NIP for no seatbelt!
Discussion
cmaguire said:
Jonno02 said:
Any passenger that doesn't belt up in my car, will be asked to do so, or asked to walk.
Your car, your rules.Do you also tell them they're a cretin when asking them to belt up?
You must live in a strange world.
oyster said:
Anyone who thinks the drawbacks of wearing a seatbelt (proven to be minimal) outweigh the benefit of wearing them (proven to be significant) is an idiot.
Anyone who breaks a law that so clearly saves lives for no cost in liberty, time or money is also an idiot.
As for your NHS comment - presumably you're ok with the emergency services having to clear up the mess of people who haven't worn a seat belt? Dealing with a lung cancer victim is a lot less traumatising.
And are you ok with the fact that someone innocently involved in a collision with a non-seatbelt wearer is more likely to live with the knowledge they were involved in a fatal accident?
I've found a 3rd type of idiot - the ones who defend those not wearing seatbelts.
Have you ever considered the fact that you might be an idiot?Anyone who breaks a law that so clearly saves lives for no cost in liberty, time or money is also an idiot.
As for your NHS comment - presumably you're ok with the emergency services having to clear up the mess of people who haven't worn a seat belt? Dealing with a lung cancer victim is a lot less traumatising.
And are you ok with the fact that someone innocently involved in a collision with a non-seatbelt wearer is more likely to live with the knowledge they were involved in a fatal accident?
I've found a 3rd type of idiot - the ones who defend those not wearing seatbelts.
And your idiocy has absolutely nothing to do with seatbelts.
In the event of a serious accident your insurance company would be unlikely to pay out for personal injury/death as they would, quite rightly claim, that by not wearing the seat belt provided in the van, the driver's negligence contributed to the seriousness of the injury.
The driver, company and fleet manager of a commercial vehicle could find themselves personally liable and staring huge bills in the face!
The driver, company and fleet manager of a commercial vehicle could find themselves personally liable and staring huge bills in the face!
drdel said:
In the event of a serious accident your insurance company would be unlikely to pay out for personal injury/death as they would, quite rightly claim, that by not wearing the seat belt provided in the van, the driver's negligence contributed to the seriousness of the injury.
The driver, company and fleet manager of a commercial vehicle could find themselves personally liable and staring huge bills in the face!
If you were an innocent tp in a claim who suffered serious injury, the level of compensation you could claim from the responsible driver would be subject to a reduction for contributory negligence if you weren't wearing a seatbelt. If the injury was life changing, not wearing a seatbelt could cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds in reduced payout.The driver, company and fleet manager of a commercial vehicle could find themselves personally liable and staring huge bills in the face!
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you were an innocent tp in a claim who suffered serious injury, the level of compensation you could claim from the responsible driver would be subject to a reduction for contributory negligence if you weren't wearing a seatbelt. If the injury was life changing, not wearing a seatbelt could cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds in reduced payout.
Innocent third party (yet not wearing a seatbelt). I thought, according to you and the various sycophants on here, that automatically qualified the individual as an idiot or cretin not worthy of sympathy (ergo innocence) of any description.In my Victorian existence the individual not wearing the seatbelt would just take the repercussions of that on the chin (pun intended) as the responsibility of choice lies with the individual that took that choice (i.e. don't try to blame others for your choices).
drdel said:
The driver, company and fleet manager of a commercial vehicle could find themselves personally liable and staring huge bills in the face!
Perhaps you would like to elaborate as nobody from the pro HSE lobby has bothered to address my last post.WHAT would the fleet manager and company find themselves liable for exactly??????????????
Pip
Pip1968 said:
Perhaps you would like to elaborate as nobody from the pro HSE lobby has bothered to address my last post.
WHAT would the fleet manager and company find themselves liable for exactly??????????????
Pip
Negligence, maybe corporate manslaughter if a death is involved.WHAT would the fleet manager and company find themselves liable for exactly??????????????
Pip
If you're driving for work, then you're operating work related equipment and the manager is responsible for ensuring all staff are fully trained and aware of safe operating procedures. This includes things like enforcing the use of seat belts, defensive driving training, and appropriate disciplinary and re-training processes for those found to be in breach of the rules.
So in this instance he (fleet manager/company boss) would have to pay the Government because the lads did not wear their seatbelt only because he did not tell them off. Is that what you are saying.??
There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
Pip1968 said:
So in this instance he (fleet manager/company boss) would have to pay the Government because the lads did not wear their seatbelt only because he did not tell them off. Is that what you are saying.??
There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
cmaguire said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you were an innocent tp in a claim who suffered serious injury, the level of compensation you could claim from the responsible driver would be subject to a reduction for contributory negligence if you weren't wearing a seatbelt. If the injury was life changing, not wearing a seatbelt could cost you hundreds of thousands of pounds in reduced payout.
Innocent third party (yet not wearing a seatbelt). I thought, according to you and the various sycophants on here, that automatically qualified the individual as an idiot or cretin not worthy of sympathy (ergo innocence) of any description.HantsRat said:
Sorry late to the party here. I think I've got the jist though... Police have evidence of a driver not wearing a seatbelt while driving and they peruse it, driver is not happy at getting caught.
Is that right?
Driver's boss more annoyed with safety van than he is with law breaking employee.Is that right?
HantsRat said:
Sorry late to the party here. I think I've got the jist though... Police have evidence of a driver not wearing a seatbelt while driving and they peruse it, driver is not happy at getting caught.
Is that right?
Yes, because he's been caught by the "wrong type" of enforcement bod. Is that right?
Pip1968 said:
So in this instance he (fleet manager/company boss) would have to pay the Government because the lads did not wear their seatbelt only because he did not tell them off. Is that what you are saying.??
There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
Are you deliberately being obtuse? The management of the company should provide a set of 'rules' to be followed when driving on company business. This would include statements like 'wear a seat belt at all times', 'only use a mobile phone when absolutely necessary and not at all if no bluetooth is in operation'. It should also include guidance on driver's hours etc.There is no training involved in putting a seatbelt on surely - pull cord insert male into female. So are you also saying that he would have to show them that to cover his arse - ???
If so it is a mad mad world of bullsh#t. As usual HSE gone too far and in the same box as the theiving gypsies that fall through a wriggly tin roof whilst trying to rob the place and then claim for injury. It has all gone too far.
Is it any wonder that we have such a large visible deficit with the rest of the world. We are too busy 'protecting' employees against their own stupidity or lack of self responsibility. Why bother employing people here when you have to put up with ridiculous HSE and can do it abroad instead.
Pip
KevinCamaroSS said:
Are you deliberately being obtuse? The management of the company should provide a set of 'rules' to be followed when driving on company business. This would include statements like 'wear a seat belt at all times', 'only use a mobile phone when absolutely necessary and not at all if no bluetooth is in operation'. It should also include guidance on driver's hours etc.
Jesus christ. I work with potentially deadly chemicals at work, in a scientific research role. Yet I have to sign a risk assessment to verify that I understand the risks of 'operating' a kettle in the kitchen!I don't think he quite understands that although H&S can be stupid, the law is the law.
Jonno02 said:
KevinCamaroSS said:
Are you deliberately being obtuse? The management of the company should provide a set of 'rules' to be followed when driving on company business. This would include statements like 'wear a seat belt at all times', 'only use a mobile phone when absolutely necessary and not at all if no bluetooth is in operation'. It should also include guidance on driver's hours etc.
Jesus christ. I work with potentially deadly chemicals at work, in a scientific research role. Yet I have to sign a risk assessment to verify that I understand the risks of 'operating' a kettle in the kitchen!I don't think he quite understands that although H&S can be stupid, the law is the law.
I've spent most of my working career in relatively large organisations (FTSE 100 companies) and have never been asked to sign such a declaration; I started with a smaller company (albeit part of a larger Group) a couple of months ago and as part of the induction process at no stage have I been asked to sign to say I understand the risks associated with operating a kettle. Surely that can't be a legal requirement? The world really has gone mad if it is!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff