place (see my sig below).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

But before I can take a statement like that seriously, I'd need to have some reasonable degree of proof that the belted occupants would have been better off unbelted and that the unbelted occupant would NOT have been better off belted.

As far as your comments on taxi drivers etc are concerned, it will doubtless come as no surprise to you if I say that I can't for the life of me see why they should be entitled to an exemption either!

Individual opinions and experiences on the effects of wearing seatbelts are really quite unimportant. What matters is that the decisions made from the research and 'official' figures over enforcing the wearing of seatbelts (or forcing motorcyclists to wear helmets or banning mountain climbing) has a positive benefit on the rest of society.

So far no-one has managed to convince me that enforcing seatbelt use does that. Indeed, I have read work that suggests there is some evidence that the numbers killed after the legislation was passed has not fallen significantly and John Adams, in his book 'Risk', suggests that more of the dead are now outside the vehicle rather than inside it.

We (as part of 'society') only need to decide if that is acceptable.

At the risk of getting into a circular argument, and in Paul_1966's defence, (not that he needs it), we can say that cyclists would absolutely be better off if we made them dress up like an American footballer - but we don't!

Well, why not? They would be safer, just as you are safer in your car with a seat belt apparently.

Cyclists can get up to speeds of 45+ mph wearing no more than a pair of shorts, legally, but they are given the choice. I'm not sure what the difference is between coming off a cycle at 45 mph or a moped at the same or less speed but it appears that one requires a helmet and the other doesn't for some strange reason.

For me, what Paul has highlighted is the skewed side of laws for one thing, without any proper research or consent, but not laws in other walks of life. And I'm sure there are plenty more similar anomalies we could come up with.

_________________
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 totally agree with this. I nearly died on the M62 last week, slowing down to 50mph and every other fuxxor ignoring me, and if I had a seatbelt on I would have died (not that any accident manifested, cos of my COAST skills).

But 'cos I didn't have a seatbelt on, I didn't die, 'cos GOD decided that my being so hard and all, not wearing one, testing my belief, meant I SURVIVED.

It was GOD what DID IT!

I am ALIVE TODAY because of GOD and the SEATBELT LAW!!! (and terminal speeding signage laws too).

Shalom