Safe Speed Forums

Jeepers! Oh come on. What are you playing at? It is about both - about my money being needlessly diverted to correct for your needless lack of mitigation. It does not matter that you pay the same taxes/duty, what matters is why you should (not) be given the choice to force me to needlessly pay even more. Do you really not understand that?


Oh another one! That’s not what you were initially referring to in your previous quote (emboldened). Also, my response would have made sense had you not selectively quoted it.


Yes, classic cars are indeed a worthy exception. Forcing modern legislation upon them isn’t financially feasible, in many cases physically impossible. Many cars would be scrapped.


It might seem inconsistent to those who don’t see the bigger picture or the shades and details contained within.
Classic cars are hardly used, certainly not regularly for commuting or as a runabout; when they are used it is for show – carefully. The owners take more pride and care of their “pre-1965” cars than they do of themselves.


Another strawman. <sigh>

No, because they have mitigated for it with roll cages, cocoons, tight restrains and helmets. On top of that they have additional insurance (paid for by their sponsors) to cover the residual increase of likelihood of injury, unlike those who refuse to buckle up.

Honestly, these dodgy comparisons are doing your argument no favours.

Have you have dropped your ‘seatbelts are restrictive and uncomfortable’ claims?
Do you disagree that you should be petitioning for a review of seat-belt effectiveness rather than going straight for the cessation of compulsion?

Thanks for the clarification.

My viewpoint was Riggy’s (Jeff’s) quote of my post in the link I gave. I really would like everyone to have the right to choose, even if it is in some other way to our detriment, but not if the action is a totally needless risk (not even for fun). I would support those who didn’t buckle up so long as they took additional insurance so they can cover their needless risk themselves.
(Therein is another difference with bikers: their insurance is higher to cover their own increased risk)

Most here seem to be arguing principles – which is interesting because Laws are “the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision”.
Based on that, I would venture that ‘a good law’ is one that is accepted by the community as reasonable, and can be (and is) enforced in a reasonable manner.

If I’m right, the Seat-belt law is a good law. It’s accepted by the majority and is reasonably enforced.

Conversely, Speed Limit law is obviously a bad law.

_________________
It's tricky doing nothing - you never know when you're finished

Bingo! We have a winner!

Why do I feel a that riposte along the lines of......

"But is it actually accpeted by the community as reasonable?"

...Will be forthcoming*

* Not from you Mr Grumpy BTW.

_________________
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 think that's one of the best posts in the whole thread sir!

Mrs. Mole said:

"fine by me"!

when asked.

- but then, she's met a few poor kids who have had the misfortune to not have been adequately restrained in a car accident!

Depending on how old / heavy / tall the kid is, you might not need an all singing & dancing thing - booster cushions can be had for a fiver. If the kid is younger / shorter / lighter, an adult belt (even with a booster cushion) isn't that good an idea because small kids are pretty different to grown-ups in terms of shape and weight distribution. In particular their heads are proportionally bigger / heavier so restraining that lot against just one shoulder isn't too good an idea.

That said, a decent forward-facing child seat with an integral 5-point harness CAN be a very expensive bit of kit and it would be nice to see the government putting its money where it's mouth is and subsidising the cost of these things for parents on low incomes!

Hey Paul, you forgot to add "simply persuaded by reasoned argument" to your list!




I had heard that Americans aren't quite as fond of seat belts as Europeans! I was therefore quite surprised to have this land in my inbox the other day:

"The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), within the
the U.S. Department of Transportation, has issued Docket 2007-28793 on its approach to motorcoach (inter-city transport bus) safety. The Docket (copy attached) contains a comprehensive review of motorcoach safety issues and NHTSA's proposed course of action to address them.

The priority issues identified are:

- roof strength

- safety belts

- flammability

- emergency egress

- signage

- illumination"

I understand your logic in this basic premise, but you have not satisfactorily explained why the principle should be applied to seat belts and helmets, but not to any one of hundreds of other things.

If you decide to go hang gliding, mountain climbing, or scuba diving then why should you be able to do something which has the potential to make me pay needlessly more if you are injured? You might say that you would use appropriate safety equipment to mitigate the risks, which is fine, but there is no law which requires you to use a safety line when climbing the side of a mountain.



While I won't dispute that last point, I can certainly think of several folks around here who drive a classic car as their only vehicle, and do indeed use them as a daily runabout. I saw one such (one of the early model Morris Minors) just yesterday. Moreover, there is no law against using a beltless pre-1965 vehicle for as many miles as one wishes, is there?


And again, there is no law which requires it. If you wanted to drive a rally car without belts, harnesses, roll bars, helmets, or anything else on a private track, there is nothing legally to stop you.


Not at all, because it is obviously a subjective matter.


While I believe that a review of the effectiveness would certainly be desirable, I don't believe that it affects the basic idea that it is still a person's right to choose. As I said before, even if belts were proven lifesavers in all situations and could never be harmful, it is still none of the government's business whether an individual buckles up or not.

A good point, but anything which is accepted by the majority must also recognize the rights of the individual before being accepted as law. It's like the old adage about a pure democracy being two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.



Ah yes, and let's not forget why these new rules were introduced. EU regulations, yet again.



Fair enough, add that one. I'm not against people wearing a belt of their own free will, although personally I believe that fewer people would choose to do so voluntarily if they were presented with the full facts.



I think there's a big gulf between the the average person, even many state representatives, and the likes of the NHTSA and the lobbyists who have gotten to the federal government.

As I mentioned several pages back, many states in the U.S. got mandatory belt laws by what amounts to financial blackmail -- The Feds saying, in effect, pass the law or we cut your federal highway funding (just as they imposed the double-nickel in the 1970s). In many places the belt laws could only get through the state legislature with secondary enforcement, which means that you can be cited for no belt if you've been stopped and ticketed for something else first (speeding, running a stop sign etc.), but the cops cannot pull you over and issue a ticket just for no belt alone.

About half the states at the moment have only secondary enforcement, and proposals to convert to primary in many places have not been popular (apparently there was quite a backlash in Virginia a few months ago when this came up). Additionally, some states require only front belt use, some front & rear. Some have exemptions for all vehicles built before a certain date, even if they are fitted with belts.

Now you are just taking the piss, in fact other posters have been labelled trolls and banned for similarly ignoring everything that has been said to them and simply repeating the same tired lines ad-nauseum.
It has been satisfactorily explained over, and over and over again why your premise is fallaceous and another iteration of the same explanation is obviously futile as you clearly lack the perspicacity to understand.



Apparently the Titanic didnt sink because it was holed by an iceberg; it met a simultaneous and co-incidental rising of the sea

_________________
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 anybody else thinking "oh belt up"?

No? Just me then

_________________
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.

sort of...

Paul 1966 HAS, I have to admit, made me change position very slightly. I still have no time whatsoever for his arguments as to the relative safety merits of belts vs. no belts (and that's putting it politley!) but I DO have a bit more time for his "right to choose" argument. If I could think of a way of letting people do this without inconveniencing the rest of the society in which they live, I'd be happy enough to sign the petition. Here in the UK, we have "free" healthcare that everyone (pretty much) contributes to the cost of. To my mind it is therefore morally wrong to expect other people to take the burden of your decisions. In the 'States, the healthcare system is very different and I guess that as long as you're paying for the outcome of your decisions (either directly or via an increased insurance premium) well, good luck to you!

I think I have mentioned before on this forum that my father in law was a fireman before he retired.

He will not allow anyone in his car to be unbelted. The same goes for his ex colleagues. I don't know any paramedics who support unbelting either.

I don't suppose Paul 6 has ever scraped up the remains of a human from the road.

_________________
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.

Why should he? Especially if it is not part of his job.

But I think this 'scraping people off the road' really is a tired old argument. Apparently (if we are to believe all these second-hand stories) those that have to do it think it a problem. I have no idea if it is or not. Or what they use. A shovel? Whatever, these people have to do it because they are the people that have to do it. If they can't get used to it or find it too stressful they can get a nice office job and work on computers (or whatever) and avoid all that scraping.

It has not been explained to my satisfaction, in fact you are similarly just reiterating the same thing by continually claiming that belts and helmets are somehow an exception to the principle that a person takes responsibility for his own safety.



Huh?



I'm happy you see the right to choose argument, but would you adopt the same principle for smoking, rock climbing, motor racing, etc.?

I'd rate that as worse than a 'tired old argument' myself. It's (usually) a form of emotional blackmail.

People who have 'scraped' may well have their good judgement affected by the experience.

And we certainly wouldn't improve road safety by sending researchers or ministers out on 'scraping' duty.

The last thing road safety needs is policy based on emotion. Brake? Roadpeace? Are you listening?

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

How then would you rate policy based on mere comparison, as in..

People who go mountain climbing (etc etc) do not by law have to take certain precautions, so why should a motorist?

I'd say it was the second to last thing road safety needs.

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.

The principle that everyone accepts responsibility for his or her own safety does not reach into every facet of our lives, this has also been quite carefully and patiently explained to you. In our workplace, at leisure parks, on the railways, in air travel etc etc etc etc etc there are regulations in place to ensure that individuals do not come to harm either through their own behaviour or by the behaviour of others. The fact that there are exceptions where, in one domain legislation exists and in another it doesn't, is completely and utterly irrelevant and serves as nothing more than a demonstration of how our society has evolved as an imperfect collection of laws and principles and not a neatly indexed and cross-referenced encylopedia in which everything lines up.
You don't accept any of the above because you appear to be of the mindset that you should, on a matter of principle, be able to do whatever the hell you like and sod the consequences. Fortunately (in all aspects expect for sanity within this thread) the state has decided that you need protecting from your own dogma and, ultimately, stupidity.
Your belief in a non-existant principle of self protection without exception will of course see you dismiss all of the above. But the thing is you see, you are stuck with it because no reasonable individual with a properly developed sense of perspective actually agrees with you or your petition.
Shame eh?

_________________
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.

Isn't this the pertinent difference? In our 'workplace, at leisure parks, on the railways, in air travel' we abdicate our personal 'safety' into the hands of another. it is right that they be encouraged to make what they do as safe as possible for those that choose to participate in it.

However if we choose to drive a car without wearing a seatbelt it is (largely) only ourselves who will suffer the consequences.

Good point, although I was being figurative rather than literal.

Perhaps we should brainstorm a catalogue of the 'great no-nos'? I think we should... I'll do it.

Edited to add: link to brainstorming topic

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