Are our seat belt laws an infringement of our Human Rights.

Post by **classicswede** » 11 Jan 2007 11:13 pm

I've piched this off my old man but I'm interested to the resonse on here so here goes -

Failing to wear a seat belt can result in a fixed penalty fine. Is the forcing of people to wear a seat belt an infringement of their human rights?

Post by MJ » 12 Jan 2007 12:04 am

Hmm interesting idea.

Seatbelts save lives, so I guess it saves paramedics having to see so many fatalities, aids their rights...

I always wear one out of choice anyway, so don't really care

The only time I mightn't put it on is if the cars on the drive and I'm just putting it in the garage, or if I'm just taking it out. It feels quite weird, and unsafe though

Post by **SoLaMaNdA** » 12 Jan 2007 10:13 am

No, the extra cost to the NHS if no one wore seatbelts could save others lives who had no choice.

It's the same as asking if it's against out human rights to have speed limits.

Post by **Ronnie** » 12 Jan 2007 10:57 am

SoLaMaNdA wrote:No, the extra cost to the NHS if no one wore seatbelts could save others lives who had no choice.

Agreed on this. I can't see the problem with the seatbelt law, it takes a second to buckle in and doesn't restrict your driving, and it could easily save your life.

Post by **blackbox** » 12 Jan 2007 11:52 am

try drifting without one and see how you go it feels better and safer when i have mine on anyway

Post by **Chris_C** » 12 Jan 2007 12:39 pm

I was just going to post a point, then noticed David has, about speed limits.

I feel the same way about people who won't wear helmets on bikes or with things like kiting. Fair enough, its your own choice, just carry a card like the organ donor card that says something along the lines of

"NHS, please ignore me, I prefer to increase the odds of not living, you're only hindering my cause"

Post by **Cornholio** » 12 Jan 2007 01:47 pm

Some research has shown that wearing a cycle helmet can be dangerous. It seems that drivers consider a cyclist with a lid to be a lycra-clad hooligan and thus don't give them enough room.

Or so I read

Post by **Chris_C** » 12 Jan 2007 02:01 pm

When cyclists (mainly roadies... but hey, I wasn't amazing I now see) stop behaving like lemmings, I'll still give them just as wide a berth as I do now

Tbh, I always rode before I got the car, and only since I've been driving have I realised how little you can be seen on a bike, and how something you are sure is an easy safe move just isn't.

Now factor in the drivers who arn't observant, and I know what side of the fence I'm on

Post by **Nick C** » 12 Jan 2007 02:06 pm

I think there would be a lot less accidents involving cyclists if they started to obey the traffic laws - the number of times I've seen cyclists go straight through red lights..... particularly bad on pedestrian crossings when you almost get knocked over by them.

Post by MJ » 12 Jan 2007 04:29 pm

Or when you get undertaken by a cyclist at a junction where you're making (and indicating) a left turn, with fairly narrow traffic lanes and no pavement

Post by **SoLaMaNdA** » 12 Jan 2007 06:02 pm

Cornholio wrote:Some research has shown that wearing a cycle helmet can be dangerous. It seems that drivers consider a cyclist with a lid to be a lycra-clad hooligan and thus don't give them enough room.

That research is seriously flawed. Most cycle accidents on the road are cause by drivers simply not seeing them at all. I've written off a few crash helmets (even motocross lids) from riding mountain bikes and while that is more dangerous, you'd have to be mad to cycle without a crash helmet on busy roads.

Unfortunately as with many things in life the minority who behave badly ruin public opinion for the rest. We've seen this in action with drifters

Post by **pettaw** » 12 Jan 2007 07:20 pm

Speed limits are a different philosophy to seatbelts, because by driving without a seatbelt you're, in theory not affecting anyone, unless of course you have a crash and then its the medics that have to work harder.

Speeding, not necessarily breaking the speed limits, but innappropriate speed for the circumstances may mean you hit or injure somebody else cos you couldn't stop or avoid a hazard in time.

Post by **redline** » 12 Jan 2007 07:22 pm

back to the topic ( I feckin hate cyclists on the road anyway )

technically I would say it is an in fringement of our human rights as is anything that takes away your choice of two options,

however it is not an infringement of your common sense which should dictate that self preservation must be your number one priority at all times and anything fitted to a car that may offer you protection in an accident should be used ,

afterall you wouldent take out airbags if you had them or sips
( unless you a chav who wants a bling steering wheel and they deserve to die anyway )

so just remember , clunk click every trip , you maybe the best driver in the world but it wont do you much good when some pissed up dickhead gets behind the wheel of a car and t bones you after jumping a red light.

Post by **pettaw** » 12 Jan 2007 07:26 pm

yeah, you're right. I'd never drive without my seatbelt. Even put it on when maneuvering (sp?)

Post by **Chris_C** » 12 Jan 2007 07:40 pm

redline wrote: so just remember , clunk click every trip , you maybe the best driver in the world but it wont do you much good when some pissed up dickhead gets behind the wheel of a car and t bones you after jumping a red light.

Well put mate. Not only are we not as good as we often think, the rest of the world are even worse than we imagine