mardybum:
Can’t say I’ve worn one in a wagon since I passed my test. If I can see a nasty accident unfolding before my eyes, where I’m going to come off worse than I’d like, I’ll be out of the door. Presumably like the gent on the M1 I went by a couple of months back…
The kind of accident where one would save you would be when you got rear ended by another truck so you’d not see it unfolding before your eyes until your eyes were heading towards the windscreen.
And you don’t have to go through the windscreen to wish you’d worn a seatbelt, the impact of your head on the glass can do serious damage and if you’re unlucky paralyse you if you hit it at the wrong angle and break your neck.
Arthurhucksake:
I’ll never understand people who won’t wear seatbelts, I know of a few people who’ve been killed or seriously injured through not wearing them.
One was a trucker, his accident was a thread in here a while back, basically ran into the back of another truck on the M1, the damage to the unit wasn’t serious but as he wasn’t wearing his belt he was thrown forward and subsequently died of his injuries, the Police put this down to his death, had he been wearing it he’d still be here today.
I’d far rather a little discomfort than lose my life!
Although all of this is true, the purpose of the police should be to protect citizens from acts committed by third parties, not to penalise them for acts of recklessness with regard to their own personal safety. It is every free-born man’s right to go to the devil in his own way.
Arthurhucksake:
I’ll never understand people who won’t wear seatbelts, I know of a few people who’ve been killed or seriously injured through not wearing them.
One was a trucker, his accident was a thread in here a while back, basically ran into the back of another truck on the M1, the damage to the unit wasn’t serious but as he wasn’t wearing his belt he was thrown forward and subsequently died of his injuries, the Police put this down to his death, had he been wearing it he’d still be here today.
I’d far rather a little discomfort than lose my life!
Although all of this is true, the purpose of the police should be to protect citizens from acts committed by third parties, not to penalise them for acts of recklessness with regard to their own personal safety. It is every free-born man’s right to go to the devil in his own way.
So should drivers with injuries, preventable by wearing seatbelts, be treated in hospitals?
Should motorcyclists be treated or not for head injuries if they wear no helmets?
If they are treated they cause extra (avoidable) expense to us all, because of their actions.
Arthurhucksake:
I’ll never understand people who won’t wear seatbelts, I know of a few people who’ve been killed or seriously injured through not wearing them.
One was a trucker, his accident was a thread in here a while back, basically ran into the back of another truck on the M1, the damage to the unit wasn’t serious but as he wasn’t wearing his belt he was thrown forward and subsequently died of his injuries, the Police put this down to his death, had he been wearing it he’d still be here today.
I’d far rather a little discomfort than lose my life!
Although all of this is true, the purpose of the police should be to protect citizens from acts committed by third parties, not to penalise them for acts of recklessness with regard to their own personal safety. It is every free-born man’s right to go to the devil in his own way.
So should drivers with injuries, preventable by wearing seatbelts, be treated in hospitals?
Should motorcyclists be treated or not for head injuries if they wear no helmets?
If they are treated they cause extra (avoidable) expense to us all, because of their actions.
Should people be treated in hospitals if they play rugby, climb mountains or spectate at motor racing events?
mardybum:
Can’t say I’ve worn one in a wagon since I passed my test. If I can see a nasty accident unfolding before my eyes, where I’m going to come off worse than I’d like, I’ll be out of the door. Presumably like the gent on the M1 I went by a couple of months back…
The kind of accident where one would save you would be when you got rear ended by another truck so you’d not see it unfolding before your eyes until your eyes were heading towards the windscreen.
Surely you head towards the windscreen due to the sudden deceleration of the vehicle and you as an unrestrained object continue on your course until you meet some opposing force, in this case the windscreen, so how do you head for the windscreen at great force when the vehicle suddenly accelerates after being hit from behind?
As has been mentioned most drivers of LGV’s killed or seriously injured is because they hit the truck in front, because they are too close and didn’t have enough time to press the foot brake, once their brain had processed that the vehicle in front was slowing down.
So the chances you can exit via the drivers door is virtually nil, but then again he may have received special training in Hereford.
Arthurhucksake:
I’ll never understand people who won’t wear seatbelts, I know of a few people who’ve been killed or seriously injured through not wearing them.
One was a trucker, his accident was a thread in here a while back, basically ran into the back of another truck on the M1, the damage to the unit wasn’t serious but as he wasn’t wearing his belt he was thrown forward and subsequently died of his injuries, the Police put this down to his death, had he been wearing it he’d still be here today.
I’d far rather a little discomfort than lose my life!
Although all of this is true, the purpose of the police should be to protect citizens from acts committed by third parties, not to penalise them for acts of recklessness with regard to their own personal safety. It is every free-born man’s right to go to the devil in his own way.
So should drivers with injuries, preventable by wearing seatbelts, be treated in hospitals?
Should motorcyclists be treated or not for head injuries if they wear no helmets?
If they are treated they cause extra (avoidable) expense to us all, because of their actions.
Should people be treated in hospitals if they play rugby, climb mountains or spectate at motor racing events?
Good question.
Maybe they should take out insurance for risky sports? Personally I hope not.
It may be that society has decided that it’s willing to fork out for medical care after injuries are caused in sport, ■■■■ not through failing to wear seat belts.
Sport provides good exercise and health benefits at a cost of risk of injury. Maybe there is a benefit overall in having a fitter population? What advantages are there to not wearing a seatbelt? I can’t think of many.
Edit to clarify. I hope extra health insurance isn’t necessary for sports and treatment remains free. I didn’t word that well.
We have a 1995 Daf tractor unit that has no belts and to young people (30 ) like me brought up with seat belts I find it really strange driving it - that and the ■■■■ fuller road ranger bollox installed!!
Arthurhucksake:
I’ll never understand people who won’t wear seatbelts, I know of a few people who’ve been killed or seriously injured through not wearing them.
One was a trucker, his accident was a thread in here a while back, basically ran into the back of another truck on the M1, the damage to the unit wasn’t serious but as he wasn’t wearing his belt he was thrown forward and subsequently died of his injuries, the Police put this down to his death, had he been wearing it he’d still be here today.
I’d far rather a little discomfort than lose my life!
No, neither have I, it’s just plain crazy not to wear one. I knew a taxi driver who never wore his belt as he legally did not have to. I always said you are mad and he said he was too good a driver and would not be involved in a serious accident. He was killed a few years ago and guess what? The accident was his own fault.
Nobody can say it will never happen to them but an awful lot seem to think it. Fools.
Harry Monk:
Good job the Police haven’t got any knife crime to investigate.
Police are as wasteful of resources as doctors. They go around fixing broken bones and treating high blood pressure, when they should be finding a cure for cancer.
?
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Let’s hope you are being sarcastic in that reply…
If you are not, you… do realise, a broken bone can kill? … high blood pressure can kill also, how dumb a reply yours is … so, in your world, tell them to stop trying to find a cure for lung cancer for people who smoke or a liver transplant for drinkers … end of the day the police have a duty to protect motorists and all motorists have a due to abide by the law. Same for hospital, people pay the NI, and every right to go get a bone fixed if it is broken etc…
mrginge:
We have a 1995 Daf tractor unit that has no belts and to young people (30 ) like me brought up with seat belts I find it really strange driving it - that and the ■■■■ fuller road ranger bollox installed!!
Harry Monk:
Good job the Police haven’t got any knife crime to investigate.
Police are as wasteful of resources as doctors. They go around fixing broken bones and treating high blood pressure, when they should be finding a cure for cancer.
?
