NIP for no seatbelt!

[Stoofa]

HarryHill said:

Indeed we do. I have 102 vans at the moment, all tracked. If they fart while going round a roundabout, we know. However, the law of averages dictates of the 102 , 30 percent will be dicks. They go through the 3 strikes process. We also suffer the residents you tubing them, lovely.

The OP's original surprise was a speed camera vans diversity in also applying their 'talents' to sending a nip for a seat belt.

But, as is usual in this sub forum, the usual holier than thou's que up to beat the OP up. You being a master of the craft.

Why you don't all go and find yourself a mumsnet type road safety forum is beyond me, why did any of you join a motoring enthusiast forum ???

It defeats me, it really does. Have you really nothing better to do with your lives ?

I was advised what a complete bunch of bellends habitate this area, but thought it couldn't be so, after all, we are enthusiasts are we not ? Sadly, it seems not to be so, this area is populated in the main by johnny warrior who has a lot to say about nothing.

You're not enthusiasts who want to help a fellow petrol head out, you are a collective bunch of sad acts, who like to bully people from the comfort of a keyboard.

Go and have a word with yourselves ffs. Because you have zero value on a motoring forum.

So being an "enthusiast" means that you have to never wear seatbelts and when some "poor person" comes on to the forum to tell us all, through tears, that somebody had the balls to pull them up on this we should all feel sorry for them and agree that the world is one silly place?
I think you're in the wrong forum mate. Go find a forum where they discuss adding blue lights to their Corsa. Or how wicked their saxo looks with some green LED's on their front screen washers.
I've got a feeling this is where your definition of "enthusiast" lies.

Do I always wear my seatbelt? Indeed I do because it would against the law not to, but far, far more importantly it will save my life if ever I'm involved in an accident. As numerous police and first responders have said "I've never unbuckled a corpse".
Do I insist everyone in my car wears one? Indeed I do. I don't want them dead and I don't want their body to kill me.

Sorry that makes me some kind of "stick in the mud", uncool or whatever.
But I feel that gives me far more value on a motoring forum over somebody who feels flouting the rules which are in place for their own and other road users safety. You know, not being a self-centered....

[sparkythecat]

I'm by no means a blind adherent to the letter of every law, but I wear my seatbelt because I can't think of any good reason not to.

[anonymous-user]

cmaguire said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would be "there're" Doctor.

Wow! Even when trying to correct people you get it wrong......

[cmaguire]

REALIST123 said:

cmaguire said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would be "there're" Doctor.

Wow! Even when trying to correct people you get it wrong......

Do I really need to waste my time on this?

There is shortens to there's.
There are shortens to there're.

'Brain surgeons' is plural.

Therefore "Bloody Hell, there is some brain surgeons on here today" is a somewhat ironic statement (observation is probably pushing it).

'There're' is not commonly used (personally I would always say there are) and is often spoken rather than written.

[Trabi601]

It's a regional thing. Say it with a Northern accent and "there's" makes sense... not great use of English, but it's very common in the frozen wastelands of the North

[CoolHands]

How can a speed camera operator conclusively say you are not wearing your seatbelt? I would say it's very very difficult; there are many occasions when you can't see for certain. Surely you have to be pulled over by a copper for it to be valid. I.e. What if the van driver says bks I was wearing it - how are they going to prove it to find him guilty?

[Trabi601]

CoolHands said:

How can a speed camera operator conclusively say you are not wearing your seatbelt? I would say it's very very difficult; there are many occasions when you can't see for certain. Surely you have to be pulled over by a copper for it to be valid. I.e. What if the van driver says bks I was wearing it - how are they going to prove it to find him guilty?

We have things things called 'photographs' - you may have heard of them

[CoolHands]

yeah but they're not conclusive that's what I'm saying. The belt could have been obscured. Some are low e.g. 2-door bmws etc

[rscott]

CoolHands said:

yeah but they're not conclusive that's what I'm saying. The belt could have been obscured. Some are low e.g. 2-door bmws etc

Depends on the vehicle, angle, driver height, colour of clothing, etc.

