ROG:
I have the view that if a driver gets injured because they were not wearing a belt then they should be made to pay towards their care
That’s an interesting idea and I can see the reasoning behind it, but out of fairness wouldn’t you then have to apply the same rule to anyone who was injured in an accident that was partly of their own making ?
Dose it matter Tacho the rule is seatbelt on, so if you don’t have it on you pay.
Well obviously I think it may matter or I wouldn’t have mentioned it
As I said I can see the reasoning behind the idea, but what about people who crash because of speeding, or people who crash through plain old negligence, in principle it’s a good idea but in reality there could be all kinds of implications.
I mean, I always wear a seat belt so wouldn’t have to pay for care even if I got hurt by driving blindfolded, yet the person I ran into could have to pay for their care if they wasn’t wearing a seatbelt even if they were blameless for the accident, the result would be that some generally good drivers could end up paying huge insurance premiums while some generally negligent drivers paid less
Could be an interesting topic for discussion though
ROG:
I have the view that if a driver gets injured because they were not wearing a belt then they should be made to pay towards their care
That’s an interesting idea and I can see the reasoning behind it, but out of fairness wouldn’t you then have to apply the same rule to anyone who was injured in an accident that was partly of their own making ?
Dose it matter Tacho the rule is seatbelt on, so if you don’t have it on you pay.
Well obviously I think it may matter or I wouldn’t have mentioned it
As I said I can see the reasoning behind the idea, but what about people who crash because of speeding, or people who crash through plain old negligence, in principle it’s a good idea but in reality there could be all kinds of implications.
I mean, I always wear a seat belt so wouldn’t have to pay for care even if I got hurt by driving blindfolded, yet the person I ran into could have to pay for their care if they wasn’t wearing a seatbelt even if they were blameless for the accident, the result would be that some generally good drivers could end up paying huge insurance premiums while some generally negligent drivers paid less
Could be an interesting topic for discussion though
Tachograph is absolutely right. You’d be setting a very dangerous precedent.
Where would it end? You slip and fall down the stairs in the car park (or wherever). You could be at least partly blamed for this in almost every situation. So do you have to pay for the medical care then? There are hundreds of similar scenarios.
I think the rule is a good one, but to make the wrong doer pay for their own care is a no no.
chaversdad:
i got offered an online “seatbelts saves lives” course and a fine reduced to £60, course was a load of ■■■■■■■■ though, its not a pass/fail and it consisted of where the safest place in a car was to put a child seat , the reduced fine made it worth it though
hope I get offered this! have you belted up since being naughty?
i know i should wear it but the combination of being 6ft5 and having arthritis in my shoulder just makes it too uncomfortable
tachograph:
As I said I can see the reasoning behind the idea, but what about people who crash because of speeding, or people who crash through plain old negligence, in principle it’s a good idea but in reality there could be all kinds of implications.
Stop talking common sense Tachograph, the self-righteous are on the usual clunk-click roll.
tachograph:
As I said I can see the reasoning behind the idea, but what about people who crash because of speeding, or people who crash through plain old negligence, in principle it’s a good idea but in reality there could be all kinds of implications.
Stop talking common sense Tachograph, the self-righteous are on the usual clunk-click roll.
We should probably just kill ourselves now seeing as though we cant live upto their perfect standards
I must take the eldest (3) out for a ride in my old Citroen. He needs to learn how to travel unrestrained in the back of the car without flopping around and also how to deal with the furnace like heat from vinyl seats in the summer.
The “Postal” fines issued on the evidence of a camera are getting ridiculous now, I have a friend that is disabled and has a seat belt exemption as it is impossible to wear a belt across his chest. He does wear a specially adapted lap-belt similar to the type that was installed in the centre seat in many cars years ago.
Despite the exemption he still gets fines at least once a month and has to appeal every one as there is no system in place to identify cars that are being driven by an exempt driver. He also gets regular stops by police when he is away from the local area.
ROG:
I have the view that if a driver gets injured because they were not wearing a belt then they should be made to pay towards their care
That’s an interesting idea and I can see the reasoning behind it, but out of fairness wouldn’t you then have to apply the same rule to anyone who was injured in an accident that was partly of their own making ?
Yeah you would, great idea, Rog for PM. I’m on board, cause & effect. Chokey if you can’t pay.
They are very restricting. Maybe the rule for HGVs should be seat belts ON for "out of 30mph limits".....in town exempt. Were supposed to look all over the place for cyclists and pedestrians when turning left and when you lean forwards to check the mirror the daft things always lock up as soon as you start to move.