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Let’s hope you are being sarcastic in that reply…
If you are not, you… do realise, a broken bone can kill? … high blood pressure can kill also, how dumb a reply yours is … so, in your world, tell them to stop trying to find a cure for lung cancer for people who smoke or a liver transplant for drinkers … end of the day the police have a duty to protect motorists and all motorists have a due to abide by the law. Same for hospital, people pay the NI, and every right to go get a bone fixed if it is broken etc…
Personally I think that was sarcasm however I agree with Harry’s point.
A broken bone can, but is not likely to kill. Cancer is more likely to kill.
A drunk driver outside a school is more likely to kill than one doing 80 on a motorway but the camera will only catch (and fine) one.
Given how many crimes that have happened/been committed that the police aren’t interested in attending (or even recording) it seems a bit crazy they are looking for something that “might” happen, and if it raises money that’s just a coincidence I am sure
Harry Monk:
Good job the Police haven’t got any knife crime to investigate.
Police are as wasteful of resources as doctors. They go around fixing broken bones and treating high blood pressure, when they should be finding a cure for cancer.
?
Sent from my SM-G361F using Tapatalk
Let’s hope you are being sarcastic in that reply…
If you are not, you… do realise, a broken bone can kill? … high blood pressure can kill also, how dumb a reply yours is … so, in your world, tell them to stop trying to find a cure for lung cancer for people who smoke or a liver transplant for drinkers … end of the day the police have a duty to protect motorists and all motorists have a due to abide by the law. Same for hospital, people pay the NI, and every right to go get a bone fixed if it is broken etc…
Personally I think that was sarcasm however I agree with Harry’s point.
A broken bone can, but is not likely to kill. Cancer is more likely to kill.
A drunk driver outside a school is more likely to kill than one doing 80 on a motorway but the camera will only catch (and fine) one.
Given how many crimes that have happened/been committed that the police aren’t interested in attending (or even recording) it seems a bit crazy they are looking for something that “might” happen, and if it raises money that’s just a coincidence I am sure
Yes sarcasm.
My later post probably confirmed that.
Police stopping stopping things that might happen?
AKA: risk assessment, which we all do every day.
I’ll reckon most of us slow outside schools in case a kid might run out?
A few seconds gained by going fast weighed against the (slim) chance of a death.
Driving without a seatbelt risks a greater medical cost in case of an accident, balanced against a normally slight inconvenience for the wearer.
And if the police aren’t attending incidents, we may agree that they should, isn’t that due to lack of funding?
When I was on the buses we didn’t even have seat belts fitted, even on the buses that were used for the longer routes where you could regularly get up to 60mph
I thought you could only be fined for eating or drinking (non alcoholic) at the wheel if it could be proved that you didn’t have full control? I was passed by a traffic car on the M6 a few weeks ago, and the driver was driving one handed with a Costa coffee cup held in the other hand on the centre armrest. When I went for my driving assessment for my current employer, the assessor took us into the services and bought me a coffee and told me it was OK to drive back and drink it. On the Company induction they showed us a Company produced video telling us it was acceptable to drink as long as you were not distracted.
I’ve seen numerous videos of seat belt tests with Volvo trucks.
If you aren’t wearing a belt and the truck goes over you stand a very high chance of being killed. You may well be ejected from the vehicle, then crushed by it (so much for those who think they can escape by jumping out).
The truck’s cab structure and safety systems (airbags etc) are designed to protect the belted-in driver…they won’t help you if you are thrown forward through the windscreen or tumbled about in the cab.
This country is a nanny state. Freedom of choice is long gone.I got caught in Sunderland a few months back by a cop van .I could have paid £100 fine or £36 and watch an online poorly made video that was full of propoganda.They state that they dont want to make money out of you its just for your own good.So why the fine or the £36 to watch a £2.50 video■■? One comment on here al professional driver not wearing his belt… well we are professional when it suits and the rest of the time treat like crap.
The police would be more respected if they concentrated on real crime like drug dealing which is the countrys biggest problem after MPs.
) like me brought up with seat belts I find it really strange driving it - that and the ■■■■ fuller road ranger bollox installed!!