Apologies if this has already been posted but from today, the fine for not wearing a seatbelt doubles to £60. Still no points, though.
Seat belt legislation amended
- Thread starter Jukie
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amended belt legislation seat
jonathan
Active Member
I dont think its fair at all because the only person that can get injured is yourself. So in my mind it should be totally your choice. unlike speeding, reckless driving or drinking and driving etc with these you affect other people. Maybe if you fly though the windscreen and land on someone then you could kill them. otherwise it would be hard. i understand the ethical side about leaving you family behind but that is a whole different matter.
G.O'Rilla
Active Member
Also doubled the fine for stupid number plates..........
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I hate it with a passion when folks come out with these what I call stupid remarks
The damage you can do to your brain by hitting the roof of the car, or even the windscreen can be stomachchurning... If you are very lucky you might die, but you might also be left a vegetable for the rest of your life andyes.... Thatis your choice, but is it your choice that you can no longer support your family because no insurance company will pay out because you were so arrogant and decided not to wear a seat belt? Medical teams will spend many, many hours trying to repair idiots that either go through windscreens or tear their beautiful faces apart.
I was in a hospital one night where a surgeon had spent nine hours trying to repair the once beautiful face of a young lady that had failed to wear a seatbelt. I can still hear her screams when she was told she would be blind in one eye and this young girl's good looks were ended when her face was ripped apart.
When I learnt to drive it was not a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt but all our Landrovers had them and my trusty sergeant would very 'politely'
remind anyone that dared to not wear a belt. It was less painful to simply put the thing on rather than have a huge fist tickle yourribs... Anger and rant mode still on a high. I used to moonlight as a taxi driver and it never failed to amazeme how most taxi drivers think they are exempt from having an acccident whilst driving.. Yes they might be exempt from wearing a seatbelt, but until JC gives me an exemption certificate I will alwaYS WEAR ONE AND every passenger that travels in our fleetof vehicles will either one one or walk.. Their chice. I do not give a flying fig what the law says and there should not be a need to have a law, we should all be sensible enough to do what is right. Anger mode is still in gear..
Many apologies for having another of my rants but not wearing seat belts is just about as stupid as motorcyclists not wearing a crash helmet.
I think I have had my say
I have always , always worn seatbelts where available all my driving career and , indeed , owe my life to one following the bad crash I described recently in another thread .
However , the rebel in me also objects strongly to political correctness and the so called nanny state - hence in my two older cars which are not legally required to have seatbelts I have refrained from fitting them to one and removed the retrofitted belts from the other - just because I can . I know that I might fall victim to some idiot hitting me , but I see driving these cars sparingly and at relatively low speeds without belts as a reasonably low risk .
I also remember the furore that came with the introduction of compulsory crash helmets ( never wear one on my push bike , though ) .
However , the rebel in me also objects strongly to political correctness and the so called nanny state - hence in my two older cars which are not legally required to have seatbelts I have refrained from fitting them to one and removed the retrofitted belts from the other - just because I can . I know that I might fall victim to some idiot hitting me , but I see driving these cars sparingly and at relatively low speeds without belts as a reasonably low risk .
I also remember the furore that came with the introduction of compulsory crash helmets ( never wear one on my push bike , though ) .
KNU7S
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2006
- Messages
- 424
- Location
- Gloucester
- Car
- 1991 R129 500SL Mercedes, 2002 ML270cdi, 2004 Freelander
I dont think that is the correct attitude what would you family think if you got killed disobaying the law, you life cover would be void and would leave your family in all sorts of money problems?..... is it worth it
jonathan
Active Member
I agree with all you have said the point i was trying to make is that it should be your choice. You shouldn't have someone making the choices for you. There is no law about going to bed by 10 to have a good nights sleep. If you want you can stay up all night, go to work the next day, fall asleep on the drive in and kill the family going the other way. we can make the choice that's right without having to be told.
What about crushing the front seat passenger if you are in the back. Or injuring any of the other occupants as you fly around unrestrained.
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
That is the most craziest thing I have ever heard you say....
What on earth has political correctness got to do with wearing a seat belt???
I dread to think what type of glass might be fitted to the windscreen of some older cars and I would also hate to think just how bad the brakes are on older vehicles when compared to newer vehicles with the latest electronic braking systems... It beggars belief to say 'political correctness' has anything to do with wearing a seat belt.
Show me one Sikh that does not wear a crash helmet when flying a military jet fighter or drives a tank... That is political correctness.... Political correctness is when common sense goes out the window to appease idiots that use laws to get around common sense.
Watch an International game of cricket and I gaurantee you that any Sikh batsman facing a fast bowler will wear a helmet!!
Political correctness and seat belts...
I had just got over my rant mode 
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
If the government put up signs saying do not touch an oven hot plate that is switched on! Would our very wise men do it because they were told not to?
I drive on the left hand side of the highway... It is the law and I will get fined or maybe arrested if I tried driving on the right side. How many of you guys will stop at a red traffic light?
