Seatbelt 'will ruin my tan' said driver stopped by police

Daily Echo: A seatbelt A seatbelt

A MAN in Hampshire who was stopped by police for not wearing his seatbelt had said he did not want to ruin his tan.

As part of a European-wide crackdown Hampshire police have caught a total of 441 people including the man who blamed the good weather for not wearing his seatbelt.

Hampshire's road safety officer, Sergeant Rob Heard, said: “Due to the recent sunny weather he had caught a tan to his chest and felt the belt would wear some of the tan away.”

Hampshire police stopped a number of people as part of the campaign, which ran from March 10-16, which also included six children.

“A couple of people stated they never wore a seatbelt and would still not wear one because they felt that was their right,” Sergeant Heard added. “Others complained that their seat belt did not fit them - however adjusters and extenders are available and it is not a valid excuse.”

The law has been in place since 1983 and those caught may face a fine of up to £500.

“It has been surprising how many people are still not wearing their seatbelts and not really understanding the risks they are putting themselves under,” he said.

“The devastating injuries or possible fatal injuries you can receive from not wearing a seat belt really should encourage everyone to belt up. It is just not worth risking your life and the heartache your family will feel from your loss.

“European research shows that about 50 per cent of all car occupants that die in a fatal accident in the EU could have survived of they had worn a seatbelt.

“I have noted from the checks I have attended, that many of those caught not wearing a seatbelt are van drivers who state they wear the belts in their cars but forget to wear them in their vans when at work, sometimes because they are only travelling short distances. The law states you must wear a seatbelt unless you are driving a goods vehicle on deliveries and are travelling no more than 50 metres between stops.

“It would appear that the majority of people do wear seatbelts, but we still need to encourage everyone to do so. This campaign has been good at raising awareness and we will continue to stop anyone who is seen not wearing a seatbelt. Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Comments (52)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

4:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

Just send these idiots to spend a week with families who lost someone because they didnt wear a belt, then see how they react
Just send these idiots to spend a week with families who lost someone because they didnt wear a belt, then see how they react Mary80
  • Score: 12

4:21pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing! the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -18

4:31pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jolly days says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Yes it does put others at risk if you are in the rear seat without a seatbelt, and involved in an accident you can be thrown foward and risk causing serious injury or even death to the driver of front passenger.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Yes it does put others at risk if you are in the rear seat without a seatbelt, and involved in an accident you can be thrown foward and risk causing serious injury or even death to the driver of front passenger. jolly days
  • Score: 12

4:47pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

jolly days wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Yes it does put others at risk if you are in the rear seat without a seatbelt, and involved in an accident you can be thrown foward and risk causing serious injury or even death to the driver of front passenger.
yes but he wasnt was he!? and any idiot will see from my post that i was referring to sitting in the front, driving the vehicle, not being a rear seat passenger, i always buckle up as a passenger. thanks for your input though, very useful
[quote][p][bold]jolly days[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Yes it does put others at risk if you are in the rear seat without a seatbelt, and involved in an accident you can be thrown foward and risk causing serious injury or even death to the driver of front passenger.[/p][/quote]yes but he wasnt was he!? and any idiot will see from my post that i was referring to sitting in the front, driving the vehicle, not being a rear seat passenger, i always buckle up as a passenger. thanks for your input though, very useful the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -10

4:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

mickey01 says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
as a life long biker you have an option of a helmet so would you still think as you are only putting yourself in danger then it is ok not to wear one ?
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]as a life long biker you have an option of a helmet so would you still think as you are only putting yourself in danger then it is ok not to wear one ? mickey01
  • Score: 3

4:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car? the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -7

5:02pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -4

5:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan!

How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it[/p][/quote]You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan! How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me. camerajuan
  • Score: 4

5:07pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Zexagon says...

It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt
It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt Zexagon
  • Score: -4

5:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

From the sidelines says...

When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis.

What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take.

Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.)
When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis. What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take. Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.) From the sidelines
  • Score: -4

5:22pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

Zexagon wrote:
It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt
well that is something to be proud of isnt it?? how does that make you hard though? perhaps your just a dick?
[quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt[/p][/quote]well that is something to be proud of isnt it?? how does that make you hard though? perhaps your just a dick? the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -4

5:22pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 3

5:23pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

camerajuan wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan!

How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.
no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion?
[quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it[/p][/quote]You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan! How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.[/p][/quote]no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion? the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -4

5:28pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan!

How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.
no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion?
In a collision, the impact wants to throw your body around in all directions, no seatbelt means that it will happen and you will be VERY likely to kill anyone else in the vehicle, with your own body that, in a 30mph collision, has the same force as a charging bull elephant.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it[/p][/quote]You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan! How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.[/p][/quote]no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion?[/p][/quote]In a collision, the impact wants to throw your body around in all directions, no seatbelt means that it will happen and you will be VERY likely to kill anyone else in the vehicle, with your own body that, in a 30mph collision, has the same force as a charging bull elephant. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

5:55pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Mary80 says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling Mary80
  • Score: 3

5:57pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

Mary80 wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling
From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious.
[quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling[/p][/quote]From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 2

6:12pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

how ever do the residents of 18 states in america avoid becoming extinct when the law dosent force them to wear seat belts? thank goodness none of you drama queens live there!
how ever do the residents of 18 states in america avoid becoming extinct when the law dosent force them to wear seat belts? thank goodness none of you drama queens live there! the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -6

6:16pm Fri 21 Mar 14

the_yellow_peril says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling
From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious.
how dramatic, surely the wreckage of the vehicle you had just been ejected from would be more likely to cause others to crash than the possibility of your body going through the windscreen.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling[/p][/quote]From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious.[/p][/quote]how dramatic, surely the wreckage of the vehicle you had just been ejected from would be more likely to cause others to crash than the possibility of your body going through the windscreen. the_yellow_peril
  • Score: -5

6:20pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
Mary80 wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling
From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious.
how dramatic, surely the wreckage of the vehicle you had just been ejected from would be more likely to cause others to crash than the possibility of your body going through the windscreen.
Your body flying in all directions in the car will kill/seriously injure anyone who's in the car with you, you are also more likely to be killed yourself.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mary80[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Maybe because the person would fly out the windscreen and cause others to crash? Is this even a serious post or is this numpty trolling[/p][/quote]From their other posts, I would think that sadly, they're being serious.[/p][/quote]how dramatic, surely the wreckage of the vehicle you had just been ejected from would be more likely to cause others to crash than the possibility of your body going through the windscreen.[/p][/quote]Your body flying in all directions in the car will kill/seriously injure anyone who's in the car with you, you are also more likely to be killed yourself. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 4

6:24pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Zexagon says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
Zexagon wrote:
It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt
well that is something to be proud of isnt it?? how does that make you hard though? perhaps your just a dick?
Are you old enough to ride a motorbike?
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Zexagon[/bold] wrote: It only hard men who don't wear seat belts. Look at me, I'm so hard I'm not wearing a seatbelt[/p][/quote]well that is something to be proud of isnt it?? how does that make you hard though? perhaps your just a dick?[/p][/quote]Are you old enough to ride a motorbike? Zexagon
  • Score: 2

7:14pm Fri 21 Mar 14

pyan says...

"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville...

http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=waEssuzV_
XU
"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.” Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=waEssuzV_ XU pyan
  • Score: 1

7:54pm Fri 21 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
how ever do the residents of 18 states in america avoid becoming extinct when the law dosent force them to wear seat belts? thank goodness none of you drama queens live there!
Possibly the speed limit helps?
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: how ever do the residents of 18 states in america avoid becoming extinct when the law dosent force them to wear seat belts? thank goodness none of you drama queens live there![/p][/quote]Possibly the speed limit helps? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 4

7:55pm Fri 21 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

pyan wrote:
"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville...

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=waEssuzV_

XU
About the only decent he will be remembered for these days.
[quote][p][bold]pyan[/bold] wrote: "Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.” Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=waEssuzV_ XU[/p][/quote]About the only decent he will be remembered for these days. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 2

8:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
Not too bright are you, don't have a thought about the people that have to scrape the brains of the idiot that wasn't wearing a helmet off the tarmac ? So you think its OK for someone to accidently kill themselves by breaking the law as it is their own fault? As for seat belts in cars, I suggest you Google "inertia", it might explain the theory a little.
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it[/p][/quote]Not too bright are you, don't have a thought about the people that have to scrape the brains of the idiot that wasn't wearing a helmet off the tarmac ? So you think its OK for someone to accidently kill themselves by breaking the law as it is their own fault? As for seat belts in cars, I suggest you Google "inertia", it might explain the theory a little. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 2

8:34pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Superior Being says...

the_yellow_peril im guessing you don't work in the emergency services with a stupid comment like that.

To the person that doesn't wear a seat, when they crash, we respond standing in the road with other traffic going past, thats a lot of lives at risks straight away because of one person not wearing a seat belt.

No doubt you are a person with an answer for everything though, so lets hear it.
the_yellow_peril im guessing you don't work in the emergency services with a stupid comment like that. To the person that doesn't wear a seat, when they crash, we respond standing in the road with other traffic going past, thats a lot of lives at risks straight away because of one person not wearing a seat belt. No doubt you are a person with an answer for everything though, so lets hear it. Superior Being
  • Score: 6

8:59pm Fri 21 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away !
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.[/p][/quote]Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away ! charrlee
  • Score: -5

9:01pm Fri 21 Mar 14

charrlee says...

From the sidelines wrote:
When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis.

What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take.

Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.)
This is a Downfader/Simmons post
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis. What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take. Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.)[/p][/quote]This is a Downfader/Simmons post charrlee
  • Score: -4

9:03pm Fri 21 Mar 14

charrlee says...

Ginger_cyclist wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
If you destroy another thread with your ridiculous comments, hopefully you will get booted. So go ahead. Upset everyone.
[quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.[/p][/quote]If you destroy another thread with your ridiculous comments, hopefully you will get booted. So go ahead. Upset everyone. charrlee
  • Score: -5

9:56pm Fri 21 Mar 14

jonnyx says...

On the earlier story about this I posted that it takes a special kind of idiot not to wear a seatbelt, but y'know I see a person saying it spoils their tan and I think, yeah, it's probably a good idea in the long run that you be allowed not to wear a seatbelt. We could probably do with losing a few morons. Thin the ranks out a little so there's a bit more space for the rest of us.
On the earlier story about this I posted that it takes a special kind of idiot not to wear a seatbelt, but y'know I see a person saying it spoils their tan and I think, yeah, it's probably a good idea in the long run that you be allowed not to wear a seatbelt. We could probably do with losing a few morons. Thin the ranks out a little so there's a bit more space for the rest of us. jonnyx
  • Score: 3

10:50pm Fri 21 Mar 14

Ginger_cyclist says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
If you destroy another thread with your ridiculous comments, hopefully you will get booted. So go ahead. Upset everyone.
Look it up and you'll find that what I say is true, plenty of public service anouncements were made about it.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.[/p][/quote]If you destroy another thread with your ridiculous comments, hopefully you will get booted. So go ahead. Upset everyone.[/p][/quote]Look it up and you'll find that what I say is true, plenty of public service anouncements were made about it. Ginger_cyclist
  • Score: 5

11:24pm Fri 21 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

From the sidelines wrote:
When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis.

What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take.

Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.)
Do you actually believe that?
[quote][p][bold]From the sidelines[/bold] wrote: When seat-belt legislation was introduced, car passenger injuries fell. However, cyclists and pedestrian injuries increased, due to risk homeostasis. What our elders and betters seem unable to grasp is that a car with teflon tyres, cardboard bodywork and a spike in the middle of the steering wheel is less hazardous to other road users, on account of the increased care the driver will take. Seatbelts and helmets (and cycle helmets) all result in more dangerous behaviour of the vehicle operator. (Ditto ABS, stability control, air bags, side protection etc, etc, etc.)[/p][/quote]Do you actually believe that? OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 3

1:03am Sat 22 Mar 14

wknight says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
camerajuan wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?
but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it
You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan!

How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.
no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion?
You are correct that unless you are sat in the back you are not a danger to anyone else BUT what about the consequences of you not wearing a seat belt.

In the event of an accident you are likely to suffer severe injuries if you hit the windscreen. You could suffer major brain damage and more importantly take up valuable hospital bed and resources when it was totally unnecessary. Then there is the effect on the people called to the scene of the accident if the injuries are really bad.

But then it doesn't matter because the NHS Is free, live in the US where you need health insurance and you would be looking at a million dollar bill. You should see the cost of motorcycle insurance in those US states where helmet laws do not exist, its sky high. I know because I bought US motorcycle insurance and used a state that had a helmet law to reduce premiums by 25%
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]camerajuan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: of course not you maniac, who would ride a bike without a helmet!? hardly a comparison to not wearing a seat belt in a car is it? do you wear a helmet in a car?[/p][/quote]but if someone decided not to wear a helmet on a bike then yes they are only putting themselves in greater danger so i do fail to see how it would be anybody elses business. obviously its a legal requirement in the uk but if someone wanted to break that particular law it does not make them a danger to society for doing so does it[/p][/quote]You said it. LEGAL REQUIREMENT. Over 400 people caught breaking said law and one excuse was to protect a tan! How you don't see what a danger this could be to others is beyond me.[/p][/quote]no i dont see how its a danger to anybody other than the person not wearing the seat belt as long as they are in the front seat, if you could clarify why it is a danger to others that might be useful to this discussion?[/p][/quote]You are correct that unless you are sat in the back you are not a danger to anyone else BUT what about the consequences of you not wearing a seat belt. In the event of an accident you are likely to suffer severe injuries if you hit the windscreen. You could suffer major brain damage and more importantly take up valuable hospital bed and resources when it was totally unnecessary. Then there is the effect on the people called to the scene of the accident if the injuries are really bad. But then it doesn't matter because the NHS Is free, live in the US where you need health insurance and you would be looking at a million dollar bill. You should see the cost of motorcycle insurance in those US states where helmet laws do not exist, its sky high. I know because I bought US motorcycle insurance and used a state that had a helmet law to reduce premiums by 25% wknight
  • Score: 1

7:37am Sat 22 Mar 14

sue1956 says...

pyan wrote:
"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville...

http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?v=waEssuzV_

XU
That's not going to be shown again then!
[quote][p][bold]pyan[/bold] wrote: "Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.” Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=waEssuzV_ XU[/p][/quote]That's not going to be shown again then! sue1956
  • Score: -1

7:41am Sat 22 Mar 14

sue1956 says...

Love the picture and heading!
Love the picture and heading! sue1956
  • Score: 0

9:01am Sat 22 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017. Dai Rear
  • Score: -4

9:44am Sat 22 Mar 14

thesouth says...

A lot of people don't seem to be grasping the dangers; if you are in the front seat not wearing a seat belt and you crash and go through the windscreen, your weight plus the speed you are travelling can easily kill someone you hit.
Likewise if you are in the back seta, you will crush the person infront.
It's very basic really.
A lot of people don't seem to be grasping the dangers; if you are in the front seat not wearing a seat belt and you crash and go through the windscreen, your weight plus the speed you are travelling can easily kill someone you hit. Likewise if you are in the back seta, you will crush the person infront. It's very basic really. thesouth
  • Score: 3

10:17am Sat 22 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

thesouth wrote:
A lot of people don't seem to be grasping the dangers; if you are in the front seat not wearing a seat belt and you crash and go through the windscreen, your weight plus the speed you are travelling can easily kill someone you hit.
Likewise if you are in the back seta, you will crush the person infront.
It's very basic really.
And if you're in the back, and everyone's belted up, drinking a hot coffee and the car brakes suddenly you'll scald the front seat person-maybe. But is that a matter for the State? Is it really more important than catching criminals, discovering stolen property? Drugs? Surely not. it must be more worthwhile to send a strong message that if you're driving uninsured we'll catch you-and what's in your car. Mustnt it?
[quote][p][bold]thesouth[/bold] wrote: A lot of people don't seem to be grasping the dangers; if you are in the front seat not wearing a seat belt and you crash and go through the windscreen, your weight plus the speed you are travelling can easily kill someone you hit. Likewise if you are in the back seta, you will crush the person infront. It's very basic really.[/p][/quote]And if you're in the back, and everyone's belted up, drinking a hot coffee and the car brakes suddenly you'll scald the front seat person-maybe. But is that a matter for the State? Is it really more important than catching criminals, discovering stolen property? Drugs? Surely not. it must be more worthwhile to send a strong message that if you're driving uninsured we'll catch you-and what's in your car. Mustnt it? Dai Rear
  • Score: -2

12:21pm Sat 22 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

sue1956 wrote:
pyan wrote:
"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville...

http://www.youtube.c


om/watch?v=waEssuzV_


XU
That's not going to be shown again then!
A new series of adverts wouldn't go amiss, perhaps showing graphic details of the results of the damage done to victims. In bad taste maybe, but sure to attract the attention of the ignorant.
[quote][p][bold]sue1956[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pyan[/bold] wrote: "Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.” Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=waEssuzV_ XU[/p][/quote]That's not going to be shown again then![/p][/quote]A new series of adverts wouldn't go amiss, perhaps showing graphic details of the results of the damage done to victims. In bad taste maybe, but sure to attract the attention of the ignorant. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Sat 22 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Dai Rear wrote:
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.[/p][/quote]As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 2

12:39pm Sat 22 Mar 14

sue1956 says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
sue1956 wrote:
pyan wrote:
"Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.”

Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville...

http://www.youtube.c



om/watch?v=waEssuzV_



XU
That's not going to be shown again then!
A new series of adverts wouldn't go amiss, perhaps showing graphic details of the results of the damage done to victims. In bad taste maybe, but sure to attract the attention of the ignorant.
Hear Hear
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sue1956[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]pyan[/bold] wrote: "Remember the old saying 'Clunk Click' every trip? It's still very relevant today.” Yes, I remember it. It was said by Jimmy Saville... http://www.youtube.c om/watch?v=waEssuzV_ XU[/p][/quote]That's not going to be shown again then![/p][/quote]A new series of adverts wouldn't go amiss, perhaps showing graphic details of the results of the damage done to victims. In bad taste maybe, but sure to attract the attention of the ignorant.[/p][/quote]Hear Hear sue1956
  • Score: 2

1:16pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print.
No. Just wrong. If the other driver's at fault you'll lose 20% or so damages for contributory negligence. Read it again. You've got it wrong. And of course your Third Party is not affected as it's a matter of Public Policy that it should not. You may be peddling an urban myth unknowingly.
I don't advocate driving without seatbelts. My first car didn't need them by law but I had them fitted anyway. All I'm saying is that whilst it's nicer for PC Noddy and Sergeant Bigears to stop unbelted insured motorists because, unlike the uninsured, they're unlikely to kick off or offer violence, in terms of crime prevention it's no more than displacement activity, as the police know bloomin' well.
[quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.[/p][/quote]As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print.[/p][/quote]No. Just wrong. If the other driver's at fault you'll lose 20% or so damages for contributory negligence. Read it again. You've got it wrong. And of course your Third Party is not affected as it's a matter of Public Policy that it should not. You may be peddling an urban myth unknowingly. I don't advocate driving without seatbelts. My first car didn't need them by law but I had them fitted anyway. All I'm saying is that whilst it's nicer for PC Noddy and Sergeant Bigears to stop unbelted insured motorists because, unlike the uninsured, they're unlikely to kick off or offer violence, in terms of crime prevention it's no more than displacement activity, as the police know bloomin' well. Dai Rear
  • Score: -1

1:26pm Sat 22 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

But , as you said OS, and you're right there, why not a new set of ads, if the problem is increasing (didn't know it was, but then I know the law of insurance and not much about road traffic statistics)
Education, rather than coppers wasting their time and letting the anti-social uninsured motorists get away, is what it should be about.
But , as you said OS, and you're right there, why not a new set of ads, if the problem is increasing (didn't know it was, but then I know the law of insurance and not much about road traffic statistics) Education, rather than coppers wasting their time and letting the anti-social uninsured motorists get away, is what it should be about. Dai Rear
  • Score: 3

6:06pm Sat 22 Mar 14

andysaints007 says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
You're not the one scraping them off the windscreen after a crash though, are you? PRATT
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]You're not the one scraping them off the windscreen after a crash though, are you? PRATT andysaints007
  • Score: 1

7:15pm Sat 22 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Dai Rear wrote:
OSPREYSAINT wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print.
No. Just wrong. If the other driver's at fault you'll lose 20% or so damages for contributory negligence. Read it again. You've got it wrong. And of course your Third Party is not affected as it's a matter of Public Policy that it should not. You may be peddling an urban myth unknowingly.
I don't advocate driving without seatbelts. My first car didn't need them by law but I had them fitted anyway. All I'm saying is that whilst it's nicer for PC Noddy and Sergeant Bigears to stop unbelted insured motorists because, unlike the uninsured, they're unlikely to kick off or offer violence, in terms of crime prevention it's no more than displacement activity, as the police know bloomin' well.
Don't worry about it, I don't own a car, I don't have a clue about the insurance, I was just sowing the seeds of doubt, if I travel as a passenger in a car, or a coach, I belt up in the hope that it will save me in the event of an accident, I never belt up when travelling by train as they don't provide seat belts yet. I seldom fly, but when I do I belt up when instructed to do so. It is all a matter of common sense really, something sadly lacking in some people these days.
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OSPREYSAINT[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.[/p][/quote]As I said previously if you are in a car and not belted up, technically you aren't insured because they won't pay up, check your small print.[/p][/quote]No. Just wrong. If the other driver's at fault you'll lose 20% or so damages for contributory negligence. Read it again. You've got it wrong. And of course your Third Party is not affected as it's a matter of Public Policy that it should not. You may be peddling an urban myth unknowingly. I don't advocate driving without seatbelts. My first car didn't need them by law but I had them fitted anyway. All I'm saying is that whilst it's nicer for PC Noddy and Sergeant Bigears to stop unbelted insured motorists because, unlike the uninsured, they're unlikely to kick off or offer violence, in terms of crime prevention it's no more than displacement activity, as the police know bloomin' well.[/p][/quote]Don't worry about it, I don't own a car, I don't have a clue about the insurance, I was just sowing the seeds of doubt, if I travel as a passenger in a car, or a coach, I belt up in the hope that it will save me in the event of an accident, I never belt up when travelling by train as they don't provide seat belts yet. I seldom fly, but when I do I belt up when instructed to do so. It is all a matter of common sense really, something sadly lacking in some people these days. OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 1

7:19pm Sat 22 Mar 14

cmth40 says...

the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
you bloody idiot your the sort i,d would have loved to take to a a&e for about a month maybe then your see the innocent thats dead or in hdu thatnks to sme stupid pig head that didnt wear a seat belltlost control went through the window screen and killed the person in a car in front ,the same as you lot that think using a mobile is ok it isnt and you should all be banned for life
[quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]you bloody idiot your the sort i,d would have loved to take to a a&e for about a month maybe then your see the innocent thats dead or in hdu thatnks to sme stupid pig head that didnt wear a seat belltlost control went through the window screen and killed the person in a car in front ,the same as you lot that think using a mobile is ok it isnt and you should all be banned for life cmth40
  • Score: 1

7:19pm Sat 22 Mar 14

OSPREYSAINT says...

Perhaps this will help:-
http://www.rospa.com
/roadsafety/info/sea
tbelt_law.pdf
Perhaps this will help:- http://www.rospa.com /roadsafety/info/sea tbelt_law.pdf OSPREYSAINT
  • Score: 0

1:56pm Sun 23 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

cmth40 wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
you bloody idiot your the sort i,d would have loved to take to a a&e for about a month maybe then your see the innocent thats dead or in hdu thatnks to sme stupid pig head that didnt wear a seat belltlost control went through the window screen and killed the person in a car in front ,the same as you lot that think using a mobile is ok it isnt and you should all be banned for life
It is (being squashed by an unseatbelted person) so prevalent that it is now the commonest cause of mortality in any country which has roads. Get a grip man! Sadly the commonest cause of mortality in our country is that your mother has a "medical practitioner" kill you through abortion, but then I don't suppose you give a t&ss about that, do you? You want to take yellow peril down to watch "partial birth abortions"? No, surprise , surprise, cos it's a "wimmins' right" to kill her child. Isn't it?
[quote][p][bold]cmth40[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]you bloody idiot your the sort i,d would have loved to take to a a&e for about a month maybe then your see the innocent thats dead or in hdu thatnks to sme stupid pig head that didnt wear a seat belltlost control went through the window screen and killed the person in a car in front ,the same as you lot that think using a mobile is ok it isnt and you should all be banned for life[/p][/quote]It is (being squashed by an unseatbelted person) so prevalent that it is now the commonest cause of mortality in any country which has roads. Get a grip man! Sadly the commonest cause of mortality in our country is that your mother has a "medical practitioner" kill you through abortion, but then I don't suppose you give a t&ss about that, do you? You want to take yellow peril down to watch "partial birth abortions"? No, surprise , surprise, cos it's a "wimmins' right" to kill her child. Isn't it? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

6:30pm Sun 23 Mar 14

camerajuan says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away !
Jesus! Stalker much! You're turning into Al!
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.[/p][/quote]Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away ![/p][/quote]Jesus! Stalker much! You're turning into Al! camerajuan
  • Score: 0

12:29am Mon 24 Mar 14

dolomiteman says...