The OP isn't disputing the evidence in this case at all. He's just annoyed that a safety camera van spotted the offence.

Edited by rscott on Sunday 28th May 14:40

[Alucidnation]

Trabi601 said:

CoolHands said:

How can a speed camera operator conclusively say you are not wearing your seatbelt? I would say it's very very difficult; there are many occasions when you can't see for certain. Surely you have to be pulled over by a copper for it to be valid. I.e. What if the van driver says bks I was wearing it - how are they going to prove it to find him guilty?

We have things things called 'photographs' - you may have heard of them

This thread IS delivering.

[TooMany2cvs]

ferrariF50lover said:

I was involved a number of years ago in a case where a young man was driving himself and two friends along a road. He lost control and rolled the car. He and the front seat passenger were virtually injury free. The rear seat passenger, a young man of 17 (if memory serves) was lying dead on the verge, having been ejected through the rear window because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.

The person in front of that rear passenger was lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

[Alucidnation]

cmaguire said:

And there was I wondering how I ended up sharing the roads with a bunch of pansies.
I expect we're all just joking though.

[AtlanticX]

cmaguire said:

REALIST123 said:

cmaguire said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would be "there're" Doctor.

Wow! Even when trying to correct people you get it wrong......

Do I really need to waste my time on this?

There is shortens to there's.
There are shortens to there're.

'Brain surgeons' is plural.

Therefore "Bloody Hell, there is some brain surgeons on here today" is a somewhat ironic statement (observation is probably pushing it).

'There're' is not commonly used (personally I would always say there are) and is often spoken rather than written.

However, "Bloody Hell, there's some brain surgeons on here today." Is perfectly acceptable and correct English grammar.

"there're" appears to be attributed to Bob Dylan and while he is a Nobel laureate and is one of my favourite artists I won't be using him as a reference for my English grammar.

[AtlanticX]

TooMany2cvs said:

ferrariF50lover said:

I was involved a number of years ago in a case where a young man was driving himself and two friends along a road. He lost control and rolled the car. He and the front seat passenger were virtually injury free. The rear seat passenger, a young man of 17 (if memory serves) was lying dead on the verge, having been ejected through the rear window because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt.

The person in front of that rear passenger was lucky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKHY69AFstE

According to cmaguire the only reason this lad hit and killed his mother in that collision was because he wasn't old enough to prevent himself from being propelled forward.
Perhaps when Newton first published his laws of motion in 1687 he omitted to include age dependency as a variable in those laws. Euler missed it in 1750 too.
I don't think it possible for any human to prevent involuntary forward motion in a sudden stop from any speed above 20mph, maybe cmaguire knows better or is indeed super-human himself and needs no restraint.

[Pip1968]

HarryHill said:

Indeed we do. I have 102 vans at the moment, all tracked. If they fart while going round a roundabout, we know. However, the law of averages dictates of the 102 , 30 percent will be dicks. They go through the 3 strikes process. We also suffer the residents you tubing them, lovely.

The OP's original surprise was a speed camera vans diversity in also applying their 'talents' to sending a nip for a seat belt.

But, as is usual in this sub forum, the usual holier than thou's que up to beat the OP up. You being a master of the craft.

Why you don't all go and find yourself a mumsnet type road safety forum is beyond me, why did any of you join a motoring enthusiast forum ???

It defeats me, it really does. Have you really nothing better to do with your lives ?

I was advised what a complete bunch of bellends habitate this area, but thought it couldn't be so, after all, we are enthusiasts are we not ? Sadly, it seems not to be so, this area is populated in the main by johnny warrior who has a lot to say about nothing.

You're not enthusiasts who want to help a fellow petrol head out, you are a collective bunch of sad acts, who like to bully people from the comfort of a keyboard.

Go and have a word with yourselves ffs. Because you have zero value on a motoring forum.

Personally I am with Harry Hill on this (not sure if he is joking - that is typed in jest by the way). Health and Safety will be the death of us (read that any way you want to). If two blokes decide not to wear their seatbelts they are old enough to drive, have anal sex and mitigate and deal with risk themselves.

I would be interested to hear how many of the HSE lobby on hear have been in death defying car crashes and not lived their lives through other people's stories. I have been in two. One a head on and one a rollover (five times plus forward flip). I had a seatbelt on in one and none in the other and am still alive (clearly if has affected my brain). I have also seen plenty of dead bodies and done plenty of stuff riskier than not wearing a seatbelt. We are all born and we will all die. Some will die of cancer or obesity and some in a car crash.

We are obsessed with seatbelts and car safety yet most are obese or overweight (lets not even look outside of the UK) but do very little about it. I have no problems meeting my maker tomorrow or in thirty years time. My wife also knows that I am a risk taker and selfishly enough I will say if she wants me to live for a long time she married the wrong person. Not saying I will not of course.

I have been up ladders where nobody has been holding the bottom and up trees with a chainsaw without being tied on. I have skied off piste on my own and ventured into bear territory on my jack jones. Now I am not trying to boast at all but just trying to say that I have ignored plenty of HSE and have ENJOYED myself. I enjoy high risk and danger.

Smokers may well contribute more than they cost and I would suggest that drivers do too - Speeding fines, parking fines, road tax, insurance, petrol tax, vat on new cars et cetera et cetera.

Some enjoy danger and risk and a lot on this topic love to live in a bubble of safety where someone else is responsible for their accidents/ignorance/mistakes. To highlight this I shall mention PPIs which one could call the 'thickie tax'. Unless you were forced to get it you should not have got a payout. Tip top tip: If you do not understand what it is you are buying see someone who does

Without risk we would not be where we are today but now that it is being stymied I wonder how the next 100 years will progress. Does not Darwinism serve a purpose to over population - ??

Anyway I am sure this will feed the HSE lobby.

Pip

[TwigtheWonderkid]

sparkythecat said:

I'm by no means a blind adherent to the letter of every law, but I wear my seatbelt because I can't think of any good reason not to.

Because not wearing a seatbelt today is safer than not wearing a seatbelt in 1982.....apparently. If that's not a convincing argument, then there's no hope for you, you nanny state pansy.

[Lance Catamaran]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

sparkythecat said:

I'm by no means a blind adherent to the letter of every law, but I wear my seatbelt because I can't think of any good reason not to.

Because not wearing a seatbelt today is safer than not wearing a seatbelt in 1982.....apparently. If that's not a convincing argument, then there's no hope for you, you nanny state pansy.

Don't forget that if you employ fewer than 5 people H&S rules don't apply.

[sparkythecat]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

sparkythecat said:

I'm by no means a blind adherent to the letter of every law, but I wear my seatbelt because I can't think of any good reason not to.

Because not wearing a seatbelt today is safer than not wearing a seatbelt in 1982.....apparently. If that's not a convincing argument, then there's no hope for you, you nanny state pansy.

That's me. I even wear my lifejacket when I go out on my boat for the same reason I wear my seatbelt in the car. Soft as st I am and I'm not even southern.

Edited by sparkythecat on Sunday 28th May 21:11

[cmaguire]

Seatbelts aside, there're (do you like that, apparently Bob Dylan did?) plenty of people on here that really need to get some perspective.
Travel around Siagon and you'll see families three or four up on scooters, none of them with helmets, and often the mother side-saddle with a child on her lap.
Not wearing a seatbelt is trivial. Do it and you're breaking the Law, that's all. £20 fine would be about right.

[cmaguire]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Still with the name calling.
You are missing the point.
Perspective.
The 'wrapped-in-cotton-wool' existence that the nanny state is promoting here has created a society that is disinclined to accept any personal responsibility and more than that wants to impose that mentality on everyone else.
Get some perspective.