I drive on the left hand side of the highway... It is the law and I will get fined or maybe arrested if I tried driving on the right side. How many of you guys will stop at a red traffic light?
I know it isn't logical , but I just HATE the way this government try to rule every aspect of our lives and , even with something like this , will exploit every small 'freedom' that still exists .
I don't fly anymore because I object to being herded like an animal and treated like a criminal , but don't get me started on that one ......
I don't fly anymore because I object to being herded like an animal and treated like a criminal , but don't get me started on that one ......
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I genuinely respect what you are saying but your stance on the specific makes no sense. I hate political correctness with a vengeance and I would support anything that would **** a hoop at those that want to curtail my personal freedoms but may I very politely suggest I have enough sense to know when something is a good idea, or a life saving invention.
If it was not the law, would we still wear a seat belt?
I can only travel on a stretcher and I have NO IDEA if I am legally compelled to wear a 'seatbelt' but my wife ensures I am belted up before we go for a drive (I bet she wishes that I do belt up, but that is not going to happen)
jonathan
Active Member
we are all big boys now and able to work out whats right and whats wrong if i pulled one car off the drive to let another one out and didnt put my belt on i could get fined which i think is wrong its all about risk. If you travel 30 ft at 5mph this is low risk on the other hand 100 miles at 70mph in heavy rain is high risk we all have the ability to make the right choice. i have a big brother i dont need another.
kikkthecat
MB Enthusiast
My take on this is quite simple, they've done it because they can.
I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether you should wear a belt or not, I always do and so do my passengers
I dont want to start a debate about iffy number plates either, been there as they say.
BUT I haven't heard anything about doubling the penalties for burglary, assault, theft or a thousand other anti social crimes.
Oh no, just the motorist because we have a number plate and they know where we live. They also know we are generally law abiding and afraid of the consequences of not stumping up.
Live within the law and try do the right thing and they will keep upping the cost of minor transgressions just to keep the cashflow going but if you dont give a damn about the law or society generally you're immune to it all.
I'm not going to get into the debate as to whether you should wear a belt or not, I always do and so do my passengers
I dont want to start a debate about iffy number plates either, been there as they say.
BUT I haven't heard anything about doubling the penalties for burglary, assault, theft or a thousand other anti social crimes.
Oh no, just the motorist because we have a number plate and they know where we live. They also know we are generally law abiding and afraid of the consequences of not stumping up.
Live within the law and try do the right thing and they will keep upping the cost of minor transgressions just to keep the cashflow going but if you dont give a damn about the law or society generally you're immune to it all.
I genuinely respect what you are saying but your stance on the specific makes no sense. I hate political correctness with a vengeance and I would support anything that would **** a hoop at those that want to curtail my personal freedoms but may I very politely suggest I have enough sense to know when something is a good idea, or a life saving invention.
If it was not the law, would we still wear a seat belt?
I can only travel on a stretcher and I have NO IDEA if I am legally compelled to wear a 'seatbelt' but my wife ensures I am belted up before we go for a drive (I bet she wishes that I do belt up, but that is not going to happen)
Thanks John , I likewise respect your viewpoint and agree that all logical arguments for seatbelts are overwhelming . Even before it was law , I always wore them and still would in all my newer vehicles if the law had not been brought in . I always advocate my family and friends wearing them at all times .
Both my older cars are currently off road under long term restoration - I hope to get them both running by the time I retire , but they will not have seatbelts . However , they will be used only very occasionally .
I'm truly sorry to hear of your situation - would love to read your bio as you strike me as a very interesting guy , I've pieced little bits together from what I've read on here , but I'm sure it is far from the whole story . I'm sure your wife strapping you in is another example of how we all have higher standards of safety for our loved ones than we do for ourselves .
Best regards
Derek
mercedes lover
Active Member
I had a terrible crash when I was 18 where I crashed at 30mph into the side of a railing in a mark 2 Golf, there were 3 of us and none of wore seat belts. We all survived the crash but had been knocked out from the impact of hitting the wind screen and back passenger the centre post. Prior to the accident I had been let off by the Police twice for not wearing my seat belt. Maybe if I had been fined £200 for not wearing my belt I would have had it on in the crash.
I know there is a strong argument for people having the choice over their own life, but even though Police choose their jobs, it really isn't nice for them to attend a road accident where the front passengers are dead with their face smashed in the wind screen. My advice from experience is wear a seat belt.
I don't know if anyone else has heard the same as me, but I was reading that the Mercedes ML was designed to give extra protection in a crash when not wearing a seat belt, because it was designed more for the American market where less people wear belts.
I know there is a strong argument for people having the choice over their own life, but even though Police choose their jobs, it really isn't nice for them to attend a road accident where the front passengers are dead with their face smashed in the wind screen. My advice from experience is wear a seat belt.
I don't know if anyone else has heard the same as me, but I was reading that the Mercedes ML was designed to give extra protection in a crash when not wearing a seat belt, because it was designed more for the American market where less people wear belts.
flango
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I owe my life to wearing one, a 60 mph head on other vehicle transit pick up speed estimated 70 mph, Total Impact speed 130 mph, bonnet of car over 100 metres from point of impact. All I had was bruising to my chest where seat belt had dug in and very dirty underpants
Not my fault i hasten to had pick up driver was a traveller no license, no MOT, no Insurance and no tax, really wasn't my day that day
Not my fault i hasten to had pick up driver was a traveller no license, no MOT, no Insurance and no tax, really wasn't my day that day
LimitedSlip
Active Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 167
We are all entitled to our opinions and choices with our lives... our lives. We are not state-owned. Yet.
I understand the view of post-accident consequences being selfish to those left behind, and to people picking up the pieces to a lesser extent (they are working in their chosen career after all). I think people expressing this view do so for the best reasons.
The government, via its well-meaning, but agenda-blind subordinates, is all too quick to play the emotive "caring" card; as they are quick to make the cheap threats re. avoiding road tax, cheating benefits/taxes and so on. This is all about money (with the side benefit of state muscle-flexing): you are fined an affordable amount, and then left to continue driving without penalty points.
So, is it highly likely statistically that you will get seriously injured or not? Do they want to stop you driving without seatbelts, or not? As ever, it results in grey policy that results in little change except the usual: increased revenue. A 100% increase. Should the policy result in a 50% reduction of non-wearers, the revenue remains the same. Business.
As was said about the congestion charge, the intent wasn't really to stop people entering London, it was to charge them for it. Otherwise, the charge would've been £50 per day. That would've reduced congestion.
I've always worn my seatbelt. I choose to. I also ride motorbikes, and engage in many other activities that may be called very dangerous when compared to the incredible level of safety provided by modern cars in most accidents. That's life. My life.
We already have far too much interferring regulatory bullsh*t in this place as it is... and too much commercial opportunism re. life's activities via these laws. This latest is just more of the same.
I understand the view of post-accident consequences being selfish to those left behind, and to people picking up the pieces to a lesser extent (they are working in their chosen career after all). I think people expressing this view do so for the best reasons.
The government, via its well-meaning, but agenda-blind subordinates, is all too quick to play the emotive "caring" card; as they are quick to make the cheap threats re. avoiding road tax, cheating benefits/taxes and so on. This is all about money (with the side benefit of state muscle-flexing): you are fined an affordable amount, and then left to continue driving without penalty points.
So, is it highly likely statistically that you will get seriously injured or not? Do they want to stop you driving without seatbelts, or not? As ever, it results in grey policy that results in little change except the usual: increased revenue. A 100% increase. Should the policy result in a 50% reduction of non-wearers, the revenue remains the same. Business.
As was said about the congestion charge, the intent wasn't really to stop people entering London, it was to charge them for it. Otherwise, the charge would've been £50 per day. That would've reduced congestion.
I've always worn my seatbelt. I choose to. I also ride motorbikes, and engage in many other activities that may be called very dangerous when compared to the incredible level of safety provided by modern cars in most accidents. That's life. My life.
We already have far too much interferring regulatory bullsh*t in this place as it is... and too much commercial opportunism re. life's activities via these laws. This latest is just more of the same.
I'll play devil's advocate...
What else (in connection with driving) should be a matter of choice? Surely I can decide how much alcohol to consume, how many people to cram into my car, whether it's worth insuring my car or not, when to replace the tyres (being a miserable tightwad I'd wait til I used all the rubber...)?
Back to reality - we forget that driving is a licenced activity and as such we are not free to do what we want. If they wanted, it could be legislated that we wear pink capri trousers when driving - but actually there is no sense in that.
If you remember the background to this, the government for years campaign for the occupants of cars to wear seatbelts but the message never sunk home. It's a no-brainer, but many don't listen. Look at mobiles - proven time and again that phone usage has a greater effect on driving ability than being over the limit (to a degree). Does the population generally listen - even when legislated against?
At the end of the day you still have a choice - just that one carries the risk of a fine.
What else (in connection with driving) should be a matter of choice? Surely I can decide how much alcohol to consume, how many people to cram into my car, whether it's worth insuring my car or not, when to replace the tyres (being a miserable tightwad I'd wait til I used all the rubber...)?
Back to reality - we forget that driving is a licenced activity and as such we are not free to do what we want. If they wanted, it could be legislated that we wear pink capri trousers when driving - but actually there is no sense in that.
If you remember the background to this, the government for years campaign for the occupants of cars to wear seatbelts but the message never sunk home. It's a no-brainer, but many don't listen. Look at mobiles - proven time and again that phone usage has a greater effect on driving ability than being over the limit (to a degree). Does the population generally listen - even when legislated against?
At the end of the day you still have a choice - just that one carries the risk of a fine.
