Safe Speed Forums

Don't get me wrong, I'm not syaing I agree with the findings (it wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with findings of research commissioned by DfT )! That said, ABS is designed primarily WITH the "numptie" in mind! My wife is the same - she has no interest in driving and therefore no interest in finding out how her car works (ABS or otherwise)! In fact, after moaning for several days that her aircon didn't work, I tactfully suggested that she tried turning it to face vents rather than footwells! The point is that one day, a kid might run out in front of my wife
(or your girlfriend) while they are driving slowly and carefully on a wet bend and they WILL plant their foot on the brakes as hard as they can. If they have ABS, they MIGHT miss the kid AND steer round the bend. If they don't, they probably won't manage both. Ironically, in my experience, the people who "up their driving" are normally those who could actually stop better than the ABS anyway! That said, this is less true nowadays and is being addressed by major manufacturers starting to fit "brake assist"-type technologies - precisely because most people ARE numpties (and I count myself in the braket too)!




If Paul's arguments went ONLY along the lines of "I hate seat belts and I hate authority. I don't want to wear my seat belt because it's not comfy and I hate being told what to do and anyway, I've heard of a few freak accidents where they made matters worse", I'd be a lot more supportive. As it is, he seems to be (to my mind at least) being a little disingenuous in his arguments by saying that seat belts CAUSE serious injuries - in much that same way as I could fall off a cliff, get caught by a rescuer and hauled back up and then start moaning that the resucuer sprained my wrist!




I'm 100% behind you here mate! Speaking as someone who regularly goes to sea in a little fibreglass tub!



Ah, but is that true? If you go up a mountain totally unprepared and having exerted your "right" to eschew every sensible precaution and bit of safety equipment that accepted wisdom suggests you use and you get into trouble, you COULD put the lives of the mountain rescue chappies / SAR chopper etc at risk when the go looking for you or maybe even someone else's life becuase they're already out looking for you! Similarly, if I put to sea without taking sensible precautions, I could be putting the lifeboat crrews in danger - or some other boat's crew.




I think Smeggy's already answered this one - it's about "balance". I don't think we can treat this with absolutes. If the number of people going to sea ill-prepared and ill-equipped gets too large, I would fully expect to see the government taking steps (initially) to regulate it and impose minimum standards of trianing and then (if that didn't work) to ban it altogether. Which would clearly be a great shame

As the majority of accidents in which a motorcycle is involved are caused by car drivers then cars should be banned; following logic of course

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

Aye, that's a fair comment (I think!) - I have no idea whether it can be verified with the accident data but I'd very much LIKE to think it was the case and if it is, it's definitely the argument I was looking for!

Aye, the vast majority of motorcycle accidents are either caused by a third party, or by inexperienced bikers, notably including the 'born-again' crowd, on powerful bikes but with little recent experience or currency, riding low hours-per-year. Mid-corner is not the place for some 50-year-old-on-a-Busa's 'sensible' bone to kick in!

Forgive the formattinig but I'm crap at cut/paste/quote unless it's simple so I'm in blue...

"So why are we are given the choice to wear a helmet on a cycle?
We were very close to having this one forced upon us."

Yes, and a sad day that will be for freedom of choice when it happens, as undoubtedly it will. I wear one anyway, but again it would be nice to have the choice. (just like seat belts)"

"Why are we given the freedom to drink as much as we want?
Why are we given the freedom to smoke our heads off?
These were ingrained into society before their effects were properly researched. Besides, the users of these drugs substantially make up for their burden with the enormous tax/duty they pay which is (indirectly) used for their care"

I'm sure you'd agree that ingrained doesn't make it okay. The negative effects of smoking and drinking were known about before I was a twinkle in my dads eye. Research didn't need to be done into drink to know how bad it is. Once the demon has shown its true colours why not legislate it out of existence? Is it money or because they care about us? I don't see this country as being run by philanthropists so I'm inclined to think it's money. If it is money, then attack the plethora of other risky things we do which costs us dearly. If it is because you love me then attack the plethora of things which you can make safer for me. Better still, leave me alone to make my own choice.

"Why am I allowed to swim in lake Windermere even though I'm a useless swimmer?
Who is to know you are a useless swimmer? How would that be policed?" (how are seatbelts currently policed? "By enlarge, they're not) Besides, useless swimmers generally don’t take large risks by swimming in such lakes," (Useless drivers drive.) "unless they are trying to become better swimmers - a benefit for many reasons."


I'm really not trying to be controversial; I simply see hypocrisy in favouring one safety feature or legislation but not in other walks of life which are arguably much worse. It's an infringement of our rights; not to be able to choose for ourselves. We have the right to kill or maime ourselves; always have, always will. By not wearing a seatbelt I stand only to hurt myself, (maybe inconvinence some others but I pay my taxes), and the burden to society is no worse, or maybe even better, than many other pursuits we choose to partake in.

Comparisons can and always have been used; they are all not bad. Some are valid, others are not.

_________________
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.

When they more or less form the sole basis for an argument then they are invalid.
A robust argument should stand up on its own. The argument against wearing a seatbelt in a car, as has been demostrated amply in this thread, does not. Thus, the proponents are forced to either:
Argue by comparison - if I can do X why can't I do Y..total bollox as discussed.
Assertion of a point of principle, albeit a rather petty one in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
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.

Ah, so a person should have the freedom to choose to place himself at risk by riding a motorcycle around just for the thrill of it? What about legislating for his own good, and for the burden he might place on society (e.g. the NHS) if he is injured?

