In our extended family all belt up all the time - it is just how I was brought up and how my kids were.
Often people that drive un-belted can be the same lot that do not have MOTs, Insurance etc etc.
Every other week our local rag has the story of people being stopped for No Seat Belts and they are then discovered to have a faulty brakes/ bald tyres /broken lights / no licence/ no L Plates / no qualified driver beside learner / no MoT / No Insurance.
|
For me, (and for most people I know), putting on a seatbelt is utterly automatic everytime I sit in a car. It is so automatic I even find I have put it on when getting in the car to manoeuvre it 10 yards.
|
|
|
|
Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children.
|
Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children.
The best safety for the passengers may be if they are belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.
|
I actually feel uncomfortable without a seatbelt on in the front seat; I'm so used to it it just doesnt feel right without one when setting off driving. I now always put one on in rear seat also, but that doesn't feel as natural, will have to get used to it.
The other week though, I gave my Mum a lift somewhere, and had to remind her to put hers on. She was too busy talking, and as the passenger her brain didnt click to make her think, "got to put seatbelt on". Even though there was a red light on the dash saying "fasten seat belts".
I also have a mate who has been stopped about 3 times by the police for it. He used to drive a delivery van with sliding drivers door in which they were exempt, so it had failed to become an automatic thing for him. I think he is a lot better nowadays...
|
The other week though, I gave my Mum a lift somewhere, and had to remind her to put hers on. She was too busy talking, and as the passenger her brain didnt click to make her think, "got to put seatbelt on". Even though there was a red light on the dash saying "fasten seat belts".
It annoys me intensely whenever any of my passengers choose not to wear a belt. Forgetting is passable, and I?ll soon remind them before setting off. But on one occasion I gave some people a lift and one had to use the rear lap belt. Just before setting off, I asked/checked everyone had belted up. Indeed everyone had except the one in the middle who rolled their eyes and huffed before putting it on! They knew it was there but didn't want to put it on. Scary thing is, that person is learning to drive, but doesn't seem to understand the basics, or realize they posed a threat to more than just themselves in that situation.
|
|
|
|
>> Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart >> from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has >> a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children. The best safety for the passengers may be if they are belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.
It's natural attrition that keeps the level of maniac drivers down, the negative side of natural selection. Belt suggestion is very sensible though, if a bit radical.
|
|
|
The best safety for the passengers may be if they are belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that perceived gain in safety by taking more risks.
>>
Only may be the best safety for passengers, you have some doubt NW? I trust you do wear a seatbelt when you are driving?
|
>> The best safety for the passengers may be if they are >> belted in, but the driver isn't. A driver with a >> belt feels safer and may be inclined to use up that >> perceived gain in safety by taking more risks. Only may be the best safety for passengers, you have some doubt NW? I trust you do wear a seatbelt when you are driving?
Unless everyone on board has their seatbelt fastened, I won't drive off. That includes my belt, even though I fear that wearing mine may make me more inclined to take risks. I'd like to try driving without a belt to see how it affected my driving style, but I'm too much of a coward to risk it
|
Unless everyone on board has their seatbelt fastened, I won't drive off. That includes my belt, even though I fear that wearing mine may make me more inclined to take risks. I'd like to try driving without a belt to see how it affected my driving style, but I'm too much of a coward to risk it
I have no doubt it would make you feel very uneasy and I can't see how that would make you a better driver.
You haven't said why you think passengers may be safer with seatbelts. I can't really think of a scenario where they would be better off not wearing them.
My stepson used to think he was safer not wearing a seatbelt, because he was thrown out of his car, following an accident. He was convinced he would have been seriously injured if he had been wearing a seatbelt (he collided with a tree). Some years later, he was the victim of a rear end shunt, that pushed his car into the path of an oncoming car. The ensuing collision left him with a broken neck, which resulted from his unsecured body being thrown around the inside of the car by the force of the impact. He is still convinced he would have been worse off if he had been wearing a seatbelt, although both of the other drivers suffered less serious injuries than he did.
|
|
|
|
|
"Lot to be said for Darwin's theory, which is fine apart from the fact that the prat behind the wheel also has a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children."
Don?t be so dismissive Malcolm, this is clever stuff. It?s not enough to remove yourself from the genepool if you?ve already propogated your bad genes into your horrible off-spring. The prat behind the wheel is helpfully attempting to eliminate the existence of his worthless family to the betterment of future humankind. It?s called altruism. It?s the evolution of evolution. I could probably write a paper on it but I won?t because I?m never ever sober.
|
|
|
|
Often people that drive un-belted can be the same lot that do not have MOTs, Insurance etc etc. Every other week our local rag has the story of people being stopped for No Seat Belts and they are then discovered to have a faulty brakes/ bald tyres /broken lights / no licence/ no L Plates / no qualified driver beside learner / no MoT / No Insurance.
You'd think they'd have twigged by now, wouldn't you?
When belts became compulsory I grumbled in a reactionary fashion and resented having to wear the things. Now I feel distinctly uneasy without one. Bit suspicious of airbags though.
|
|
|
|
yes, i guess this is a good time as any for a reminder on seat belts. ( since it is now coming up to greenhey's 16 to 18 month cycle ).
Seat Belts - greenhey Mon 24 Mar 03 16:05
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=11640
Seat belts- what will it take? - greenhey Sun 22 Aug 04 13:11
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=24820
{Posts now all amalgamated - DD}
|
|
How peculiar. Not that it's any less vaild an argument for being repeated.
|
"a responsibility for the passengers, especially if they're children."
In honour of Greenhey's 18 month cycle, I'll repeat mine as follow up to quote above.
I am constantly appalled by the number of unbelted children in cars presumably driven by their doting (?) parents. Worst recently was an old Escort with 8 people in it - 5 adults, one toddler in front on mother's(?) lap, 2 other children, 7/8yr olds, standing between the 3 adults in the back (if you see what I mean).
--
Phil
|
I drove my sister in law's Volvo V50 last weekend and although this wasn't the first time I had driven a new V50/newS40, it was the first time I had done so with passengers in the back.
Doing so I learned of a feature previously unknown to me; the driver's message panel bore the caption "2 rear seat belts in use".
Neat.
|
|
Mods: "new V50" should be just "V50" please; the legacy of a cut and paste error. TVM.
|
|
23 years ago today since seatbelt wearing in the front became compulsory!!!
|
i wont let anyone in a vehicle with me if they ever refuse to wear a belt, many have huffed and puffed but they wont blow my resolution down.Belt up or get out.
--
\"a little man in a big world/\"
|
|
I don't usually wear a seatbelt, but then I don't drive six foot from the car in front at 70mph, or jump traffic lights three seconds after they've gone red, I wonder if there's a connection.
|
"I don't usually wear a seatbelt"
Daft - you are relying solely on your judgement, which may be faultless, and ignoring the idiocy/bad judgement of others. I apologise for the person who made a mistake and pulled out in front of you because he was making a phone call, adjusting his radio, drunk as a lord, being puked over by his kids in the back, having a row with his wife, going too fast, was just plain careless etc. Unfortunately, he was wearing his seatbelt and survived, you, with your perfect driving judgement, (but very imperfect judgement of the rest of the human race), were not, and died.
Oh, and by the way, I did not mention the bloke who jumped the red light as you proceeded across on green and t-boned you. He was wearing a seat belt also.
Do you inactivate your airbags? switch off ABS? perhaps you should, don't want to overdo the safety aspect.
--
Phil
|
I don't usually wear a seatbelt, but then I don't drive six foot from the car in front at 70mph, or jump traffic lights three seconds after they've gone red, I wonder if there's a connection.
Eh?
Sorry, I don't know if you meant to, but what you just said was 'people who wear seat-belts drive badly'.
Do you honestly believe that? And since there are so many of them on the road (80% compliance according to the figures on this thread) do you not worry about getting hit by one of them? If I were you, I'd wear your seatbelt, just in case!
The twisted logic some people create in order to convince themselves that a terrible idea is a good one does make me laugh.
|
|
|
Thank you Dalglish!
As a Liverpool supporter I feel particularly honoured that someone with your username should go to so much trouble as to keep files about when and about what I post .
The update you provide actually reminds me of how negligent I have been about not banging on about this more.
I deeply resent the ( what is it?) negligence, ignorance or arrogance of drivers who don't bother to belt up . Like most aspects of "liberty" , if people choose not to bother their choice affects my life too, not to mention the lives of others who depend on them financially or emotionally.
If the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads , where using a belt would have avoided or reduced injury,per year, was instead the result of plane or train accidents, there would be a maasive public outcry about it .
But for some reason we don't take behaviour on the roads seriously.
|
"If the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on our roads , where using a belt would have avoided or reduced injury,per year, was instead the result of plane or train accidents, there would be a maasive public outcry about it"
Poland?s having a day of mourning, today I think, for the 66 people who died in the exhibition hall last week. The story continues to monopolise the majority of air-time on tv. 80 people have died on the roads since then and there hasn?t been a peep about it.
|
|
|
I see in the papers that 4 were killed in a road accident, 2 young children + 2 teenagers + serious injuries to a young woman.
According to today's Express it appeared that none in the Fiesta were wearing seatbelts in what was thought to be a stolen car. The 2 people in the Corsa were only slightly hurt.
Obviously there is more to this tragedy but if all passengers & driver had had seatbelts on the headline might have been
Stolen Car Crashes
rather than
4 killed in Crash
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't get me started on this one - it is a pet hate of mine. Many a time I have seen kids without seatbelts rolling around in the backs of cars - one that really got my back up was on the A34 where it passes the M4 (before the new bit of road was there)4 adults in car, all with belts on but one young girl about 10yrs old was standing between the front seats in the back, that time I ended up blasting the horn and shouting every four letter word I could think of at the low life scum who were with her in the car (we were sat at the lights, not moving at the time). They seemed suitably embaressed by my outburst and made her put her belt on. People like that don't deserve to have kids.
|
Yes, I did mean that some people who wear seat belts drive badly, you'll find some people who don't wear seat belts also drive badly, I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that observes what goes on around them.
I don't get t-boned when seatbelted drivers jump red lights because I follow the rule that the green light means 'proceed if it's safe to do so', it doesn't give an absolute right to unhindered passage. I don't drink much, I don't smoke, I don't practice unsafe sex, I don't pothole, or climb mountains, or hang glide/paraglide/parachute, ski, or any number of other dangerous lifestyle choices, so you can forget the cross subsidising argument it's me doing the subsidising, and I'm not complaining.
I've driven for 30 years without a seatbelt, and will most probably drive for the next 30 without one, because I choose not to wear it. Strap drivers in like a racing driver and they'll drive like one. In how many of these 140mph+ speeding cases recently was the driver not wearing a belt?
|
I think the rest of the world calls this natural selection. I dunno if you have children - hopefully not - but if you did/do, would you make them wear their seatbelt or would you rely on your "perfect" driving to protect them?
Also, what would you do if someone pulled out into your path on a roundabout, or some other unavoidable incident?
|
|
|
Doug, are you in the UK? If you are you should be getting fixed penalties every 5 minutes for not wearing your belt!
YOU may be very careful, but you can't guarantee that you won't get run in to by the next drunk/reckless driver/lunatic or whatever.
You carry on as you are though, just so long as you don't cost the NHS too much to put you back together!
|
|
|
"Strap drivers in like a racing driver and they'll drive like one."
Daft again "I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that observes what goes on around them."
--
Phil
|
|
|
"I've driven for 30 years without a seatbelt"
Pal of mine was driving up the A1 in the dark at 70mph. A car came out of a side road immediately in front of him (so immediately that my friend didn't even have time to hit his brakes). He T-boned it, but survived, largely due to a seatbelt preventing him launching through the windscreen. He wasn't exactly driving like a racing driver. I was a passenger of his for MANY thousands of miles and I would class him one of the safest drivers I have ever had the luxury of being driven by.
I sincerely hope that nothing like that ever happens to you, or you will most likely die.
V
|
|
|
Yes, I did mean that some people who wear seat belts drive badly, you'll find some people who don't wear seat belts also drive badly, I'd have thought that obvious to anyone that observes what goes on around them.
So if both classes of driver have some proponents who drive badly, why point out only one of the classes?
What you're doing, however perfect your own driving, is putting your life in the hands of these other people that you observe and don't trust. It's quite a ridiculous standpoint, were you to put any thought into it. You are vociferously arguing that there are very dangerous people on the road (who drive like racing drivers, and I wouldn't disagree), yet refusing to protect yourself against them, or that is the claim you are making.
In reality, I would guess that you refuse to wear a belt for one of two reasons:
1) You're a low level anarchist, and this is your small way of 'sticking it to the man'.
2) When the government first tried to force you to wear a belt, you found it uncomfortable. Shame really, had you persevered, you'd have found, like the rest of us, that you stop noticing it at all, and indeed start to feel weird without one on.
In either of these cases, having picked a nonsensical reason for not protecting yourself from death or serious injury, your mind has come up with the ludicrous reasoning that, were you to put your seatbelt on you'd instantly turn into a raving lunatic.
As I said before, it truly is amazing to see the veneer of 'reasoning' that people (in general, not just yourself) are capable of constructing in order to hide from themselves the bizareness of the decisions they make.
|
It would require police on the road to issue penalties for not wearing a seatbelt, and as we know cameras don't detect anything but speed.
I had an incident this morning with Mr seatbelt wearer in a Mazda 6, he joins the motorway, crosses the hatching, I indicate and move to lane 3, and he sweeps across both lanes and then slows, because he's now behind the van I was behind, forcing me to take avoiding action in almost zero degrees. I'm on a motorbike with twin headlights on dip, and I'm wearing a high visability jacket, but he was belted so that makes him a good driver, eh?
A seatbelt will protect me from death? So nobody wearing a belt has ever died in a traffic accident? I think you'll find a seatbelt MIGHT save someone from death or injury, but while Mr Mazda and his like are on the road it may not, but then it's easier an cheaper to pick on me and not the real cause of danger on the roads.
|
|
Assuming that the original poster is right, around 80% of people wear seatbelts to drive. So 40% of deaths come from 20% of drivers. This suggests that either un-seatbelted drivers have more (or more serious) accidents (i.e. they are worse drivers) or not wearing a seatbelt is a bad plan. Which do you think it might be?
|
|
|
I had an incident this morning with Mr seatbelt wearer in a Mazda 6, he joins the motorway, crosses the hatching, I indicate and move to lane 3, and he sweeps across both lanes and then slows, because he's now behind the van I was behind, forcing me to take avoiding action in almost zero degrees. I'm on a motorbike with twin headlights on dip, and I'm wearing a high visability jacket, but he was belted so that makes him a good driver, eh?
Well, you're arguing against a point which no-one has made. No-one claimed that everyone wearing a seat-belt is a safe driver. Higher up the thread you claimed that everyone wearing a seat-belt is a bad driver, but you seem to have backed down from that slightly.
Do you think that the Mazda driver is a bad driver because he was wearing a seat-belt? Or just because he's a bad driver full-stop?
And the point remains, you see all these bad drivers on the road all the time, yet you don't want to protect yourself against them by wearing a seatbelt. Especially strange because it appears that you protect yourself against them by wearing a hi-viz jacket on your bike (and presumably a helmet too).
A seatbelt will protect me from death? So nobody wearing a belt has ever died in a traffic accident?
I think you should consider checking the meaning of the word 'protect'. Yes, a seatbelt will protect you from death. That doesn't mean that it will guarantee survival, it means it will increase the chances.
|
No-one will get anywhere by arguing that seatbelts are in themselves a bad thing, either because they encourage drivers to drive irresponsibly or because they may in certain circumstances hinder an escape from a crashed/burning vehicle.
Everyone in their right mind accepts that you are safer if you are belted up.
The problem many have is the leap from that statement to the proposition that it should be a criminal offence to drive unbelted.
There is a libertarian argument to say that leap is not justified, but that argument is doomed. Judging by people's expressed views (and voting habits) is is pretty clear to me that the nanny state is exactly what most people want.
|
|
The unbelted driver is likely to cost the nation more in the event of an accident. It's inefficient to let them continue to do it at our expense since we could spend the money more profitably elsewhere. Is that nannying enough for you?
|
|
|
The DoT missed a real coup on seatbelts after the Princess Di death, probably because they were worried about offending sensitivities.
The bodyguard was the only occupant of the car to wear a seatbelt, and was the only one to survive. Just think of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves had Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi.
|
I wear a seatbelt because SWMBO tells me to. I know my place!
However, I do agree with the libertarian views expressed in Lawman's closing paragraph.
Number_Cruncher
|
I remember reading some statement or other from Mercedes at the time saying that it was an easily survivable accident for rear-seat passengers had they been wearing a belt - there was very little trauma to the rear of the cabin.
I always fancied my chances with Di funnily enough. I?m sure she would have enjoyed a bit of rough from Manchester.
|
I am with Number Cruncher - If I chose not to wear a belt, and the only person injured/more seriously injured is me then why should the government care. If they don't want to pay then say so and pursue non seat belt wearers for the cost of treatment. You could also carry this across to reduced insurance payouts as they were not taking due care of themselves.
There are parallels with crash helmets for motorcyclists (I presume doug r1 wears one of those), and smoking related diseases but that is another thread and not for this forum!
|
I am with Number Cruncher - If I chose not to wear a belt, and the only person injured/more seriously injured is me then why should the government care. If they don't want to pay then say so and pursue non seat belt wearers for the cost of treatment.
The only people that would benefit from such a policy would be the lawyers, who would be employed in pursuing such repayments.
|
The DoT missed a real coup on seatbelts after the Princess Di death, probably because they were worried about offending sensitivities. The bodyguard was the only occupant of the car to wear a seatbelt, and was the only one to survive. Just think of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves had Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi.
I spect that Greenhey might have preferred that situation too :)
|
Justthink >> of the national trauma which we could have saved ourselves had >> Di been having an affair with Greenhey rather than Dodi. I spect that Greenhey might have preferred that situation too :)
Unless the nation found her involvement with Greenhey traumatic, of course. But history would have been changed, because the late Princess would have been belted securely into Greenhey's unobtrusive carriage travelling at a sedate speed through some unpretentious British town, instead of screaming through Paris underpasses at 200 miles an hour with her boy friend's father's stoned lackey at the wheel.
|
|
Judging by people's expressed views(and voting habits) is is pretty clear to me that the nanny state is exactly what most people want.
Alas Lawman, you may well be right.
|
|
People drove recklessly before there were cars with seatbelts, so I fail to see how wearing a seatbelt makes anyone drive more recklessly. One might as well say that a quieter car makes people drive more recklessly, or one with better handling.
|
I think you'll find studies show that drivers subconsciously expect or desire a certain amount of risk, remove some through a safety feature and they compensate to replace that risk.
Funnily enough I pulled up at my sister's house yesterday in front of two police officers, I got out of the car and said hello and went in the house, they were checking tax discs so I was ok. I didn't feel I'd 'stuck it on the man' for some reason.
Yes I wear a helmet, ask anyone who has ridden without a helmet what it's like to be hit in the face by a bee at 70mph and then tell me they are a 'safety helmet'. It's really hard to ride fast without one, with one riding is like a playstation game, you're looking at life through an oblong, just like the telly. They protect you if you fall off or hit something, but what if they contribute to the cause of the accident?
As my experience yesterday showed, wearing high viz clothing and having lights on is no use at all if drivers don't look before pulling out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
