Wearing Seatbelt..

PBC_1966

MAG link:
2. To force people to take precautions for their own safety, when the neglect to do so poses no threat whatsoever to others, is incompatible with the spirit of a free society.

Precisely. That's the point that those on the pro-compulsion side just don't seem to understand.

Originally posted by Kermitt:
1. PCB_1966 is a cosmic tool..... what is going through that person's head... shut up you idiot...... you are rebelling for the sake of it.. to your own detriment... god almighty you just don't get it....... go get killed in your car without a seat belt if you like.... and coming up with ludicrous stats to argue against what 99.99% of the free world knows is right... you lunatic!

Rebelling? No, I'm just continuing to do what I've done for years before the nanny-state government decided that people didn't have the right to make their own decisions about their own safety.

I don't know how many of you have grown up with this indoctrinated idea that seat-belts must be forced upon people whether they like it or not, but that's not how it used to be. Sure, in the 1970s we had Jimmy Saville urging people to "Clunk Click Every Trip," but actual belt usage was pretty low. I rode around in my parents' car and my friends' parents' cars as a kid, and nobody bothered about seat belts. Hey, up until about 1977 my parents had a car which didn't even have belts.

Are you saying that we were all crazy?

Originally posted by K2:
But really pbc_1966 has a point - I mean how dare the goverment interfer in our daily lives, I woke up this morning convinced of this and proceeded to drive to work at 90mph, on the right hand side while wearing a walkman, reading the paper and eating a bowl of cornflakes

I am not arguing that there should be no traffic laws. To do the things you list there would be to endanger other road users as such actions could clearly cause an accident.

Please explain how not wearing a belt is likely to be a danger to any other road user.

Victor

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Rebelling? No, I'm just continuing to do what I've done for years before the nanny-state government decided that people didn't have the right to make their own decisions about their own safety.

I'm sorry Darwin has proven time and again that we need to legislate for the stupidest 10% of the population.

Guy:Incognito

@pbc, if your child was a passenger in a car involved in an accident, and was killed as a result of not being made wear a seatbelt, what would your reaction be? I'm assuming you would pass it off as an unfortunate occurance in your daily life and that the seatbelt would have killed the child anyway. Not to mention the fact that the child would most likely have gone through a front seat passenger(children should be in the back where possible. so dont argue that they could have been in the front) causing them sever injuries or death, so thats how it affects others.

Maybe an accident is whats needed for some people to cop on.

ChipZilla

Originally posted by Stekelly
Maybe an accident is whats needed for some people to cop on.

Hear hear. The number of dickheads on the roads needs to be cut down anyway... More hearts, lungs, livers and kidneys for the rest of us when their numbers come up.

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Stekelly
@pbc, if your child was a passenger in a car involved in an accident, and was killed as a result of not being made wear a seatbelt, what would your reaction be?

Not being made to wear a seatbelt never killed anybody. It is the wreck that kills. Maybe a seat-belt could have saved the child in a particular type of accident. But you have to accept that in other types of accident that belt could actually result in a death which would otherwise not have happened.

I could just as easily ask "What if a child was killed because he was forced to wear a seatbelt?"

(children should be in the back where possible

Why?

Guy:Incognito

you avoided my question, so you'd just take it on the chin and pass it off that your child was killed.

The child in the back thing was more of an opinion than anything else.
As a matter of interestif you had a 6 month old child in the car with you , where would you put it , just lying accros the backseat? the boot?


The fact of the matter is seatbelts save A LOT more people than they kill so they are a good thing. That cannot be disputed.

Guy:Incognito

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Not being made to wear a seatbelt never killed anybody. It is the wreck that kills.

If you want to argue ridiculous points then guns dont kill people, the bullets do.


And before i forget, as i was saying about a backseat passenger injuring or killing a front seat passenger because they flew through them in a crash because they didnt have a seatbelt to keep them in the back, where was your answer to that,. It kind of sorts out your arguement that not wearing a seatbelt only harms the person who doesnt wear it

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Stekelly
you avoided my question, so you'd just take it on the chin and pass it off that your child was killed.

No, of course not. :rolleyes: But I wouldn't be looking at the lack of seatbelt as the reason for his death. I would be looking at the what caused the wreck. If it was down to somebody's reckless driving, then that's where the blame lies.

The child in the back thing was more of an opinion than anything else.
As a matter of interestif you had a 6 month old child in the car with you , where would you put it , just lying accros the backseat? the boot?

Probably in a carry-cot next to me if alone.

The fact of the matter is seatbelts save A LOT more people than they kill so they are a good thing. That cannot be disputed.

O.K., even if we accept that argument it is still not a reason to impose citations and fines (and it appears in the case of Ireland, penalty points) on somebody who chooses not to avail himself of some safety feature.

You are arguing that a belt saves lives and prevents injury. In other words, it is for one's health, correct? Courts have upheld the right to refuse medical care time and time again.

Look at cases where a Jehovah's Witness has refused a blood transfusion. You and I may think he is foolish for doing so, but that it his right, and the law has repeatedly upheld that right. Would you accept a law which allows the government to force someone to undergo surgery, with fines for refusal?

If you want to argue ridiculous points then guns dont kill people, the bullets do.

No, it's the person who aims and pulls the trigger who kills, but that's getting into a whole different ballgame.

And before i forget, as i was saying about a backseat passenger injuring or killing a front seat passenger because they flew through them in a crash because they didnt have a seatbelt to keep them in the back, where was your answer to that,. It kind of sorts out your arguement that not wearing a seatbelt only harms the person who doesnt wear it

I don't deny that could happen in some accidents. But does that mean that the law should intervene in the matter?

If you want to refuse to carry anyone in the back of your car unless he buckles up, that's fine -- Your car, your rules. He either buckles up or gets a ride elsewhere. That is called freedom.

the evil belly

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Look at cases where a Jehovah's Witness has refused a blood transfusion. You and I may think he is foolish for doing so, but that it his right, and the law has repeatedly upheld that right.

there are also the cases where the courts have ruled that blood transfusions etc. be carried out anyway. but jehovah's witnesses do accept blood inflators like saline and so on. they only specifically refuse blood products cos it says something about it in the bible iirc

ChipZilla

You can bet your arse a Jehovah's Witness will wear his belt then, if he knows he's not going to be getting blood if he crashes....

JohnBoy

PBC

I've just read the thread from start to finish, and it's hard to begin to come up with a counter argument, there are just too many options and not enough time.

Instead I'm going to focus on two of the simpler ones (hopefully you'll be able to deal with them)

1) seatbelts injure and indeed unfortunately kill people. but in what percentage of cases where people have been injured by seatbelts would they have escaped unscathed without it. (hence saving the exchequer loadsamoney)

the general reason that people are injured by seatbelts is because they hit them at speed when the car stops moving and the body doesn't. unless they get particularly lucky and crash into the back of an open pillow truck while driving a vehicle with no windscreen.

2) just because when you were a kid people drove without seatbelts doesn't make it ok. apply that logic and slavery becomes a perfectly reasonable proposition.



And my closing reason why everyone should wear a seatbelt. in a head-on collision I don't want to see you decapitating my passenger when you fly through my car at probably well over 80mph.

the law isn't just there to protect you, it's there to protect others too.

John

unkel

Originally posted by JohnBoy
unless they get particularly lucky and crash into the back of an open pillow truck while driving a vehicle with no windscreen.

LOL, only in a Disney film

On a more serious note: when in the Netherlands wearing a seat belt in a car and a helmet on a bike became compulsory (around the same time about 30 years ago) the number of road deaths halved

No other reason required for legislation so

PBC_1966

Originally posted by JohnBoy
1) seatbelts injure and indeed unfortunately kill people. but in what percentage of cases where people have been injured by seatbelts would they have escaped unscathed without it.

I do not know the percentages, nor I think does anybody else. because there are simply too many variables. In what percentage of wrecks where somebody was killed without a seatbelt on would he have died with one anyway? Do govt. statistics make any attempt to show that, or do they just list another fatality to somebody not buckled up? If the latter, then the figures in favor of belts are highly biased anyway.

The point I'm trying to make is that if you acknowledge that in some cases a belt may actually kill or cause injury, then it means that the government is forcing people to do something which may be harmful. It's no good saying "Well, chances are more in favor of the belt being beneficial to you." The government has no right to play a numbers game with people's health -- That is for the individual to decide for himself after looking at all sides of the argument. There are risks either way, just as in many other aspects of life.

2) just because when you were a kid people drove without seatbelts doesn't make it ok. apply that logic and slavery becomes a perfectly reasonable proposition.

A valid point, although we're talking about social change on a much shorter time-scale here.

I guess the point I don't understand is how attitudes to seat-belts have changed so quickly in recent years. In the 1970s, the majority of people rode around without them. A few people buckled up, but they didn't look upon those who didn't as being strange in any way. Then the law was introduced in 1983 (in England) and people starting using belts more. I well remember many people at the time complaining that it was a stupid law. Even some of those who favored the use of belts said it should still be for an individual to decide for himself.

Now, things seem to have gotten to the point where to some people not buckling up is tantamount to drunk-driving. Just look at some of the reponses above to see what I mean. You'd think I'd just admitted to driving 70mph through a school zone after drinking a quart of whiskey, not just riding around without a belt.

I've had recent experiences of giving somebody a lift and being told "You forgot your seatbelt." That just didn't happen 20 years ago.

And my closing reason why everyone should wear a seatbelt. in a head-on collision I don't want to see you decapitating my passenger when you fly through my car at probably well over 80mph.

So do you object to the exemptions mentioned above for taxi drivers, driving examiners, and so on?

Originally posted by unkel:
On a more serious note: when in the Netherlands wearing a seat belt in a car and a helmet on a bike became compulsory (around the same time about 30 years ago) the number of road deaths halved

Did they change anything else at the same time though?

The figures for road deaths in Britain also indicate a drop immediately after the introduction of compulsory seatbelts. But if you investigate closely, you find that the new law also coincided with a massive anti-drink-drive campaign. Breaking down the figures more carefully reveals that most of the drop in fatalities was at night -- The peak time for drunken driving.

the evil belly

Originally posted by PBC_1966
So do you object to the exemptions mentioned above for taxi drivers, driving examiners, and so on?

ya. if taxi drivers are such risk that they need to be able to jump out of their car at a moments notice then why not have a partition to the passenger section like they have in cabs in the states.

i know someone who failed their driving test relativly recently because they refused to start the car until the tester but his belt on(she didn't reaslise they were exempt and wouldn't take his word for it)

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by the evil belly
i know someone who failed their driving test relativly recently because they refused to start the car until the tester but his belt on(she didn't reaslise they were exempt and wouldn't take his word for it)

what were they failed on?
Surely every driver is entitled to ensure that everyone in their car is belted up properly and the tester should encourage this - not fail them for it

PBC_1966

what were they failed on?

I would assume failure to start the car and drive away. It's very difficult to assess a person's driving skills if that person refuses to drive!

unkel

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Did they change anything else at the same time though?

Nope and unlike the penalty points situation here, the drop in road deaths was permanent. There are about 1000 road deaths per year in the Netherlands now, which is 2.5 times the number here, in a country with almost 10 times the population density of the Republic :eek:

Maybe it would be a good idea if people learned how to drive before they started driving. People on the continent are not allowed to drive a car until they have a full license. This takes about 60 hours of lessons typically in Germany and the Netherlands (the toughest countries to get your license)

Those driving before they passed the test, do so accompanied by a certified and qualified instructor in a dual control learner vehicle

[rant]I have never seen so many people totally unfit to drive in any other EU country, not even close. It is hard, but I try not to blame those people, as it is not their fault that they're allowed loose on the public roads after doing an eye test and going through the paperwork process of paying a couple of euro for a license. We might as well give everybody a bachelor's degree for €30 and only those that have true academic skills a master's degree later :rolleyes:

Forgot to mention the Great Driving License Amnesty [/rant]

ChipZilla

Originally posted by unkel
I have never seen so many people totally unfit to drive in any other EU country, not even close. It is hard, but I try not to blame those people, as it is not their fault that they're allowed loose on the public roads after doing an eye test and going through the paperwork process of paying a couple of euro for a license.

You've never been to Portugal or Italy then?

eth0_

PCB1966 - please give us a demonstration of how liberating not wearing a seat belt is while driving at 60mph into a brick wall.

You're a fool. I'm not even going to begin to argue because idiots like you almost deserve to be fatally injured in a car crash tbh. It's probably inevitable for you, anyway!

If you had a baby in a car seat beside you in the car, would you use a seatbelt to strap her into the seat?

And by seatbelt related fatalities, are you referring to the middle belts in the back of cars that have on occasion severed peoples trunks from their legs?

pclancy

jesus i cant believe this thread has gone on so long. If you dont wear a belt you might as well be sitting on the bonnet in a crash. You'll kill yourself and probably kill someone else. I've had my life saved by a seatbelt and in my opinion if you dont wear one your just plain backward! But fair enuf, dont wear it. Enjoy your trip through the windscreen and i think there should be more then two points for not wearing it. The goverment arent trying to control you, they're trying to increase the odds of you living and not becoming yet another statistic. Get with the programme.

pclancy

[rant]I have never seen so many people totally unfit to drive in any other EU country, not even close. It is hard, but I try not to blame those people, as it is not their fault that they're allowed loose on the public roads after doing an eye test and going through the paperwork process of paying a couple of euro for a license. We might as well give everybody a bachelor's degree for €30 and only those that have true academic skills a master's degree later :rolleyes:

Forgot to mention the Great Driving License Amnesty [/rant] [/B][/QUOTE]

One the best statements i've seen in a while. Italians are much better drivers then irish I lived with an italian guy for a while and he was a great driver, couldnt belive ireland tho. Portugal? I dunno, either way we're still crap.

mike65

Originally posted by unkel
Nope and unlike the penalty points situation here, the drop in road deaths was permanent. There are about 1000 road deaths per year in the Netherlands now, which is 2.5 times the number here, in a country with almost 10 times the population density of the Republic :eek:

Dodgy stats there unkle! Netherlands population is 4 times ours is, so pro-rata there would be about 1400 deaths there. 1000 is clearly still better than us on that basis but not spectacularly so. I'd say thier population density helps the Dutch as most jouneys are urban or on motorways between cities where deaths are fewer.

Mike.

Victor

Originally posted by mike65
Dodgy stats there unkle! Netherlands population is 4 times ours is, so pro-rata there would be about 1400 deaths there. 1000 is clearly still better than us on that basis but not spectacularly so. I'd say thier population density helps the Dutch as most jouneys are urban or on motorways between cities where deaths are fewer.

Well one has to balance higher traffic densities against greater use of (safer) public transport.

PBC_1966

People on the continent are not allowed to drive a car until they have a full license. This takes about 60 hours of lessons typically in Germany and the Netherlands (the toughest countries to get your license)

Not quite sure what you're getting at. How can you get a full license without driving a car first?

There was a story here a while back about Germans coming over to the U.K. to learn to drive to avoid the high cost of the mandatory lessons in their own country. Once they had passed the test here and obtained a U.K. license, they could then just go back home and exchange it for a German one. I can't remember the figure that was quoted for the cost of lessons, but it was obviously so ridiculously high that travel and accommodation expenses here for a few weeks worked out cheaper.

On the seatbelt issue, I just really don't understand why you are all so staunchly in favor of these oppressive laws. Do you want the government to control every aspect of your life, to the point that the law stipulates every single thing that you must or must not do, supposedly for your own safety?

You say riding without buckling up is dangerous and that the government should stop anyone from putting themselves at risk. Well, by that logic you should be calling for almost everything to be banned, since almost everything we do in life carries an element of risk. Hobbies such as rock-climbing, sky-diving, and spelunking are clearly far more dangerous than stamp-collecting or making model airplanes from milkbottle tops. Why have they not been made illegal, with severe penalties for anyone who dares to question the party-line and continue with his chosen hobby?

Can't you see that once you accept the state intervening in something which should be a personal choice that you open the floodgates for a whole raft of oppressive legislation that tries to control everything you do? If this tide isn't stopped, we arrive at the oft-quoted situation where "Everything which is not prohibited is mandatory."

All of which ignores the very real concerns that in some cases seat-belts actually cause harm. I will dig-out some links to articles and post later.

PBC_1966

http://barvennon.com/seatbelt.html

http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html

http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/seat_belts.html

Guy:Incognito

The laws are there to protect the stupid, Unfortunately you seem to have slipped through the net. Ive lost count of the amount of children ive seen jumping around in the back of cars. I saw one in particular which pariculary horrified me.

A woman driving a convertible with the top down. Two children were standing on the back seat messing and banging on the boot lid. These are the stupid , ignorant gob****es the laws are there to stop them killing themselves and others. I dont really car about a childs civil liberty to play freely in the back of a moving car being infringed tbh.

If that woman crashed her car the kids could have ended up anywhere in a 50 yard radius of the car dead.

And i'm assuming an airbag inflating into your face wont be to pleasent either.

unkel

Originally posted by mike65
Dodgy stats there unkle! Netherlands population is 4 times ours is, so pro-rata there would be about 1400 deaths there

Nope, population per square kilometer of land is 8.37 times higher in the Netherlands, so you would expect 8.37 * 376 (deaths in the Republic in 2002) = 3147 deaths in the Netherlands. There were only 987...

This is of course a simplistic comparison as it presumes same quality and quantity of roads, same method of transport used, same distance traveled, equal spread of population over land, same driving skills, etc, etc

Originally posted by ChipZilla
You've never been to Portugal or Italy then?

Dunno about Portugal, but I've spent well over a year of my life in Italy altogether. My observations lead me to think the average Italian driver takes many more unnecessary risks than the average Irish driver, drives way faster but more competently and is less ignorant of the goings on around him/her.

In my previous post when I mentioned people unfit to drive, I was referring to their incompetence in operating the vehicle and ignorance of goings on. I wasn't thinking about things like speeding, drink driving and risk taking, etc.

The number of deaths per 100000 people in Ireland is about the same as the EU (15) average. Italy and Portugal are higher than average

I should have been more specific about what I meant with people being unfit to drive

My only excuse is that I was ranting at the time

Victor

http://barvennon.com/seatbelt.html

The fact that the proportion of car driver fatalities wearing a seat belt was greater than the proportion of car drivers wearing a seat belt would indicate that seat belts are actually killing their wearers.

No very objective. Some people when they speed will wear their seat belt when they don't wear them on shorter, slower journeys. At speed, as accident is more likely to be fatal.

Now yes, there is a risk adjustment when people percieve they are safe, but that doesn't make seat belts unsafe.

Originally posted by PBC_1966
http://www.ucolick.org/~de/AltTrans/SeatbeltLaws.html
http://www.eirbyte.com/gcc/info/seat_belts.html

Aren't they the same report?

unkel

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Not quite sure what you're getting at. How can you get a full license without driving a car first?

During driving lessons with a qualified driving instructor in a dual control (brakes) learner vehicle

It's about time the driving test should be standardised throughout the EU with an immediate end to new provisional licenses. Current provisional license holders should be given sufficient time to schedule a driving test. In the meantime they should be accompanied by a qualified driver. If they fail the test, they should not be allowed on the road except during driving lessons as above

Do this now and this country will see a spectacular reduction in accidents and insurance premia soon

PBC_1966

Originally posted by Victor
Aren't they the same report?

Oops! Sorry, I copied the links from my lists in too much of a hurry.

Try this page for more info:

http://www.motorists.org/issues/safety/seat_belt_laws.html

Spunog UIE

Originally posted by ChipZilla
If you use your mirrors to reverse, why would you need to take your belt off? You'd still be facing forward. Or am I doing something wrong when I reverse?

Well you shouldn't just be using your mirrors when you reverse! And you should be looking around, and not just facing forward. Think that is obvious at least I hope it is. The thing is, for most situations it can be done with the belt on but you do need the exception when the belt is restraining you too much to complete the reverse effectively.