Mad Mullah (Traffic Taliban) Blog

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Interesting that he would say the offence should be made endorseable.

If I stop a vehicle with several unrestrained kids I do issue an endorseable. For the offence of carrying passengers in a dangerous manner.

The last one I issued was to a yound lady in a Micra. Her friend in the front passenger seat had a baby on her knee and there were another 5 (yes five) unrestrained kids in the back seat. :eek:
 
Wearing seat belts is unquestionably a good idea. An ambulance driver once said to me that it has never been seen that a driver or passenger would have lived had they NOT been wearing a seat belt. Says it all really.
 
I have a lot of respect for Richard Brunstrom.

Whilst his views are unpalatable to many he is not afraid to express them and "Stick his head above the parapet" like many chief officers. I do not entirely agree with his line on speeding but cannot fault the seatbelt argument.

And, whilst much maligned, his "Day out" with the ANPR team clearly demonstrates he enjoys hunting criminals, a trait lacking in many police "managers".

Hopefully I'll be just as keen on it when I'm CC. ;)

I'm doing fairly well so far, never letting responsibility get in the way of a good chase or ruck!
 
It's always hard 'selling safety'.
 
Totaly in agreement with the line about seatbelts.

Steve
 
I can never understand people not wearing seatbelts. It takes a second to do one up and creates no problems when being worn.

Probably a number of us have been in accidents where a seatbelt played a major role in saving injury or death.
I have always worn my belt and I have tested their effectiveness a couple of times, once severely.
Unfortunately for you lot I can definately say they work.:)
 
People need to buckle up more. I've been in several accidents, 2 of them serious, and I can honestly say, had I not worn a seatbelt, I'd have been seriously injured in the first incident, and killed in the second...! :crazy:
 
I've noticed it's a class thing. Generally hoi poloi, the lower orders, the pikey element, shun seatbelts as unnecessary or unmanly. Not a bad thing as it helps keep their numbers down.
 
Alfie said:
Wearing seat belts is unquestionably a good idea. An ambulance driver once said to me that it has never been seen that a driver or passenger would have lived had they NOT been wearing a seat belt. Says it all really.
Click to expand...

I really love Americans for being able to plead all kinds of human rights and other irrelevant reasons as to why they can choose to wear a belt or not. Then other examples of where it goes one level beyond that with catchy slogans ....

" The belts cause as many deaths as they prevent "

Clearly there is no evidence to that effect but I really admire the whole "darnwinian" aspect of it.
 
neilrr said:
I've noticed it's a class thing. Generally hoi poloi, the lower orders, the pikey element, shun seatbelts as unnecessary or unmanly. Not a bad thing as it helps keep their numbers down.
Click to expand...

If there was a law that cars could only travel up to a certain speed (very low)and only be driven in a city ... it would be possible to dispose of belts and rely on other restraint systems.
 
neilrr said:
I've noticed it's a class thing. Generally hoi poloi, the lower orders, the pikey element, shun seatbelts as unnecessary or unmanly. Not a bad thing as it helps keep their numbers down.
Click to expand...

Its called being thick. But you are absolutely right about keeping the numbers down!!
 
Carrotchomper said:
I have a lot of respect for Richard Brunstrom.
Click to expand...

There's a sentence I never thought I'd see on a car forum... ;)

I do agree with the seatbelt issue though. I see it time and time again; the car in front with a small child kneeling on the back seat looking out of the rear window, and the stupid parent (usually mother) is driving along, completely oblivious to the danger they're putting the child in. Stupid. :rolleyes:
 
A point not mentioned...

A friend of mine refuses point blank to be driven in a vehicle with rear passengers who are not belted in. Why? Because if the vehicle stops sharp or is in a crash, he does not want to become decapitated. The policeman forgot to mention that a car travelling at 100mph stopped sharp would still have all occupants travelling forward at 100mph. That baby would suddenly become a guilotine to whoever was unlucky enough to be sat in front of it?
Point: if the parents dont care for the baby's life, surely they would care for their own?
 
Seatbelt wearing now is so rare in certain areas that the sheer volume of offenders makes it virtually impossible to deal with. I would NEVER get anywhere or do anything at work if I stopped even half of the people without seatbelts. Unrestrained children though? I'll make the time.

And as for vans, I'm sure there's some blanket exemption in law I just don't know about yet. :crazy:

Saw my uncle at Christmas, a man with a healthy disrespect for most aspects of the law despite 3 immediate family members being serving officers. He was extremely miffed having been stopped in his van and given a ticket for a seatbelt.

This is the FIRST TIME he has EVER been stuck on for this, and he has been driving for well over 30 years and has NEVER worn a seatbelt. And does not intend to start now...

I just can't understand the mentality, maybe I'm a bit square or something but flying through my windscreen just does not appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom