Tougher seat-belt law die

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by larrylaundry, May 5, 2009.

  1. larrylaundry

    Aardvark Guest

    As it should be everywhere. Mandatory wearing of seatbelts has had to be
    made a 'ticketable' offence in many parts of the world mainly because of
    idiots like RtS who, despite the overwhelming proof that they help to
    save lives, refuse to wear them, citing all sorts of rationalisations:
    'It chafes my neck', 'It makes me feel claustrophobic', 'What if the car
    catches fire and the seatbelt won't come undone' blah blah blah ad
    nauseam.
    Here in the UK, it's up to the driver to ensure that himself and all of
    his passengers are securely belted. If any of them aren't belted, it's
    the driver who is committing the offence.
    Well, I presume that was the only moving vehicle offence that Dibble saw
    being committed. Believe it or not, it is quite easy to see whether or
    not someone is wearing a seatbelt while you're driving behind them (and
    much more evident from other directions- from side-on, from the front) so
    when people are surprised when they get a tug solely because of not
    wearing one never ceases to amaze me.



    --
     
    Aardvark, May 6, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. larrylaundry

    Whiskers Guest

    Here in the UK, seatbelts have to be fitted to any coach or minibus "used
    to carry three or more children on an organised journey". That includes
    dedicated 'school buses'. General service buses aren't fitted with
    seatbelts, probably because it would make the standing passengers feel
    nervous - apart from on the buses that have almost no seats, perhaps.
    There are no seatbelts on trains or trams, either.
     
    Whiskers, May 6, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. larrylaundry

    Desk Rabbit Guest

    Buses travel at a speed just over walking pace. :)
     
    Desk Rabbit, May 6, 2009
    #23
  4. larrylaundry

    Jan B Guest

    Here in the Netherlands every grown-up person is self responsible for
    wearing his seatbelt.
    When not wearing is spotted the fine is 90 euros (about US$ 120).
     
    Jan B, May 6, 2009
    #24
  5. larrylaundry

    Evan Platt Guest

    The last two I was in didn't...
     
    Evan Platt, May 7, 2009
    #25
  6. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <SS1Ml.29225$> "bd"
    Buses don't need seat belts, they use a compartmentalization scheme
    instead of a belt system.

    You're not as safe in a rollover situation, but you may actually be
    safer in a head-on collision seated in a bus built with
    compartmentalization in mind rather then in the same bus using a
    seatbelt.

    The other issue is that it's damn near impossible to get 30-60 kids in a
    schoolbus to sit down, getting them to wear their seatbelts would be all
    but impossible.

    Lastly, in the event of a collision, it's a lot tougher to evacuate
    children who are belted in and either panicking or unconscious.
     
    DevilsPGD, May 7, 2009
    #26
  7. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Steve
    As long as they're automatically opted out of receiving any level of
    public health care, I'm all for this one.
     
    DevilsPGD, May 7, 2009
    #27
  8. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> richard
    So because a seatbelt might fail and leave you without any additional
    protection, you'll guarantee failure by not using it in the first place?
     
    DevilsPGD, May 7, 2009
    #28
  9. larrylaundry

    Evan Platt Guest

    richard = epic failure.

    Let him not wear his seatbelt. Darwin said so.
     
    Evan Platt, May 7, 2009
    #29
  10. larrylaundry

    Whiskers Guest

    No belt, no ride. Then let the parents sort it out with their own kids
    (and the truant officer).
    Relatively intact kids are preferable to a mangled mess, no matter how
    long it takes to get them out. If they are strapped in they are less of a
    danger to themselves or anyone else and can stay put till it's safe to get
    them out in an orderly manner without aggravating their injuries. At which
    point, belt-cutting knives or shears will be available on the vehicle and
    with the rescue workers so that no-one has to find or struggle with the
    clasps. (You have got safety fuel tanks and automatic fuel-pump or engine
    cut-offs, haven't you, to prevent serious fires?).
     
    Whiskers, May 7, 2009
    #30
  11. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <>
    Sure, but the point is that buses are designed to be safe without
    seatbelts, adding seatbelts doesn't increase survival odds or reduce
    injuries by any substantial margin.
     
    DevilsPGD, May 8, 2009
    #31
  12. larrylaundry

    Whiskers Guest

    I'd be intrigued to see evidence.
     
    Whiskers, May 8, 2009
    #32
  13. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <>
    http://www.safety-council.org/info/traffic/schbusbelt.htm

    | There is a wealth of research from across North America on whether such
    | a requirement would improve safety. Surprisingly, no safety benefit has
    | ever been proven. In fact, crash tests have shown seat-belts could
    | create more drawbacks than advantages.
    <...>
    | The tests indicated that the use of a lap belt on forward-facing seats
    | could increase the risk of head injuries during a severe frontal collision

    It goes on to discuss the problem of keeping children belted in, the
    modifications required to support three point belts make the bus less
    safe for those not wearing belts, which doesn't combine well with the
    obvious problem of kids removing their belts in transit.
     
    DevilsPGD, May 8, 2009
    #33
  14. larrylaundry

    Whiskers Guest

    The NTSB found the evidence ambiguous enough to avoid recommending seat
    belts, but was also not persuaded to endorse taking them out.

    So what evidence exists, is equivocal. Note that that report is referring
    to a design of vehicle peculiar to North America - one with the seats
    placed very close together and designed to absorb the impact of the
    passenger being thrown forward into the back of the seat in front. I
    don't think I've ever seen such a vehicle on this side of the pond, but I
    can see that adding seat-belts to one would be a problem - as it is for
    older buses and coaches in use in the UK which were not designed to have
    seat belts installed. But newer coaches, and all mini-buses, are now
    fitted with lap-and-diagonal seat belts; only buses 'not specifically for
    the organised carriage of children' aren't.

    School buses worldwide seem to have a very good safety record, regardless
    of the type of vehicle used. But fatalities do happen, even with the
    Lap-only seat-belts are well known to be a bad idea in any circumstances.
    Again, discipline - and 'no belt no ride'.
     
    Whiskers, May 8, 2009
    #34
  15. larrylaundry

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <> Lookout
    The original post may have been, but this particular subthread is about
    schoolbuses.

    I also noticed you felt alright with discussion your viewpoint on limos
    and buses (neither of which were the original subject), so at best the
    "lets keep it on topic" is hypocritical.
     
    DevilsPGD, May 11, 2009
    #35
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.