Yes i’ve always wore one in the truck,feel bare and exposed without it to be honest
Spardo:
I wear one for one reason only, to avoid a fine. But I have a clip which keeps it slack because I can’t abide the bloody things :twisted:And before someone pipes up about their value yet again, I know their value[/i]. But my life is mine to risk if I choose to as long as I’m risking no-one else’s .
Nanny lives. Everywhere unfortunately.
[/quote]
Yip i agree its your life to lead or loose , but its the emg services that need to scrape you either off the road or cut you out the cab , and then go tell your family your dead!
A good note here for Lucy after seeing what she keeps in her cab…
That pink thing could have an eye out if it goes flying in an accident …
does Rikki know you’ve seen this?
MrFlibble:
flying_fenman:
Wake up and smel the coffee.Why, hasn’t he had a shower?
I’ve just finished an arduous 5.5 hour shift, so possibly not, 
but I am heading for the shower in a few minutes.
Driveroneuk:
A good note here for Lucy after seeing what she keeps in her cab…
That pink thing could have an eye out if it goes flying in an accident …
does Rikki know you’ve seen this?
We all saw it Saturday night in the chatroom, you should see what goes on in there on a Saturday night. 
I’ve also seen it in the flesh, so to speak.
I always wear mine; in fact the RDC security staff are supposed to not lift the barrier to let you out if its not on; should test them on it
It would be interesting to see if the majority of ‘non-wearers’ are of a certain age. I can only just remember the seatbelt laws coming in, so its been automatic to belt up since I was small.
As an aside, I saw a car being dragged onto a recovery truck not so long back, forget where, complete with head shaped bulge in the windscreen on the drivers side and lots of cracking glass. ouch!
Fallmonk:
Yip i agree its your life to lead or loose , but its the emg services that need to scrape you either off the road or cut you out the cab , and then go tell your family your dead!
But that’s what they’re paid for, if not they wouldn’t do it. If that is your reason for wearing one I suppose you think all smoking and drinking should be banned as well, so the medical staff and your relatives won’t be subjected to the results of your lack of consideration for others.
And before someone rolls out the old chestnut about the cost to the NHS the motoring public as a whole pay well enough their fair share of the portion of extra cost due to non wearers of seatbelts. Come to that the smoking and drinking population as a whole do the same as well.
So what’s next Nanny? All pedestrians to wear Hi-Viz? Of course it makes sense and would save lives, but would you want to do it everytime you nipped out for something?
There are just some things in life we should be allowed to make our own decisions about. Seatbelt wearing is one of them. (Talking about drivers here, beltless back seat passengers are lethal to others - and that is the point. Whether or not something directly affects others)
Like smoking 
In a car - always
In a truck - it depends.
If I’m flying up the motorway, yes, if it’s raining, yes, if there are high winds, yes.
If I’m driving around a town, no.
Because I’m tall, I have to have the seat back as far as possible, so every junction means I have to lean forward to check for traffic. After hitting the inertia stop a few dozen times, and being unable to release it so I can lean forward when I need to, I just take the thing off anyway. I don’t think using a clip on the belt is any good, because they are supposed to be in contact with the body, otherwise you get serious injuries when you catch up with the belt !
Every time if they are fitted.
I’d think twice about taking a permanent job driving a lorry without them too.
smoker:
I don’t think using a clip on the belt is any good, because they are supposed to be in contact with the body, otherwise you get serious injuries when you catch up with the belt !
I understand those who choose not to wear it at all, or those who wear it all the time but this is what I don’t get about the partial wearers. You are concerned with getting an injury if you catch up with the belt but not concerned about an injury when you catch up with the windscreen, or pass through it and catch up with the road.
I don’t mean this to be a dig at you smoker but it was a good example top quote from.
Coffeeholic:
smoker:
I don’t think using a clip on the belt is any good, because they are supposed to be in contact with the body, otherwise you get serious injuries when you catch up with the belt !I understand those who choose not to wear it at all, or those who wear it all the time but this is what I don’t get about the partial wearers. You are concerned with getting an injury if you catch up with the belt but not concerned about an injury when you catch up with the windscreen, or pass through it and catch up with the road.
I don’t mean this to be a dig at you smoker but it was a good example top quote from.
I see it from the aspect of risk assessment. Using a bodge to interfere with a devices correct operation is sometimes more dangerous than not using the device at all. It’s either on or off. I know people who pull the belt around their shoulder when they see the police, but that’s a waste of time. I’ve driven slowly past the police, VOSA etc at checkpoints, and not once been stopped or asked why my belts not done up. But if the situation calls for it (rush hour m4 in the rain for example) I’m happy to use it as I can usually expect a dangerous situation. Driving around most towns, you are lucky to reach 20mph, and head ons are unlikely. I don’t feel that the risk outweighs the benefit of being able to move around in the seat. As I said, I wear it all the time in the car, it feels odd without it, but the lorry is different. If they designed them so they worked a bit better, especially the inertia reels, I would always wear it. Another issue is the nearside mirrors. I have to lean forward at junctions to see if anythings coming from the left, because the mirrors block my view. I can see a long way to the left, but not stuff like bikes/mopeds that are already in the blind spot. Scanias are worst for me in this regard.
No offense taken coffeeholic, I like a good “discussion”
Smoker wrote
If they designed them so they worked a bit better, especially the inertia reels, I would always wear it.
In my 52 reg old style merc, the inertia reel was horrible. It kept retracting and pinning you uncomfortably to the seat. However in my new 06 one it is a pleasure to use.
What Smoker says about a new design though got me thinking. What about a button that could be pressed on the reel housing once you had the right amount of belt out, that would not let it retract anymore while still being able to give you some slack when leaning forward, but returning to the pre selected position once you were sat back in your normal driving position.
Hope that made sense 
Spardo:
Fallmonk:
Yip i agree its your life to lead or loose , but its the emg services that need to scrape you either off the road or cut you out the cab , and then go tell your family your dead!But that’s what they’re paid for, if not they wouldn’t do it. If that is your reason for wearing one I suppose you think all smoking and drinking should be banned as well, so the medical staff and your relatives won’t be subjected to the results of your lack of consideration for others.
And before someone rolls out the old chestnut about the cost to the NHS the motoring public as a whole pay well enough their fair share of the portion of extra cost due to non wearers of seatbelts. Come to that the smoking and drinking population as a whole do the same as well.
So what’s next Nanny? All pedestrians to wear Hi-Viz? Of course it makes sense and would save lives, but would you want to do it everytime you nipped out for something?
There are just some things in life we should be allowed to make our own decisions about. Seatbelt wearing is one of them. (Talking about drivers here, beltless back seat passengers are lethal to others - and that is the point. Whether or not something directly affects others)
Like smoking
- am quiet sure the job advert didnt mention , "having to tell the stupid idiots family hes dead because he/she got killed for not wearing a seat belt "!!!
2)i have no problem with people smoking only place i have a problem with it is in food areas and even most smokers agree with that! , personaly i aloud smokers to smoke in my car/cab and even my house , and yes im a NON smoker all i ever asked was open a window , if you want to kill yourself slowly , you have that right but i dont want it!
3)drinking i have no problem with either (obviously thou not while driving )
I think most laws are designed to address the lowest common denominator. We all have to wear seatbelts by law, because there is a significant number of people who crash while doing things they shouldn’t. Rather than spend money on better training and better punishment, they pass the buck and say you wear a belt or else. Like that advert with the young lads who just bought pizza, and the backseat passenger has to shout “look out” to the driver. The bloody driver should have been looking where he was going.
Like the woman who saw an ambulance coming in her mirror, and stopped - right by a traffic island and with me in a wagon behind her, forcing the ambulance onto the wrong side of the island. Like the idiots who get slower and slower until eventually they hit the indicator as they turn right.
We already have to take responsibility for our own lives, but too many rules makes for an irresponsible public. Oh I’ll be alright, I’ve got ABS, airbags, seatbelts, SIPS, GPS, and whatever else. Maybe I’m just lucky, but I’ve never had an airbag go off, never needed SIPS, or ABS, or a seatbelt to save me from a situation. But then I ride a bike, and I’m always looking for the accident about to happen - it’s a lot more relevant on a bike than in a car with heating, stereo, chattering kids, steamed up windows, one headlight out and no rear lights but the fog lights on !
But the law applies to us all right !
Coffeeholic:
smoker:
I don’t think using a clip on the belt is any good, because they are supposed to be in contact with the body, otherwise you get serious injuries when you catch up with the belt !I understand those who choose not to wear it at all, or those who wear it all the time but this is what I don’t get about the partial wearers. You are concerned with getting an injury if you catch up with the belt but not concerned about an injury when you catch up with the windscreen, or pass through it and catch up with the road.
'Fraid you have missed the point, certainly in my case Neil, I don’t wear a slack belt because I think it will save me but because I don’t want to pay the fine. The seat belt is a life saver but I would rather risk mine. However I am not given that choice, so I do the minimum required by law. Dangerous? Certainly, but so is life. My life. My choice.
Fallmonk:
- am quiet sure the job advert didnt mention , "having to tell the stupid idiots family hes dead because he/she got killed for not wearing a seat belt "!!!
No doubt you are right, but if there are any medics or traffic cops out there who didn’t realise what the job entailed, they do not have the necessary intelligence to do it, IMO.
2)i have no problem with people smoking only place i have a problem with it is in food areas and even most smokers agree with that! ,
Neither do I, but you are just not being logical. Why do you think the law should allow them to risk their lives but not me? End result is the same - death and grieving relatives.
Spardo:
Coffeeholic:
smoker:
I don’t think using a clip on the belt is any good, because they are supposed to be in contact with the body, otherwise you get serious injuries when you catch up with the belt !I understand those who choose not to wear it at all, or those who wear it all the time but this is what I don’t get about the partial wearers. You are concerned with getting an injury if you catch up with the belt but not concerned about an injury when you catch up with the windscreen, or pass through it and catch up with the road.
'Fraid you have missed the point, certainly in my case Neil, I don’t wear a slack belt because I think it will save me but because I don’t want to pay the fine. The seat belt is a life saver but I would rather risk mine. However I am not given that choice, so I do the minimum required by law. Dangerous? Certainly, but so is life. My life. My choice.
No I didn’t miss the point. I said I can understand those who choose not to wear it, their choice, and I know you wear it slack to avoid the fine and nothing more. What I was saying is that I am confused by the part time wearers, those who only wear it in bad weather or while driving at speed for instance. By saying they only wear it on those occasions they are obviously acknowledging, or agreeing, there is some benefit to wearing it but also seem to be saying accidents only happen in bad weather or at speed which we all know is not true. The biggest cause of death in truck roll overs is the driver going across the cab and breaking their neck, which a seatbelt will prevent,yet speed or high wind is often not the cause of a roll over, they can and do frequently happen at low speed as well.
If they’re fitted I’ll wear them.
The only problems I’ve found is that our Iveco’s don’t have seatbelts, but our smaller Iveco vans do, the Nissan Cabstars’ do and the MAN’s do.
Last week I was in an Iveco for most the week and spent a day in a MAN, which unfortunately meant that every time I tried to climb out I found I was strapped in 
MUST realease seatbelt first
But apart from that
Coffeeholic:
[No I didn’t miss the point. I said I can understand those who choose not to wear it, their choice, and I know you wear it slack to avoid the fine and nothing more. What I was saying is that I am confused by the part time wearers, those who only wear it in bad weather or while driving at speed for instance. .
Yes, sorry about that, a little misunderstanding. I read your post twice and came to the conclusion that you were including me in the partial wearers. Now I know you are not and also do agree that there is no logic to wearing them some of the time. If it wasn’t for the law, and I have paid 2 fines in 2 countries though neither when driving a wagon, I wouldn’t wear it at all - tight or slack.
Spardo:
Yes, sorry about that, a little misunderstanding. I read your post twice and came to the conclusion that you were including me in the partial wearers. Now I know you are not and also do agree that there is no logic to wearing them some of the time. If it wasn’t for the law, and I have paid 2 fines in 2 countries though neither when driving a wagon, I wouldn’t wear it at all - tight or slack.
I can’t agree with the logic statement there.
You have a hard hat. You have to wear it on a site, but you don’t have to wear it in your house. Logically, that makes sense because of the risk assessment. Things can still fall and injure your head in your house, but the risk is smaller than on a site. So how is it different with seat belts ?
If you are ok with not wearing a belt at all, why do you have a problem with wearing a belt when the situation looks like it may be useful ? If it’s personal choice, then the partial use makes more sense than never ever at all. You wouldn’t go on a roller coaster unless you were secured in the car, but on the boating lake there is no need for a belt.
Horses for courses in my opinion.
BTW, when I say partial use I mean under differing circumstances, I don’t mean leaving it slack or using a clip.
The way the legislation is at the moment, is akin to making everybody wear a raincoat, because, you know, it might rain sometime. You choose to risk getting wet every time you go out, some people sweat their nads off by wearing it fulltime. I choose to carry it with me in case I might need it.
always.