What if I (or anyone else) finds it pleasurable to drive around a car without being strapped into it, thereby (arguably) placing myself at greater risk? How is that any different?

Many people enjoy driving classic cars around just for pleasure (myself included, although unfortunately I don't have one at the moment). It's perfectly legal to drive one of those old belt-less cars around. Would you have that banned as well, because the increased risk to myself and/or extra burden upon society?




No! This is one of the great deceptions. There is absolutely no firm proof that the seatbelt law has provided a net benefit to society as a whole. The figures which are used to support the law are so flawed as to be worthless, and ignore other aspects which undoubtedly had an effect on statistics -- Like the coincidence of the belt law in 1983 with a massive campaign against drunken driving that I mentioned several pages ago.



Precisely one of the points I've tried to make but which some people don't seem to see.

Just how far down this slippery slope are you all willing to go? Maybe you want to live a police state where you can be fined for eating the "wrong" food, wearing the "wrong" clothing, not going to bed at a sensible hour, refusing immunizations, or any one of hundreds of other things which are arguably for the net benefit of society.



Like riding a motorcycle just for the thrill of it, for example?

So you'd be in favour wearing helmets in a car, like rally drivers?

If they made a saftey feature which has 12 inches of polystyrene around your vehicle you'd be in favour of that? Where do you draw the line?

_________________
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.

Just think how many pedestrian injuries might be prevented if we made everyone wear a padded suit and a crash helmet to walk down the street.

I wear a seat belt, I wear a helmet both on the motorbike and cycle but I would like to have the choice.

I see it more as you can't eat apples but we will let you eat pears.

_________________
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 was already a proposal to make bicycle helmets mandatory for children last year. Fortunately, it went no further, but you can pretty much guarantee this won't be the last we hear of it. If that gets into legislation, you can guarantee it won't be too long before another proposal will be made to extend the law to adults as well. This is already the situation in Australia and New Zealand, where incidentally, objections on the grounds of personal freedom of choice were shot down by using the seatbelt and motorbike helmet laws as precedent.


I can give you the statistics on that as they apply to me. I've been a seatbelt outlaw for 24 years. Granted, some of that time has been spent driving old vehicles with no belts anyway, and some was spent living in a jurisdiction which had no primary belt enforcement law, but in all that time I have received something in the order of six, maybe seven tickets, and been stopped and "let off" a similar number of times.

I can be very precise about the last few years. Since returning to Britain in 1996 I have been stopped for no belt precisely three times, and been ticketed on two of those occasions, once about 10 years ago, the just over 1 year ago (and the cop very much gave me the impression that he too would have sent me on my way without a citation had it not been Norfolk's "Seat Belt Enforcement Month"). Orders from above, no doubt.

Exactly. Having a safety feature in a road car just because (by comparison) it works in rally car is nonsensical isn't it?
Thanks for proving my point albeit inadvertently

_________________
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 I may lighten the mode just for a moment. In America I once bought a book from a Thrift shop, (second hand shop) and inside someone wrote a little passage I still remember...

"There was a very cautious man who never romped or played.
He never drank he never smoked or even kissed a maid.
The day that he passed-on his insurance was denied
for if he never lived, they said, then how could he have died"

_________________
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, they can see it perfectly well for what it is - a specious argument. The fact that there are some things that one cannot or should not legislate for/against is no basis against which to make direct comparisons with legislation which it IS sensible to have.



Quite. Argument by comparison - total garbage isn't 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.

Nope, the point I made was quite valid. Maybe you don't know what I do for a living but, amongst the many other maladies I see, I have seen head injury victims from car accidents. So if it works in a rally car then why not then in a road car? Why wouldn't you want it to be made a legal requirement too if it leads to greater safety?

It's a comparison I make because I've seen it for myself and I know they wouldn't be in a wheel chair, or worse, if they'd been wearing one. Have you ever seen someone with half their head missing? I have. It's quite shocking the first time you see it.

I cannot do more than 70mph here because it's deemed dangerous but I can do 80mph in France so is it dangerous? Another comparison which holds up I think.

_________________
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.

Now whilst I agree with you on the principle of not being forced to do something, I do take exception to this! Riding bikes is NOT taking needless risks and it DOES achieve a lot!

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

:yesyes:

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

I don't doubt that wearing a crash helemt in a road car may have some benefits but thats not the point I'm making.
Can anyone think of any valid reasons why it would be a bad idea to have everyone wearing a crash helmet in a road car? Would those reasons outweight the good ones? Probably? Certainly? Would those negative reasons carry less weight BECAUSE there is legislation mandating the use of a seatbelt and therefore we can't, by comparison, have one without the other?
The seatbelt law stands on its own two feet ergo its good. Crash helmets in a road car probably wouldn't stand up to scrutiny therefore its not good. See?

_________________
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.

It'd make it more difficult to use my mobile...

edited to add: If it was a full-face, it'd be more difficult to eat my sarnies and have a drink and a fag as well...

_________________
Pecunia Prius Equitas et Salus

That shoots a hole in your argument that we must legislate for people's own good and/or for a net benefit to society though. Whatever A and B may be, if you're going to apply that logic to A, then how can you not also apply it to B?



Would anyone argue that a motorcycle rider is far more vulnerable and much more likely to be injured in a collision than somebody in a car?

So, if the state is to legislate against taking unnecessary risk, why should you be allowed to ride a motorcycle when you would be much safer in a car?

As far as I'm concerned, of course, you have every right to take that riskier option of riding a motorcycle, and of doing so with no helmet and just wearing your pajamas if you want. I'm just making the comparison, which is a valid one.