One does not have to be that old to remember the furore when:
a. Crash helmets became compulsory for motorcyclists.
b. Wearing of seat belts became compulsory.
c. Breathalyser & blood/urine tests to determine impaired driving were introduced.
Those arguing against these laws got a surprising amount of support and there were some unsuccessful legal challenges to their introduction. In retrospect I suspect most would concede that the protesters were wrong and these are sensible regulations that now have the support of the majority of the community.
IMHO one can draw a parallel in these cases to those who currently argue ?I should be allowed to use my discretion by how much I exceed the speed limit.? or those who feel that it is acceptable to use their mobile phones while driving.
I wonder how this will be viewed in 20 years time.
I personally feel that some speed limits are too low. This particularly applies to motorways; although the police generally do not bother those who keep under, say, 85mph. However it is one thing to campaign to get the speed limit or law changed, quite another to bleat if they are caught breaking that law. Even more reprehensible if they try to evade a law they understand perfectly well on a technicality.
C
|
Cardew said:-
"a. Crash helmets became compulsory for motorcyclists.
b. Wearing of seat belts became compulsory.
c. Breathalyser & blood/urine tests to determine impaired driving were introduced"
Crash helmets have not, statistically, saved many lives, but they do keep your head warm and the wind out of your eyes, thus enabling one to go faster.
It can be argued that seat belts give drivers a sense of safety and thus they take more risks.
Blood and urine tests pick up alcohol, but I believe that the major impairment now comes from drugs, legal and illegal.
a. It would be interesting to compare two equal motorcyclists on a test route, one with helmet and one with just goggles.
b. Similarly, two car drivers, one with seat belt and airbags, one with no safety aids.
c. We badly and urgently need new tests for drugs.
|
As a former undertaker, it is not usually the medics who have to scrape people out of trees, cars, hedges, HGVs and other unforgiving items, we did. With or without helmets, if a motorcyclist headbutted a tree etc at 70mph it did not really matter. In fact a few died because stones/grit got under the helmet and ground holes into the heads as slid along the ground.
Seat belts were very effective and a boon.
Drinking and driving was the done thing in our area and I made a tidy sum in overtime cleaning the mess up on Friday and Saturday nights. Some good does come of these things. As my home town was on the small side the deceased were people I personally knew or went to school with. Eventually I had to give the job up due to the fact it is not a good job for a young man who was trying to influence the ladies. Not alot of street cred.
Thankfully a forceful police presence on the roads at the weekends soon put a stop to the carnage, even then some idiots existed who knew better but we got them in the end.
Its all very well talking about rights and privileges, someone somewhere has to clean the mess up and worse face the relatives. The police in the first instance, we the undertakers two days later making the corpse pretty enough for the relatives to view.
|
|
|
|
Are you sure helmets haven't saved lives ?
I've been down the road twice where I trashed a helmet with the sort of damage which would have killed me were I not wearing one.
|
|
|
> a. Crash helmets became compulsory for motorcyclists.
> b. Wearing of seat belts became compulsory.
Hmmmmmm
So you ride home on your low powered, environmentally friendlymotorcycle.
Get off.
Drop your helmet.
And it splits.
So you get back on your bike to go and buy another one, but your missus reminds you that that's illegal.
So you jump in the old banger instead.
And she gets in the back.
You buckle up, and drive off.
Into an accident.
And your unbelted wife breaks you neck.
And as a helmet wont help you when you head hits a lamp-post at, erm, 70.
But will if you fall off.
And sikhs dont have to wear them.
And neither do cyclists.
Oh, yes, and don't they kill you in relatively minor accidents?.........
|
|
|
|
When & where are you standing? You got my vote.
|
|
|
|
The difference in drink driving laws and those regarding seat belts and crash helmets is that the former protect others from your actions, which is the purpose of all sensible legislation. The latter take away your right to decide the risks to which you are prepared to expose yourself, which however unpalatable the consequences are the business of nobody but yourself.
|
|
I'm sorry but the risks to which you expose yourself are every taxpayers business as well as your own. Didn't I read somewhere that a fairly minor RTA with injuries can cost upwards of £50k? Some of which is mine...
|
|
|
|
Tom
Except that someone has to scrape you off the ground or extract you from the back of the truck you collided with after passing through the windscreen. This site is becoming more ludicrous every day.
Chris
|
|
NO - not the site - just some of the weird views expressed.
|
You're dead right, Trevor. Apologies. Ludicrous is good, though, yes?
Chris
|
I have never driven without a seatbelt, and would not ride a bike without a crash helmet, neither would I stop anyone else from doing so. But I do not consider that I or anybody else has the right to force others to do either. If the only person you put at risk is yourself, then it is nobody's business but you own. If you feel that you need the state to hold your hand like you were a child, then I don't.
As for the argument about cost of accidents, everything costs, including living to 90 and drawing a pension and recieving the care that old age needs.
|
I'm not talking about cost. If you don't wear a seatbelt, and crash, the chances of some poor paramedic having to scrape you up is increased. Every choice you make has consequences for somebody, and that's not a consequence I'd wish on anyone.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Looks like it's time to bring back hanging.
For attempted suicide.
Sometimes I wish I had a proper "liberal" education so that I could hold my own against some of the non-wierd contributors on this site.
|
|
|
smokie
The stated cost of road casualties is another official con. It includes the salaries of doctors, nurses, police, fire, ambulance staff, etc, plus depreciation of hospital equipment, fire vehicles, ambulances, etc.
If the accident in question did not happen, all those costs would still be there.
So, if we exlude these costs, we are left with the cost of vehicle fuel, cleaning vehicles and uniforms, medicines, and not much else.
|
But the cost of accidents doesn't include the cost of lost time for people sitting in the traffic jam. Say an hour of my time costs my employer forty pounds. Multiply that by a few hundred, add the cost of thirty trucks, a van carrying blood plasma, and a couple of contracts lost because of lateness and you have a big expensive problem even before the paramedics, police, accident investigators etc. join the party. Why is depreciation of vehicles not an acceptable cost? My accountant thinks it is.
Chris
|
|
|
|
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
So, basically, you're saying the government should be billed for all the BILLIONS it's raised in motoring taxes, but forgotten to spend on by-passes and a proper integrated national road and motorway system.
Oh. yes, and while we're at it: the cost of all the traffic "calming" and 24 hour bus lanes (where are the 24 hour buses).
And don't forget to remind your accountant to send in a bill for all those delayed 30/40/50/60 mph journeys where they've lowered the limit from 70/60/50.
For no safety reason whatsoever.
And don't forget to remind him that it would appear that the associate scameras seem to be causing an in crease in crashes.
Which lead to.........................
|
|
That's a pro motoring attitude, not welcome to many on this allegedly motoring site. But I'm with you, The!
|
|
|
|
Mark
Just quoting statistics from memory.
However, and here's a thought, if helmets DO save head injuries, far more head injuries occur in cars, so should helmets not, logically, be required for car occupants as well?
|
|
|
That's a sensible attitude Peter, and most welcome on this motoring site. I'm with you.
KB.
|
|
|
So why is it sensible to drive people out of their seat-belted and air-bagged cars?
And into unbelted buses and trains (which they want to get going faster than 175!)?
And onto motorbikes and cycles?
|
|
|
