Up in court this morning

Our man in Havana

I fear an invocation of Goodwins Law is on the cards.

MrPudding

mkennedy wrote:

i'm not arguing with the law and I can't do much about it.

i'm just expressing dissatisfaction with it because imo it's not a dangerous infraction at 10KMH and UNACCOMPANIED. that's all.

far more deserving of points is driving without a seatbelt at greater speeds e.g 50-100kmh ESPECIALLY WHILE ACCOMPANIED.

i'm sure most people would agree the 2 scenarios aren't equivalent. hence my use of the term "soft".

anyway this has gone way OT. sorry OP.

How many laws do you people want? We have a major issue at the moment getting even the simplest of laws enforced.

Do you suggest that we change it so that not wearing a seatbelt ( assuming you are below 20kph, unacompanied, in a red car with at least 17inch wheels is ok but anything outside that is ok?

Perhaps it is ok not to wear a seatbelt if you are on a journey of less than 1 mile?

Actually no. Perhaps it is ok not to wear a seatbelt if it is a journey of less than one mile, no one else is in the car, it is a full moon and your girlfriend is not on her period? Yes? Does that sound ok?

Seriously. WTF. Either it is illegal or it is not. End of story.

Laws are laws. You may not agree with a lot of them, I know I don't, but they are the laws. If you start making exceptions to what should be really fcuking simple rules it will end in disaster.

MrP

Mitch Connor

MrPudding wrote:

How many laws do you people want? We have a major issue at the moment getting even the simplest of laws enforced.

Do you suggest that we change it so that not wearing a seatbelt ( assuming you are below 20kph, unacompanied, in a red car with at least 17inch wheels is ok but anything outside that is ok?

Perhaps it is ok not to wear a seatbelt if you are on a journey of less than 1 mile?

Actually no. Perhaps it is ok not to wear a seatbelt if it is a journey of less than one mile, no one else is in the car, it is a full moon and your girlfriend is not on her period? Yes? Does that sound ok?

Seriously. WTF. Either it is illegal or it is not. End of story.

Laws are laws. You may not agree with a lot of them, I know I don't, but they are the laws. If you start making exceptions to what should be really fcuking simple rules it will end in disaster.

MrP

well - i would not have not wearing a seat belt as a penalty point offence, especially in certain circumstances, such as low speeds, unaccompanied. Its not like it would be any harder to enforce, if you are pulled over the gardai stopping you can assess teh situation, how fast you were going and if you were alone, and then fine/fine+point you as appropriate.

If it is SOOOOOO incredably important that you wear a seat belt at ALL time, so much so you could lose your licence over it, why are motorbikes not banned from the roads.

MrPudding

Tauren wrote:

If it is SOOOOOO incredably important that you wear a seat belt at ALL time, so much so you could lose your licence over it, why are motorbikes not banned from the roads.

Well, basically cos they don't have them therefore it would be pretty pointless to make the wearing of them a legal requirement. :rolleyes:

MrP

Mitch Connor

MrPudding wrote:

Well, basically cos they don't have them therefore it would be pretty pointless to make the wearing of them a legal requirement. :rolleyes:

MrP

But if it is all about safety, and so important that an unaccompanied driver should wear a seat belt - surely bikes should be banned from the roads. Fact is they don't have seat belts, and a low spped crash is more dangerous on a bike then in a car imo. So, if you cuold lose you driving licence for not wearing a seatbelt, bikes simply should not be allowed on the road, as you are putting yourself at far more risk on a bike then unbelted in a car.

I can't think of any logical reason that makes seatbelts in cars so important in these circumstances, but which a person on a bike would be satisfactorally safe regardless.

Can you explain it to me? the fact that bikes don't have belts (and would be impractical anyway) doesn't appear to have relevance imo, unless you can give me reason to think otherwise.

MrPudding

Tauren wrote:

But if it is all about safety, and so important that an unaccompanied driver should wear a seat belt - surely bikes should be banned from the roads. Fact is they don't have seat belts, and a low spped crash is more dangerous on a bike then in a car imo. So, if you cuold lose you driving licence for not wearing a seatbelt, bikes simply should not be allowed on the road, as you are putting yourself at far more risk on a bike then unbelted in a car.

I think that it is generally considered that on a bike, in an incident, the further away from it you are the better. I know that if I dropped my bike, as I went sliding up the road I would be trying to kick it away from me. One of the main safety and life saving features of a car is the fact that it is a cage. All car safety features are bases on the assumption that you STAY INSIDE IT. Side impact protection, airbags and all those fancy features count for nought if you have gone through the windscreen and are sliding up the road.

Tauren wrote:

I can't think of any logical reason that makes seatbelts in cars so important in these circumstances, but which a person on a bike would be satisfactorally safe regardless.

It is much easier to enforce a blanket rule. Adding caveats causes complication in enforcement. Regardless of this I think that you should wear a seatbelt at all times anyway so for me whether or not you are alone or what speed you are doing is irrelevant.

Tauren wrote:

Can you explain it to me? the fact that bikes don't have belts (and would be impractical anyway) doesn't appear to have relevance imo, unless you can give me reason to think otherwise.

I have given you a reason now but based on your past performance I am not holding my breath for you to accept it….

MrP

Mitch Connor

MrPudding wrote:

I think that it is generally considered that on a bike, in an incident, the further away from it you are the better. I know that if I dropped my bike, as I went sliding up the road I would be trying to kick it away from me. One of the main safety and life saving features of a car is the fact that it is a cage. All car safety features are bases on the assumption that you STAY INSIDE IT. Side impact protection, airbags and all those fancy features count for nought if you have gone through the windscreen and are sliding up the road.

It is much easier to enforce a blanket rule. Adding caveats causes complication in enforcement. Regardless of this I think that you should wear a seatbelt at all times anyway so for me whether or not you are alone or what speed you are doing is irrelevant.

I have given you a reason now but based on your past performance I am not holding my breath for you to accept it….

MrP

based on what past performance? how patronising.

Fey!

Tauren wrote:

based on what past performance? how patronising.

Patronising??? :eek: Not even close.

He's absolutely right; you're hell-bent on not accepting anything that anyone else has to say, even though what they say makes a huge amount of sense, and what you say, for the larger part, doesn't!

In my humble opinion, of course.

Mitch Connor

Fey! wrote:

Patronising??? :eek: Not even close.

He's absolutely right; you're hell-bent on not accepting anything that anyone else has to say, even though what they say makes a huge amount of sense, and what you say, for the larger part, doesn't!

In my humble opinion, of course.

the ONLY things i have argued with any real conviction on here are the following:

1. Not all speed limits are perfect, some are too high, and some are too low. Going slightly over the limit on the m50 is not proof positive you are evil and a danger to every other road user. 121kmh does not equal "unsafe" in all ciscumstances.

2. Overtaking multiple cars at once is not automactically unsafe - just as long as you have the room to pull back in if required, and continually reassess teh situation.

3. Driving at low speeds, on your own, without a seatbelt is not all that dangerous, and shouldn't lead to the possibility of losing your licence.

Tell me, what of those 3 is completely unreasonable and makes no sense?

Fey!

I agree with you on the bad speed limiting - some appear to be numbers pulled from a hat.

I also, to some degree, agree with the overtaking; mulitple overtaking isn't always stupidly dangerous; overtaking 3 cars could be the same as overtaking 1 artic.

It's the seatbelts argument that gets me; even though you may be going slowly, the person who hits you could be flying, causing you to do major organ damage on the steering wheel, or indeed send you through the windscreen.

It's the combined speed of impact that matters, not just your speed.

And then there are the poor people who have to scrape your bloodied, mangled carcass off the ground, and go and inform your family that you've mutilated yourself by not wearing a seatbelt.

Shall I wax lyrical for a while longer, or is that enough to upset breakfast?

Mitch Connor

Fey! wrote:

I agree with you on the bad speed limiting - some appear to be numbers pulled from a hat.

I also, to some degree, agree with the overtaking; mulitple overtaking isn't always stupidly dangerous; overtaking 3 cars could be the same as overtaking 1 artic.

It's the seatbelts argument that gets me; even though you may be going slowly, the person who hits you could be flying, causing you to do major organ damage on the steering wheel, or indeed send you through the windscreen.

It's the combined speed of impact that matters, not just your speed.

And then there are the poor people who have to scrape your bloodied, mangled carcass off the ground, and go and inform your family that you've mutilated yourself by not wearing a seatbelt.

Shall I wax lyrical for a while longer, or is that enough to upset breakfast?

so, of the only two of which would be representative of my 'past performance', you can see my point of view. Yet, what i say makes no sense. Yep, that works well, doesn't it.

As for the seat belts - i can see your point. I do think it is important to wear your seat belt - and i do at all times, no matter where i am driving to; i just don't think when driving at low speeds, on your own, it should be a penalty point offence. A fine yes, possibly heftier then you would get with the penalty points (as a discouragement) but not points, imo. Why is it so freakin unreasonable to suggest it should not be a penalty point offence. (Note - i have not said it should not be an offence at all, just not a points one)

whippet

Tauren wrote:

i just don't think when driving at low speeds, on your own, it should be a penalty point offence.

what about the possibility of being rear ended by distracted driver going at 50mph ?

as has been exhausted on the argument ... law is black and white and that is why there has to be exact limits and rules.

If the seat belt law was as you suggested .. two people travelling at the same speed, on their own could in theory be pulled over by two guards working together and one guard decides to give a ticket and the other one decided to form the opinion that it was worth a ticket.

I'd love to see what sort of bottle neck would occur in our district court system with appeals and objections to this 'objective' enforcment of a vague law.

I think it is time to stop arguing a point that you really don't believe in on principle and accept the fact that the reason people would argue against points for seat belts is the fact that they are embarrassed or know it was such a simple few points to avoid and need to rant at somebody

Stark

How are the gardaí going to catch people without seatbelts driving at high speeds? The time when they're going to catch someone for not wearing a seatbelt is when they see them in traffic/when they've pulled them over.

Besides, what a silly thing to let yourself get points for. It takes minimal effort to put in your seatbelt when about to drive. In fact, once you get into the habit, it feels weird not to. You could get speeding points for drifting over/not checking your speedo often enough/getting frustrated with a ridiculously low limit, but to get points for not taking two seconds at the start of your drive to plug in your belt is crazy and you have only yourself to blame.

yayamark

Stark wrote:

How are the gardaí going to catch people without seatbelts driving at high speeds? The time when they're going to catch someone for not wearing a seatbelt is when they see them in traffic/when they've pulled them over.
.

maybe if an unmarked garda car overtakes a speeding car on a dualcarraigeway/motorway and observe the driver without a seatbelt on:cool: