Wearing Seatbelt..

DrummerBoy

Originally posted by PBC_1966
For example, taxi drivers are not required to use a belt while driving their cab. Why not?

Taxi drivers are not required to use seat belts because the person behind them can use the belt to choke them! And IF they need to get out of the car quickly due to a passenger tryinf to attack them.

Ask an Taxi driver, didn't believe it my self till I seen it in writting!!
A.

Turner

Taxi drivers are exempt i presume for safety reasons. For example if they need to leave the car very quickly.. kinda what happens in a crash

Sleipnir

Originally posted by PBC_1966
And what about the cost to the health service of treating people who have been injured because of a seat-belt? The same applies to air-bags.

The point is, the lives saved by wearing seatbelts is far greater then the the number of people injured by wearing them.
It's simply a question which is the greater risk, wearing a seatbelt or not wearing a seatbelt.
Everything, including the most basic common sense points to not wearing a seatbelt as the greater risk.

leeroybrown

From Oasis:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/using_seatbelts_when_motoring.html?search=seat+belts

I always wear a seat belt while driving regardless of if I'm the driver or a front/rear passenger. If I'm the drver I'll insist that my passengers belt up.

In a certain very limited set of situations wearing a seat belt may cause minor injury but the vast majority of the time any effects it can have will be less serious than those of an unprotected accident.

Ultimately, it makes sense and it is the law and people should abide by it.

How about this for an idea:

Remove liability from the driver for specific passengers in an accident where injury has occured due to non wearing of seatbelts!

PBC_1966

From Oasis:
Since 1st January 1971, all drivers and anyone occupying a forward facing front seat of any of the vehicles listed above must wear a safety belt or an appropriate child restraint, unless they are exempted.

Is that a typo, or the correct date? I know a couple of states in Australia introduced seat-belt laws that early, but Ireland? The U.K. made buckling up compulsory in the front in 1983.

The exemptions have a few differences from U.K. rules:

Exemptions from requirement to wear seatbelts
3. If you are giving instruction in or in respect of the driving of a vehicle (i.e., you are teaching someone else how to drive).

I don't think there's anything equivalent to that here.

4. If you are driving test examiner conducting a driving test

That is definitely the same here. Why? Like taxi drivers, we have an examiner riding around all day, in this case with inexperienced drivers, so by all the pro-arguments, shouldn't he be required to buckle up as well, for his own protection?

5. If you are a member of An Garda Siochana or the Defence Forces and are driving as part of your duties

The only police exemption I've seen listed here says an officer doesn't have to use the belt when escorting a prisoner.

Furthermore, there is an additional onus on drivers to ensure that persons under 17 are suitably restrained while they are in charge of the vehicle.

The cut-off point for responsibility here is 14.

seamus

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Is that a typo, or the correct date? I know a couple of states in Australia introduced seat-belt laws that early, but Ireland? The U.K. made buckling up compulsory in the front in 1983.

That's the correct date. An exemption though originally was as simple as "My car doesn't have seat belts". It wasn't until 1990 (afaik) that seatbelts were compulsory in new cars.

That is definitely the same here. Why? Like taxi drivers, we have an examiner riding around all day, in this case with inexperienced drivers, so by all the pro-arguments, shouldn't he be required to buckle up as well, for his own protection?

Not sure of that one. It's probably a legacy to the thinking of the 70's. The instructor may need to move around a bit more to look around, but not that much. It may also have been put in for his own safety, like the taxi drivers (so someone who fails can't attack them), but since the test isn't graded until you get back to the tester's desk, that's not required.

The only police exemption I've seen listed here says an officer doesn't have to use the belt when escorting a prisoner.

It's obvious why police on patrol shouldn't have to wear seatbelts. I'd say the UK law is lacking on that one.

Why are you comparing UK and Irish law anyway? Different countries, different laws.

PBC_1966

From Oasis:
All cars first registered in Ireland since 1st June 1971, are required to have safety belts fitted on front seats.

Front belts are required to be fitted here in all cars 1965 and later.

There's another crazy aspect with regard to this point though. If I jump in a 1964 car and it has belts fitted, then I'm subject to being stopped and fined for not using one. But as a 1964 car is not legally required to have belts, I can remove them entirely and then drive around perfectly legally.

Presumably the same would apply in Ireland to a pre-1971 car?

Why are you comparing UK and Irish law anyway? Different countries, different laws.

Just trying to see if there's any sort of logic in the ways that different jurisdictions have implemented these laws.

It seems that both have inconsistencies. (I'd be tempted to complain to the EU that it's unfair that member states have different rules, but I don't think I even want to go there.... ).

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Oh dear...... Is there nobody here on the anti-belt side?

The reason that quite a few of us object to the compulsory seatbelt law is two-fold.

First, although belts may prevent injury, there are plenty of cases where a seat-belt has caused injury. There are people walking around today who have survived accidents which would have been fatal had they been buckled up. The government is therefore mandating that people do something which may be harmful, which is a violation of the right to the security of one's person.

Second, even if we ignore that point and assume that belts automatically provide protection in all cases, when did we give up our right of self-determination to the nanny-state? Laws are there to protect people against the actions of others, not to protect people against themselves.

The argument that "It's for your own good" doesn't wash. If we accept that argument, then there is almost no limit to where legislation could end.

"It's for your own good" not to go running around outside in freezing cold weather without wrapping up warm. Would you accept laws enforcing this? If you went out in the middle of January when it's 30 degrees outside wearing just a T-shirt and shorts, and a police officer stopped you and issued you with a citation for this "illegal" activity, would you just accept it and pay the fine, because "it's for your own good," or would you be complaining that you have the right to run around in the cold if yoiu want to?

Please tell me about these "unconstitutional laws" you made reference to earlier. I won't bring it up again if you decide to ignore me again.

K2

pcb_1966

(a) i don't eat at mcdonalds - i have too much respect for myself to eat that rubbish (pizzahut everytime)

(b) ban smoking completely? Yes, imo its a slow way of killing yourself, preventing people from killing themselves is not such a bad idea, is it?

But this is not the point of this thread. You talk about the nanny state interfering, that's a rather weak argument. I guess you don't like wearing a seatbelt? and this is about the only argument you can make - the argument about injuries incurred by wearing a seat belt is even weaker, some others here have already stated they have received such injuries, and gladly so as they would have been much more seriously injured or even killed without it. And there have been stories reported in the media over here stating that the introduction of penalty points has reduced the number of car crash victims hospitals are treating.

unkel

Originally posted by PBC_1966
There are large numbers of Americans who are also totally opposed to the mandatory seat-belt laws.

Is not fair to compare Europe with America in this respect as American cars typically have full size airbags, designed to protect when people aren't wearing seatbelts. The European ones only protect if you wear the belt as well :eek:

PBC_1966

Please tell me about these "unconstitutional laws" you made reference to earlier. I won't bring it up again if you decide to ignore me again.

I wasn't ignoring the request; I thought I had answered it. A law which mandates that somebody must do something which may be harmful to his health is surely unconstitutional (the right to be secure in one's person that I mentioned above). I'm not familiar with the Irish constitution, but I would assume you have something along those lines, as in other countries.

You may argue that the risk of not buckling up is greater than that of using a seat-belt. Any debate on that aside, by saying that you acknowledge that there are some instances where being strapped in may be detrimental rasther than beneficial. It doesn't matter whether the chance is 1 in 2 or 1 in 10000, it still means that a mandatory seat-belt law is requiring somebody to do something which in certain cirumstances may be harmful to his health.

Is not fair to compare Europe with America in this respect as American cars typically have full size airbags, designed to protect when people aren't wearing seatbelts. The European ones only protect if you wear the belt as well

I think you'll find that despite the difference in air-bags, U.S. manufacturers are also trying to tell people that they are effective only when used in conjunction with a seatbelt.

But we could be talking about two cars neither of which have air-bags anyway. If we wanted to get into that debate, I would argue that many of the small European cars should be banned from the roads here. They would certainly never pass American safety standards.

I guess you don't like wearing a seatbelt?

Quite correct. By the time I took my driver's test the law had just been introduced, so I had to buckle up to pass. I also tried it for a few days before to try to get used to the darned thing. I have never worn one since.

However, let me point out that I would argue against mandatory motorcycle helmets on the same basic principle of freedom of choice. And on that, I have no ax to grind, as I do not ride, nor have I ever ridden a motorcycle.

By the way, in Australia and New Zealand it is now illegal to ride a regular bicycle without a helmet. Would any of you support such a law in Ireland?

(a) i don't eat at mcdonalds - i have too much respect for myself to eat that rubbish (pizzahut everytime)

Ah.... Something on which to agree! I prefer BK or Wendy's to MacD anyway.

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
I wasn't ignoring the request; I thought I had answered it. A law which mandates that somebody must do something which may be harmful to his health is surely unconstitutional (the right to be secure in one's person that I mentioned above). I'm not familiar with the Irish constitution, but I would assume you have something along those lines, as in other countries.

Ah, yeah there is, but we had that one out in the Gladys Ryan water fluoridation case in the mid 60s (Ryan v AG). Public health concerns blah blah, it'd never wash (no pun intended) even if there are cases (and I'll happily take your word for it) where a seat belt has impaired the health of someone in a crash.

K2

PBC_1966 -
I don't suppose you are built like Jordan? I would imagine it is rather uncomfortable for big chested women to wear seat belts, but that's not a good enough reason not to. In fact I would say we need to protect all the big chested women out there:D

the evil belly

Originally posted by PBC_1966
By the way, in Australia and New Zealand it is now illegal to ride a regular bicycle without a helmet. Would any of you support such a law in Ireland?

hell ya i'd support it. you're using a road with fast moving objects that weigh tens of times what you do and if nothing else the air movements a truck creates at speed will take you off a bike. i've been hit by 2 cars and a had a near miss with a bus all on the straight road in cork. all 3 times the vechicles in question turned into me or cut across me across me. been blessed to escape with only cuts and bruises each time. that said i've had stiches in my face after coming off a bike going down steps (i was younger and stupider) only thing that saved me from a cracked skull was a helmet.

i heard on the radio here during the week that some road safety group (can't remember which one) are calling for it be made compulsory that children under 12 have an adult with them when cycling on public roads

Gurgle

So ya think thats stupid...
MAG Ireland wants wearing helmets on motorcycles to be on a voluntary basis.
Linky

Having broken the windscreen of a Transit with the back of my helmet, and a few other bounces down the roads, I would be inclined to disagree.

Seth Brundle

at a time when motorcycle related fatalities are at the levels they are it is ridiculous for MAG to be calling for the law on mandatory helmet wearing to be abolished.
Get biker related accident rates down and then consider it!

Victor

I was in an accident three years ago. I was the back seat passenger in a taxi that hit a car that had run a red light. I suffered bruises and pulled muscles. If I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I would have splatted the driver off the steering wheel.

Originally posted by K2
Unfortunately it is still a common occurance to see people drive around with out wearing them, have a look around tonite on the way home.

Oi! eyes on the road please.

Originally posted by K2
PBC_1966 - I don't suppose you are built like Jordan? I would imagine it is rather uncomfortable for big chested women to wear seat belts, but that's not a good enough reason not to. In fact I would say we need to protect all the big chested women out there:D

Get a four point seat belt - they are available in the states, certainly for rear seat passengers.

Kermitt

i've just read through this thread and these are my conclusions.....

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!

2. Wear a seat belt ........ Like every sane person.

K2

victor - I did of course mean when you are stopped at the lights. God forbid I should take my eyes of the road at any time, though it is hard in this good weather not to notice the eye candy. 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'm off to the garage this weekend to have the seatbelts removed along with the airbags, abs, ebd and the brake lights. Seamus Brennan can shove the rules of the road up his arse, I'm a responsible adult and don't need to be told how to behave behind the wheel

btw are fout point seatbelts espcially made for the bigger woman?


ps please note the smilies, ww)

the evil belly

Originally posted by Gurgle
MAG Ireland wants wearing helmets on motorcycles to be on a voluntary basis.

without helmets lots of bikers will end up becoming major organ doners

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....