Safe Speed Forums

'ere! Why hasn't that Prof. Adams geyser signed it?! I'd have thought you'd get at least another signature before the end of the year!

As fas as I'm aware, they DO and that's why it's a legal requriement to use child seats / booster cushions...

Have I missed something?

Or did you mean that the laws in the US should have mandated them?

What is the ultimate purpose of the rule of law though? It is to protect the rights of others. That's why we have laws against rape, murder, and theft, because such actions violate those rights -- The right to security of one's person, the right to life, and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of one's own possessions.

What rights of another person am I violating by not using a seat belt?



Huh?



What does statistically significant have to do with it? Personally I'd be quite willing to believe the percentage could easily be 50%. I'm sure you'd claim it's more like 2% or even less, but the point is that belts can be harmful in some cases. That alone is reason they should not be mandatory.



Yes. Unfortunately they are ineligible to sign, being neither British citizens nor resident in the U.K.



But there are exceptions to that requirement. That's what I was referring to.

So you are petitioning for a change in an aspect of UK government policy with little or no apparent support from anyone you actually know in the UK who may be affected by 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.

I'm affected by it.

Yes but the point is so are another 60,776,238 people of whom 60,776,234 haven't signed your petition. Assuming you actually know some of those people and are not a complete Billy No-Mates, the fact that you have been unable to rally their support must tell you something.

_________________
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 am aware of nothing that specifies that the laws of a free society can only serve to protect 'rights', which seems to be a subjective concept anyway. Laws are required for all manner of matters to ensure the smooth efficient running of society. Seatbelts do more good than harm, and as such are of net benefit to society, protecting our citizens and preserving our resources (medical care etc.).



I asked if there were any examples where the coroner stated that the child was worse off having been in a child seat than had they not been. Even the case we have to take at your word as being gospel does not fulfil this requirement. Injuries caused by a belt do not mean the occupant would have been better off without it. Answer me honestly, do you really not understand that?



Wrong, you cannot predict when those cases will arise (if they even actually do exist) and as such seatbelts are statistically of net benefit to society, as mentioned previously.



Well thank goodness for that! Is it not our right as British citizens to have matters of our democratic processes participated in solely by the British?

Its pretty simple.
Drive without a belt if you think it makes you safer.
Just dont expect to survive should the worst happen.
As for me, ill stick with a belt as i prefer to stay inside the car mid collision.

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I'm still waiting to see the evidence which shows that.



Ah, O.K., I missed the child seat part. I can't recall any offhand which meet those specific criteria. But assuming that you are talking about a child seat with belt being used, there are definitely some.


I don't dispute that, but the converse is also true.



As I have already stated, whether they are actually of net benefit to society is really irrelevant to the basic premise of whether the law should exist, unless a communist dictatorship is your idea of a Utopian society.

Fact: Belts can result in worse injuries than being unbuckled in some accidents. You have not tried to deny this, but have in fact accepted it as as being quite possible.



I never said otherwise (although you'll find that non-British citizens can participate in those processes).



Yes, that's how simple it was prior to January 31, 1983 -- A matter of personal choice. The difference now is that you are not subject to being harassed and fined for exercising your right to make that decision. I am.

No, it comes down to mutual consent. Nobody is forcing me to drive with an unbuckled passenger behind me. I do so of my own free will, just as I could decide to go on a dangerous expedition with somebody, or just as I could decide whether or not to accept a ride in the back of a '72 Pinto.

If you refuse to drive with somebody unbuckled behind you, that's your decision and your right, just as it would be your right to refuse to go on the expedition or to refuse to ride in the Pinto, knowing its propensity for bursting into flames if rear-ended.

You appear to have only a passing acquaintance with what it means to live in a democratic society, one which is tragically divorced from the reality of the world I have lived in for the best part of five decades.
Free does not mean you can do whatever the hell you like.
Not being able to do whatever the hell you like does not mean that the scale has been slid right across to communisim, dictatorship, police state or whatever other extreme governmental system you choose to colour up your rambling nonsense with.

There is no evidence in any of the 30 odd pages of trolling of this forum that you are anything other than a whinging, hand-wringing libertarian, and a particularly stupid and prejudiced one at that.
Whinging idealists have destroyed this country by pushing through their selfish, one-eyed agendas and forcing their minority views on the rest of us and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. There are plenty of things that I would like to be able to do but can't because of the rule of law but at the end of the day the UK is a democracy, not a libertocracy so live with it, stand for government on your own agenda yourself, or go the hell somewhere else.

And yes moderators, that is ad-hominem, but after 30 pages of attacking the argument and demolishing it only for it to be repeated, what the hell else is a sane person supposd to do

OK,




I suppose.

_________________
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 Riggers, hows about saying whats really on your mind.. Just kidding.

Paul1966, face facts, seatbelts are by far and away more likely to protect you than harm you.
Yes i know theres incidents where a belt may have contributed to a death, but unfortunately its simply not possible to eradicate such events, such is life.

Lets put the boot on the other foot.
Youre the one sitting in the back seat, are you happy to put someone elses life at risk due to your intransigence re; the wearing (or not in your case) of a seat belt?

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

Believe nothing- Question everything.

I'll be more than happy to examine any data you put forward indicating the opposite.

I gave a TRL link demonstrating a significant level of non-belters in fatal accidents; there was a reference within to seatbelt wearing rates. Do the figures (not accepted studies or best research - just plain raw data) not suggest a significant over-representation of non-belters in fatal accidents? And for what? It's not as if belts are uncomfortable enough to distract in anyway from the thought process of driving, or restrictive enough to hinder a drivers control of a vehicle (exemptions are in place where appropriate so don't bother citing specific examples).


And with that your argument is demonstrated to be contradictory (moreso as you haven't disputed it).

This is one of those occasions where proper and intelligent moderation shows a flexible and discretionary interpretation of the rules.

Nevertheless, I certainly wouldn't want others to pitch in and create a slanging match.

Personally I have very considerable sympathies with Paul_1966's position, and I'm really quite surprised that he hasn't found more supporters.

It is absolutely remarkable that after 20+ years of seat belt legislation in the UK that there ISN'T unequivocal evidence of system-wide benefit.

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

Would it not be fairer to say that such evidence has not been discovered more through lack of looking than lack of existence.

I‘m not, for the simple fact he is calling for an extreme based on what appears (to me anyway) to be nothing more then a personal desire, one that so far has ignored or gone against all logical argument.

Like I’ve said umpteen times already: I’d support a call for a comprehensive review of beatbelt policy effectiveness. Until that has been done it must be accepted that all current indicators are in favour or neutral and none are against – unless someone can demonstrate otherwise.

I don't really think so. There have been many studies, but nothing that has really been able to come to a clear and impressive conclusion (as far as I know).

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

I don't think we have the evidence required to call for a change in the law. That's true.

But I don't feel confident to say 'all the evidence' either. There's that graph I pasted in the early stages of this thread which appears to show a very marked risk transfer from inside to outside of vehicles.

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

I can't be bothered to read thorough all 30 pages again but didn't you say something like you'd been stopped 3 times in 16 years? That's not being harassed.

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

OK, here's my 2p worth.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Paul_1966's moral stance.

I was a competition driver before seatbelts were made mandatory. I had full harness seatbelts fitted in my road/rally car. I generally worse seatbelts. I was incensed by what to me was an unnecessary intrusion of the nanny state. I found it increasingly difficult to force myself to comply and have been fined a couple of times for not wearing seatbelts. I am not convinced by the 100% beneficial claims of the effectiveness of the lap and diagonal belts. I believe that in some cases they have negative side effects and I believe that some of the benefits promoted for them were at best misleading, at worst propaganda.

I still drive in competition and would not consider not wearing full harness belts in a situation where a high speed impact involving possible inversion is significant.

I believe that the risk of similar on the roads to be infinitesimally smaller. I am more aware and afraid that a side impact where the car stops in 200mm against a tree will probably be fatal ito the occupant on that side at as low as 28 mile/h and a conventional seatbelt will have zero benefit.

_________________
Richard Ceen
We live in a time where emotions and feelings count far more than the truth, and there is a vast ignorance of science (James Lovelock 2005)