Why do you drive without a seat belt on?

[uknick]

Search facility is down so apologies if this has been done before.

To those that do, why do you drive without a seat belt on?

Law has been in place since 1983 (ish) so I am puzzled why so many still drive without seat belts on. Especially when current car safety systems are designed to work together, i.e. air bag works with seat belt, and if no seat belt used air bag can do more damage than good if it deploys in your face (or so I've read).

[CDP]

The only two cars I've driven without wearing seat belts are a 1960 Triumph Herald 948 and a 1963 Jaguar MK10 3.8.

And a Kawasaki Mule.

Non came with belts.

[Shaw Tarse]

uknick said:

Search facility is down so apologies if this has been done before.

To those that do, why do you drive without a seat belt on?

Law has been in place since 1983 (ish) so I am puzzled why so many still drive without seat belts on. Especially when current car safety systems are designed to work together, i.e. air bag works with seat belt, and if no seat belt used air bag can do more damage than good if it deploys in your face (or so I've read).

Here you go http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

[Riley Blue]

Because two of my cars don't have them fitted.

[Jasandjules]

No I don't drive without a seatbelt. I think perhaps if people were shown what is left of an individual in an RTA who doesn't wear one, more would do so!

[uknick]

Shaw Tarse said:

Here you go http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Thanks, I knew it must have been done at some time.

[graemel]

I always wear a belt but I do know quite a few chaps that don't. One is a guy that used to collect cars and vans after RTA's. He never wears a belt and in his experience it is a 50/50 survival rate. I owned a 1970 Camaro a few years back and that always felt a little strange to drive as it only had a lap belt. I did buy a set of normal belts but sold the car before I had them fitted.

[JumboBeef]

graemel said:

One is a guy that used to collect cars and vans after RTA's. He never wears a belt and in his experience it is a 50/50 survival rate.

What does he mean 50/50?

The man is an idiot, and so is anyone who doesn't wear one when one is available.

I work for the ambulance service and I've seen people wearing belts walk away from complete carnage and others who were not wearing a belt serious injured/killed in relatively minor accidents. I have yet to see anyone at all injured or killed because they were wearing a belt (other than bruising from the belt).

[daz3210]

I occasionally don't wear one, but usually only when manoeuvering the car in a tight confine.

Most often it is just automatic when you get into the car.

[XCP]

It always amazes me why taxi drivers ( who have an exemption) from wearing a seat belt, if they have a passenger in the car, do not wear one anyway.

[daz3210]

I'm told plod have an exemption when carrying a prisoner too.

[Cat]

daz3210 said:

I'm told plod have an exemption when carrying a prisoner too.

The exemption applies if the vehicle is being used for police purposes, there does not need to be a prisoner in the vehicle. Having said that the only time it tends to be used is when there is a prisoner in the car and even then not always.

Cat

[daz3210]

Cat said:

daz3210 said:

I'm told plod have an exemption when carrying a prisoner too.

The exemption applies if the vehicle is being used for police purposes, there does not need to be a prisoner in the vehicle. Having said that the only time it tends to be used is when there is a prisoner in the car and even then not always.

Cat

I would have thought lead by example would be appropriate though.

What is the idea behind that exemption?

[boobles]

JumboBeef said:

What does he mean 50/50?

The man is an idiot, and so is anyone who doesn't wear one when one is available.

I work for the ambulance service and I've seen people wearing belts walk away from complete carnage and others who were not wearing a belt serious injured/killed in relatively minor accidents. I have yet to see anyone at all injured or killed because they were wearing a belt (other than bruising from the belt).

+ 1. Anyone who has this opinion abot it being 50/50 is a complete balloon!

I crash test child restraints & also cars, so I see the importance of wearing a seatbelt. Unfortunately the people who are "anti" seatbelts are living on borrowed time in my opinion because they have the attitude that it will never happen to me etc but when it does, it's usually to late for them to realize.

[daz3210]

Is the law in Spain still that you only have to wear them when outside built up areas.

Personally if I were driving without one I would probably be tempted to drive slower and more defensively. Purely because the risk in the event of a crash is pretty obvious.

[0000]

daz3210 said:

Cat said:

daz3210 said:

I'm told plod have an exemption when carrying a prisoner too.

The exemption applies if the vehicle is being used for police purposes, there does not need to be a prisoner in the vehicle. Having said that the only time it tends to be used is when there is a prisoner in the car and even then not always.

Cat

I would have thought lead by example would be appropriate though.

What is the idea behind that exemption?

Presumably so that if the prisoner decides to kick off they can keep them restrained and keep control of the car?

[daz3210]

0000 said:

daz3210 said:

Cat said:

daz3210 said:

I'm told plod have an exemption when carrying a prisoner too.

The exemption applies if the vehicle is being used for police purposes, there does not need to be a prisoner in the vehicle. Having said that the only time it tends to be used is when there is a prisoner in the car and even then not always.

Cat

I would have thought lead by example would be appropriate though.

What is the idea behind that exemption?

Presumably so that if the prisoner decides to kick off they can keep them restrained and keep control of the car?

But if it is allowed when no prisoner..............

I can understand the need where a prisoner is in transit.

[0000]

Probably just ease of legislation. What if someone jumps in at traffic lights, or they're out of the car and someone decides to nick it but they manage to get in through a window/door, or they're on the way to a call and need something from the back of the car, or...

Easier just to say if they need it off for the job then allow it.

[Cat]

daz3210 said:

I would have thought lead by example would be appropriate though.

Indeed, and that's why I said that pretty much the only time the exemption is used is if there is a prisoner in the vehicle.

daz3210 said:

What is the idea behind that exemption?

No idea, I didn't draft the legislation. Presumably those that did felt there were circumstance were wearing a seatbelt would be a hinderance. For what it's worth the same exemption applies to vehicles being used for fire brigade purposes.

Cat

[daz3210]

Cat said:

daz3210 said:

I would have thought lead by example would be appropriate though.

Indeed, and that's why I said that pretty much the only time the exemption is used is if there is a prisoner in the vehicle.

daz3210 said:

What is the idea behind that exemption?

No idea, I didn't draft the legislation. Presumably those that did felt there were circumstance were wearing a seatbelt would be a hinderance. For what it's worth the same exemption applies to vehicles being used for fire brigade purposes.

Cat

In the instance of Fire Brigade though, aren't the peeps inside generally getting their protective kit on while on the move?

With the exception of the driver of course.