Dai Rear wrote:
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
Seatbelts have to be worn, its the law. a lot of those who break this law will also break others. yes there is a crack down but the police have also been stopping uninsured cars and people using phones or do you think they only have a crackdown on one type of crime at a time?

And what does Russia have to do with this story (no question mark because I don't want an answer)
[quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.[/p][/quote]Seatbelts have to be worn, its the law. a lot of those who break this law will also break others. yes there is a crack down but the police have also been stopping uninsured cars and people using phones or do you think they only have a crackdown on one type of crime at a time? And what does Russia have to do with this story (no question mark because I don't want an answer) dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

12:31am Mon 24 Mar 14

dolomiteman says...

charrlee wrote:
Ginger_cyclist wrote:
the_yellow_peril wrote:
why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing!
Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away !
And your first comment on this thread is to bait and wind up a cyclist, on. this occasion he happens to be right so stop trolling.
[quote][p][bold]charrlee[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ginger_cyclist[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the_yellow_peril[/bold] wrote: why is this news? not wearing a seat belt does not put anybody else in danger other than the individual who had made the conscious choice not to. i agree its best to wear one but as a life long biker i often get in the car and don't bother, not like you have the option on a bike is it! not wearing it because of his tan is a bit of a silly thing to say but quite amusing![/p][/quote]Actually, if anyone's in the vehicle with you, you will be likely to get thrown into them and cause them serious/fatal injuries.[/p][/quote]Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ! Go away ! Go away ![/p][/quote]And your first comment on this thread is to bait and wind up a cyclist, on. this occasion he happens to be right so stop trolling. dolomiteman
  • Score: 0

7:18am Mon 24 Mar 14

Dai Rear says...

dolomiteman wrote:
Dai Rear wrote:
There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.
Seatbelts have to be worn, its the law. a lot of those who break this law will also break others. yes there is a crack down but the police have also been stopping uninsured cars and people using phones or do you think they only have a crackdown on one type of crime at a time?

And what does Russia have to do with this story (no question mark because I don't want an answer)
Well you've got one.
Police=finite resources=prioritise
=do not chase trivia like seatbelts. Get it?
Police=British organisation to catch criminals & keep the peace. NOT to take instructions from a corrupt failed institution, the EU, which has been engaged in trouble making in Eastern Europe. Get it?
[quote][p][bold]dolomiteman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Dai Rear[/bold] wrote: There are in excess of 1 million uninsured cars in the UK, clearly identifiable through ANPR. They contain illegal drugs, firearms, weapons, stolen goods, escaped prisoners, But the police are stopping insured cars because someone's not wearing a BL88DY SEATBELT. You couldn't make it up. Oh but it's a "European-wide crackdown" Is that the "Europe" that wound Russia up so much that it annexed part of Ukraine but can't do anything about it cos the Germans will no longer fight? Let us pray it will not be a "Europe" of which we will be any part after 2017.[/p][/quote]Seatbelts have to be worn, its the law. a lot of those who break this law will also break others. yes there is a crack down but the police have also been stopping uninsured cars and people using phones or do you think they only have a crackdown on one type of crime at a time? And what does Russia have to do with this story (no question mark because I don't want an answer)[/p][/quote]Well you've got one. Police=finite resources=prioritise =do not chase trivia like seatbelts. Get it? Police=British organisation to catch criminals & keep the peace. NOT to take instructions from a corrupt failed institution, the EU, which has been engaged in trouble making in Eastern Europe. Get it? Dai Rear
  • Score: 0

1:54pm Mon 24 Mar 14

kiddynamite says...

Please just all shut up and belt up!!!!!!!!! Jeez your like flipping children on here. I would hate to see the fuss if something serious ever happened lol
Please just all shut up and belt up!!!!!!!!! Jeez your like flipping children on here. I would hate to see the fuss if something serious ever happened lol kiddynamite
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree