NIP for no seatbelt!

[grumpy52]

My understanding is that modern camera vans also nick you for handheld device offences as well as speed limit and seat belt infringements .
As proof exists that seat belts and other safety devices improve the chances of surviving accidents and each fatality costs on average £1m ,wearing a belt is a bit of a no brainer .

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

The Driver's Handbook?

You'll be telling us you've got cameras in the cabs next.
Speed limiters fitted?

I know, we're so unreasonable. We hand over a £30K asset to an employee and we have the sheer audacity to outline a standard of behaviour, safety and care we expect that employee to show.

[ferrariF50lover]

cmaguire said:

Why do you care so much, the only person that might suffer (questionably) is the person not wearing the belt?

I suspect the usual Internet points scoring and "I'm cleverer than you because.... " mentality plays a part in some of the replies.

You suspect wrong.

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.
18 months went by. Counselling for the driver and friend. A death by dangerous driving charge reduced to death by careless driving. A criminal record and all the associated hassle of that. The loss of his best friend. The guilt. The harrowing memories. The family torn apart. The friends without their mate. The emergency services personnel who attended. The legal bods who poured over the photos and the testimony.

That and a minor fender bender might close a lane on a road for an hour, causing some congestion which then clears. That minor fender bender where someone involved is injured or killed because they couldn't be arsed to wear their seatbelt closes a whole road for a number of hours, leading to massive disruption. That costs me and many others on the road. It costs taxpayers money. It costs emergency services time that could be better diverted to something that couldn't have been so easily avoided. It costs the economy in wasted man hours. It costs businesses in missed shipments. Plus, it allows those wallys at BRAKE to keep on about how dangerous our roads are and how we all need to do 3.3mph everywhere, lest all the children be brutally killed.

Edited by ferrariF50lover on Saturday 27th May 21:36

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

Why do you care so much, the only person that might suffer (questionably) is the person not wearing the belt?

If you are ever involved in a car accident, maybe even one that's your fault, where the other party dies, or your passenger dies, (perhaps because they weren't wearing a seatbelt), compared to an accident where the other person / your passenger walks away unhurt, come back and say the only person effected is the person not wearing the belt.

A friend of mine died as a front seat passenger, not wearing a seatbelt, when the driver (another friend of mine) misjudged passing a parked car and hit it.

Now we don't know if the seatbelt would have saved her, very possibly so, but the driver, who was just 22 at the time, hasn't been able to get behind the wheel since.

(beaten to it by post above)

[WJNB]

Pagey said:

Had a NIP through last week for one of my work vehicles for the alleged offence of Failing to Wear a Seatbelt and requirement for drivers details.

Worked it out that it had to be one of two possible drivers and neither of them are sure as to which of them it was, so I replied to the NIP asking for any description and enquired as to why they weren't stopped at the time.

This morning I receive the a reply, along with photos!!!!

Photos from a bloody speed camera van - the sad git sitting in it didn't get them for speeding, so he reported them for no seatbelt Unfrigging-believable

Photos can clearly I.D the driver who has been informed it was him and he is astounded that it is a Speed Camera van that has reported him


Is it about road safety or about the money.........

Edited by Pagey on Saturday 27th May 11:54

You infer in your posting that you are in a managing/supervisory role regarding the drivers. Therefore YOUR manager should be taking you to task for your attitude in suggesting that the being caught without wearing a seatbelt is anything but 100% unacceptable. If I was your employer you would be removed to a lesser role.

[HarryHill]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

cmaguire said:

The Driver's Handbook?

You'll be telling us you've got cameras in the cabs next.
Speed limiters fitted?

I know, we're so unreasonable. We hand over a £30K asset to an employee and we have the sheer audacity to outline a standard of behaviour, safety and care we expect that employee to show.

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.

[MrTrilby]

Nigel Worc's said:

Trabi601 said:

Nigel Worc's said:

We're talking about an employee not wearing a seatbelt here.

I'm siding slightly with the OP, I too wouldn't give a stuff, if they break the law and get caught then its their tough st, I can't imagine I'd be worried about disciplinary action unless what they'd been caught for now meant they couldn't do what I employ them to do.

You don't understand how this stuff works, do you?

If the OP doesn't discipline or formally re-train people driving company vehicles and one of them gets injured due to them not wearing a seatbelt, the employer would be investigated by the HSE, most likely picking up a fine. They would also be open to a negligence claim from the employee or their family.

Luckily we employ less than five people, so I don't need to worry about nannying bks regarding adults that should know better.

You'll soon worry when you have to start paying out sick pay for an employee who's off a lot longer thanks to the extra injuries from not wearing a seatbelt. It's beyond doubt that seatbelt significantly reduce the chance of serious injuries in a crash.

Commenting that "who cares, we only do short journeys anyway" is ignorant. Most crashes happen on short journeys - it when a seatbelt is more important, not less.

Commenting "I pay towards the NHS so it's my choice" is unbelievably selfish. You may pay, but do you really think the people actually working in those ambulances, fire engines and traffic cars enjoy scraping up the remains of human bodies who thought seatbelts are optional?

Not wearing a seatbelt isn't a choice, it's just selfish and ignorant.

[cmaguire]

Neither of you are particularly convincing me with stories of incidents that are a definite rarity rather than the norm. I could tell you about various individuals that have drowned in their vehicles after deciding to inspect Fen drainage channels because they were upside down in a water-filled vehicle and couldn't get out of their belts. Neither instance is a common occurence.

Mostly I wear my belt, some short journeys I don't bother. As a driver, my rules, so I would insist any under 16's wear their belts as they are not 'adults'. Above that and it's their choice, the same as my passenger provided the vehicle doesn't make an irritating beeping sound and never stop. Since I ascertained my own limits by my early 20's, I'm not in the habit of crashing anything, if my passengers choose not to wear their seatbelts then I don't worry too much about them. If the worst happens, perhaps due to the actions of a third party, then they made their choice and that's their business. I am not a nanny. And I don't want the 'State' as an enforced nanny either.
I can live with that.
And how the hell they come up with this 'million per death' thing? Have they ever justified that?

[MrTrilby]

cmaguire said:

I could tell you about various individuals that have drowned in their vehicles after deciding to inspect Fen drainage channels because they were upside down in a water-filled vehicle and couldn't get out of their belts.

And I could tell you about the traffic officers who work in the Fenland areas who are adamant that the number of people who have actually drowned in a Feb ditch after being trapped in their seatbelt is almost non existent. They'll also tell you all about the numerous calls they've had to incidents where people really ought to have survived, had they been wearing a seatbelt. None of them sound pleasant.

[Lance Catamaran]

MrTrilby said:

Commenting that "who cares, we only do short journeys anyway" is ignorant. Most crashes happen on short journeys - it when a seatbelt is more important, not less.

I can attest to this. Many years ago my friend picked me up from my house, and less than half a mile away a woman in a Micra went through a red light and hit us head on. Had we all not been wearing seatbelts I have no doubt we both would have been seriously injured or worse.

What I would like to ask these edgelords who think they are too gangsta to wear a belt is do you really think you would only hurt yourself in an accident? Do you not have a wife, children, family or friends? What about the other party or all those who witness what would otherwise have been an accident turn into a fatality?

[Trabi601]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The worrying thing is that some of the idiots appear to be company owners or managers responsible for workers who drive company vehicles or drive as part of their job - yet they don't have any idea whatsoever what their H&S responsibilities are.

[cmaguire]

Trabi601 said:

The worrying thing is that some of the idiots appear to be company owners or managers responsible for workers who drive company vehicles or drive as part of their job - yet they don't have any idea whatsoever what their H&S responsibilities are.

You lot need to get a grip.
Before 1983 (in the UK) seatbelt use was optional, and many cars prior to the early 70's had no belt fitted anyway.

