Safe Speed Forums

There was no point in continuing after your first post, which was an invitation to sign your petition IF we agreed. It should have been patently obvious even to you that the number of potential signatories was not going to change once each of us had made our views known to you. Since then you have merely tested the patience and hospitality of this forum. And in the world I have inhabited to date, I'm afraid spades get called spades from time to time.



This says it all - denial . If your petiton was going to be found by the right people in any appreciable numbers then, judging by the way other petitions I have observed and signed have progressed, they would have done so by now. So I guess everyone must be out of step bar you and your 4, er 3 , mates.

Thats my final word too. Well probably

_________________
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.

So it's only legally mandated inconveniences you have a problem with? In that case, can I assume your next petition will be to make car insurance optional?

_________________
Chris

Well, if you have not selectively quoted my post you would have had your answer. I repeat:



I understand it very well; it is you who has somehow misused the term restrictive. Seat-belts are restrictive only so far as to stop your head from being smashed into the windscreen, or into that of the occupant in front, or to stop you from being ejected from your car. It is not restrictive in any net negative way (if you say that I think you’re going to say next, it will be invalid).

To repeat my question yet again: what exactly did you mean by ‘horribly restrictive’?


We on Safespeed discuss issues of road safety; it’s what we do here. What kind of reception do you think that question would get from us? Generally agree, not sure either way, or generally disagree? Would you like me to set up a poll asking?

Why don’t you have a look on Google. Here’s one, go and find your own:
Seven out of ten of 16-34 years olds said that it is "very socially irresponsible" not to wear a seatbelt. (archive.nics.gov.uk) [that does not mean that 3 out of 10 think it’s right to not belt up]

Also:

“The right people”? They must be one hell of a minority huh?
One of the signatories seems to feel strongly about it don’t you think? There’s your strength of feeling right there. Now tell us he was the ‘wrong person’


Just because you don’t know it that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Vehicle records can be cross-referenced with driver records – yes?


The officer would have to decide whether it is worth pulling the vehicle to find the details.

Given that there are 12% of people who are selfish (yes selfish) enough to insist on not wearing seatbelts, I strongly suspect these well and truly outnumber those granted medical exceptions (it’s not like belts are significantly uncomfortable or horribly restrictive) - unless you can show the exception rate is anywhere near 12%?
‘Medical advice confirms that there are very few reasons why someone should not wear a seat belt’ (thinkroadsafety.gov.uk).
While the system is far from perfect, it is still worth enforcing because the great majority of those not belting up will be deserving of a penalty because the rate of false positives will be insignificant.

I’ve just found out that it is law that those exempted must carry their exception forms with them and must be produced upon request when in a vehicle (that’s not too much to ask is it?) or taken to a police station of choice within 5 days. Job done!

Seatbelts never cause injuries, crashes do.

You can never be 100% sure you won't have a crash, but you do the things that will minimise the likelihood of having one, like all driving on the same side of the road (clearly another horribly restrictive draconian law that violates your human rights). Sometimes being on the correct side of the road will result in an accident that would not have happened had you disobeyed the law mandating it, but more often than not it makes you safer.

Do you see the parallel, or do I need to spell it out for you?

I'd make vehicle third party insurance mandatory and related to the vehicle (something along the lines of the tax disk that would cover any driver) and fire and theft or comprehensive insurance something only an individual could purchase (no job 'perk') to supplement their vehicles mandatory insurance if they wish.

I doubt whether there would be any lorry drivers left if they had to insure the vehicles they drove against theft and own damage.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

There might be a case to make an exception for HGV's, but not for van drivers!

I'd make every vehicle that came into Britain buy a version of the insurance for the time they are here too.

You just don't get this "living as part of society" thing do you?!

Ach well, it's way past my bedtime and I think I'm probably out of this thread too now. I haven't seen any "new" arguments in the last half dozen pages and I'm not anticipating any in the next half dozen so it's probably best we agree to differ!

No hard feelings, it's been an (initially) interesting and (latterly) amusing thread but I think I feel the need to move on now!

Yep, I think we're all burning out now - myself included. This thread did make me realise something however...

A theme which seems to come through all too often here at SS is that if it's law you should do it at all times without question because the powers that be have considered every eventuality whereas if it isn't a law then you have the choice and no-one minds. In effect, you are at liberty to put yourself or others in danger.

This is nonsense of course because we should always do things all the time for our own safety, and that of others, regardless of whether or not there is a law. Just because there is no law for something doesn't mean we should absolve ourselves of all responsibility any more than if there is a law then that makes it always right. A law doesn't necessarily always make something right fair or proper and this is where myself and others seem to come to blows with the whiter-than-white people.

I don't want to deliberately flout any law, however, I always do what I hope is safe and right for myself and others and that's the most important thing to my mind whether it's road safety, hygiene or just plain ole good manners.

Small trivial example: When I went for a walk just at the weekend there was barbed wire around a post where walkers pass, on a public pathway through a field, so I found a stone and hammered the barbs into the wood. There's no law at work here, and we certainly don't need yet another, I'm simply looking out for myself and others.

Anyway, good on ya Paul_1966. Its been fun and I hope to see you on other threads. Have we put you off joining us?

_________________
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.

That's not surprising, given the way that belts have been pushed for all their lives, with very little reported about the negative effects.


To a degree. But when you see somebody driving a car, or riding as a passenger you have no idea who it is. Cross-linking the vehicle to the registered keeper, and checking drivers named on insurance policies which specify that vehicle does not confirm who is actually driving at the time.


Which was precisely my point. The cop has no way of knowing if the driver and/or passengers have an exemption without stopping the vehicle, which means that somebody who is driving unbuckled quite legally is likely to be stopped more regularly for checks.



And in a similar vein, seat belts have never prevented an accident.



I'd do it the other way. Don't relate the liability insurance to the vehicle, make it for the driver, and the policy should cover him to drive any vehicle for which he is licensed. That would completely eliminate all the fuss about whether you're covered to drive somebody else's car or not and similar situations. The premium would then also be based solely upon the driver's record, not on some vague basis that anyone driving a 350 V8 Corvette must automatically be a greater risk than somebody with a Pinto or a Mini. But that's probably for another debate.



I understand living as part of a society. I just do not want to be part of socialist society, which is what some people here are advocating.



Yep, we're going around in circles on a lot of things, which is why I've not re-addressed those points in this post.



Not at all. In fact I was registered here before a couple of years ago, but lapsed due to lack of time.

That’s not surprising, given that best research to date points towards belts being of overall benefit.


In all honesty, I think this (below) is the only point remaining on the issue, and it is valid to a degree. All other arguments in support for your petition have been blown out the water.

If they are a passenger then yes, but not (necessarily) if they’re the sole driver of the vehicle. It is unfortunate they would sometimes have to be stopped for their exemption to be confirmed, but it’s not that much of an inconvenience is it.
These guys are comparably rare within the population, and still insignificant compared to the number of non-belters; so as I said already, a stop of any non-belter will likely yield one who is selfish, rather than one with an exemption, so the overall benefit is still very positive.

The occasional stop of a very few is worth the reduced healthcare burden of the thousands of lives saved (even accounting for the negative factors). So I’m afraid IMO the law is worthy and worthy of enforcement. Perhaps the law wouldn’t have to be (or at least enforced) if those selfish enough to needlessly burden society were instead more considerate, then the people with the exemptions wouldn’t have to be stopped at all!

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

What research is that please?

All of it?

Being serious: I don't know what is the 'best research' so I probably shouldn’t have worded it that way, but it is accepted that studies in general do point towards belts being of benefit, so my point is still valid.

OK, so can you point us to some of these accepted studies instead?

Sure. There's some scary over-representation from TRL(on page 23), from the BMJ and many other obscure placesif one was to utilise Google.

People rarely use Google to look for proof of things they don't want to believe in, so thats a fairly specious tack

I celebrated 25th February 2000 with my one and only at fault road accident. Nadia Comaneci would have been in awe of my floor excercise, vaulting, bars and beam . The car got nil point.
The seatbelt mechanism saved my life. Yes I did get hurt by the seatbelt, a considerable portion of my chest was bruised.
Whatever the collision a seat belt is going to help with survival.
I drive a Volvo so I guess I will just get crushed by the airbags.

There are not just some really unpleasant people posting on here but stupid and infantile too. I have never said that I 'don't want to believe in' seatbelts. I have said that believe that they do some good but I am against the compulsion to wear them.

As far as the TRL report goes the comment that "An assessment was made in 2003 that seatbelts had saved about 50,000 road deaths over the previous 21 years" seems to be unattributed and I can counter that comment with this article by John Adams anyway.

Dear boy, are you familiar with the concept of ad hominem?

Furthermore, what makes you think I was referring to you?

And as Adams points out, the figures claimed for lives saved by seat belts vary widely and wildly. One minute it was 1000 a year, then it was revised down to 200 per year. Now on the basis of that TRL report of 50,000 lives saved over 21 years, it's up to over 2000 per year.

Just about the only real fact in these reports is that fatalities declined in 1983 after the belt law was introduced, but as has already been shown, to attribute that decline to the belt law is flawed.

Quoting from Prof. Adams work:



Why does the DoT refuse to pursue the alcohol issue?

One of the links above mentioned FARS in the United States. This too has flaws in the way that data is collected. For example, under the FARS rules if the first officer arriving at the scene of an accident finds any part of a person outside the vehicle, it is reported as an ejection. So if the driver iis unconscious and has his arm hanging out the window, it's classed as an ejection. Even if the person had clearly not been thrown from the car but had staggered out after the crash and collapsed on the ground, it's classed as ejection. This grossly distorts the figures claimed about how many people are ejected in an accident by not wearing a belt.

When the methods used to collect data are so questionable, that data becomes worthless.