Increased vehicle safety (non-belt) means not wearing a belt is far safer now than it was in 1982.
Perhaps you should have a think before effectively labelling your parents and grandparents as retarded morons (that seems a fair amalgamation of all the daft insults used).

[Trabi601]

cmaguire said:

You lot need to get a grip.
Before 1983 (in the UK) seatbelt use was optional, and many cars prior to the early 70's had no belt fitted anyway.

Increased vehicle safety (non-belt) means not wearing a belt is far safer now than it was in 1982.
Perhaps you should have a think before effectively labelling your parents and grandparents as retarded morons (that seems a fair amalgamation of all the daft insults used).

Many things were considered to be acceptable, or even healthy, in days gone by - smoking, drinking, opiates, and many other things which we now know were bloody stupid and damaging.

We know that seatbelts save lives. They are a legal responsibility and any employer who doesn't acknowledge the issue of employees not wearing belts is being negligent towards their H&S responsibilities.

How many more H&S rules are being broken because "it was OK in the 70s / 60s / 50s"?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

Neither of you are particularly convincing me with stories of incidents that are a definite rarity rather than the norm. I could tell you about various individuals that have drowned in their vehicles after deciding to inspect Fen drainage channels because they were upside down in a water-filled vehicle and couldn't get out of their belts. Neither instance is a common occurence.

Mostly I wear my belt, some short journeys I don't bother. As a driver, my rules, so I would insist any under 16's wear their belts as they are not 'adults'. Above that and it's their choice, the same as my passenger provided the vehicle doesn't make an irritating beeping sound and never stop. Since I ascertained my own limits by my early 20's, I'm not in the habit of crashing anything, if my passengers choose not to wear their seatbelts then I don't worry too much about them. If the worst happens, perhaps due to the actions of a third party, then they made their choice and that's their business. I am not a nanny. And I don't want the 'State' as an enforced nanny either.
I can live with that.
And how the hell they come up with this 'million per death' thing? Have they ever justified that?

Dear god!

(If this post is a joke, then I accept the whoosh parrot coming my way.)

[Alucidnation]

Christ, and we have to share the roads with this 'warrior'.

[cmaguire]

Alucidnation said:

Christ, and we have to share the roads with this 'warrior'.

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.

[p1esk]

SVS said:

berlintaxi said:

Wearing a seat belt has been law for the last 30 odd years,for the vast majority it is now just habit to put it on when you get in the car, as others have said it is perverse not to wear it.

^ this

Yes, most people will probably see it as perverse not to wear a seatbelt, and I can understand that. I've always worn a seatbelt since the law made it compulsory, although I have a habit of not putting the seatbelt on until I've got the car started and covered a few yards. I have no rational explanation for this, it's just the way I do it.

I expect the vast majority of people will probably accept that it's sensible to wear it, so they do, in which case society gets the benefit in terms of reduced deaths and injuries, and less burden on the NHS etc.

My feeling has always been that the wearing of a seatbelt should have been left as a matter for individual choice.

[MrTrilby]

cmaguire said:

Increased vehicle safety (non-belt) means not wearing a belt is far safer now than it was in 1982.

You are wrong and have given yourself a false sense of security. If you lived in the US, American cars are designed around the idea that occupants may not be wearing their seatbelt - airbags are bigger and have multi stage deployment. Even so, the death and injury rate is higher.

But you don't live in the USA. In Europe, cars are designed around the expectation that the vast majority wear their seatbelt. It's expected that the seatbelt pretensioner does a good job of locking you back in the seat during the crash. The airbag deploys with enough force that if you are not wearing your seatbelt and get thrown out your seat, it can break your neck.

Nothing good comes from not wearing your seatbelt. There is no good reason to avoid wearing one, and very good reasons why you should.

[C Lee Farquar]

I have no strong feelings either way but find It interesting how public opinion has changed on the subject of seatbelts.

How long before driving for pleasure or commuting long distances become socially unacceptable for the majority?

[cmaguire]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

That would be "there're" Doctor.