Safety in the UK
Eagle
Aardvark
> A poignant view on seatbelt safety, UK style. http://embracethis.co.uk/
Only an idiot doesn't wear a seat belt. It's illegal not to wear one in
this country anyway.
--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
<http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:sWABn.13030$r81....@newsfe30.ams2...
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:32:30 -0700, Eagle wrote:
>
>> A poignant view on seatbelt safety, UK style. http://embracethis.co.uk/
>
> Only an idiot doesn't wear a seat belt. It's illegal not to wear one in
> this country anyway.
In the UK, can a person be stopped and ticketed for no other reason that the
failure to wear a seatbelt? I wonder because I think in the US, the
seatbelt ticket would be secondary to some other moving violation.
Aardvark
> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> news:sWABn.13030$r81....@newsfe30.ams2...
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:32:30 -0700, Eagle wrote:
>>
>>> A poignant view on seatbelt safety, UK style.
>>> http://embracethis.co.uk/
>>
>> Only an idiot doesn't wear a seat belt. It's illegal not to wear one in
>> this country anyway.
>
> In the UK, can a person be stopped and ticketed for no other reason that
> the failure to wear a seatbelt? I wonder because I think in the US, the
> seatbelt ticket would be secondary to some other moving violation.
>
>
Not wearing a seatbelt *is* a moving violation, and grounds for a traffic
stop.
The seatbelt law is pretty reasonable, when you think about it. If some
seatbelt-ignoring fuckwit gets in an 'accident' and goes through his
windscreen or whatever, the medical care he receives comes out of my
pocket. If something as simple as putting on a seatbelt saves the NHS
money then I'm all for it. Many road-traffic injuries are totally
avoidable just by employing this simple procedure.
The same goes for using a mobile phone while driving- it's a moving
traffic violation, putting the driver at four times the risk of being
involved in an accident, which is exactly the same as driving at the legal
drink-driving limit.
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:20:26 -0400, SeaNymph wrote:
>
>> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>> news:sWABn.13030$r81....@newsfe30.ams2...
>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:32:30 -0700, Eagle wrote:
>>>
>>>> A poignant view on seatbelt safety, UK style.
>>>> http://embracethis.co.uk/
>>>
>>> Only an idiot doesn't wear a seat belt. It's illegal not to wear one in
>>> this country anyway.
>>
>> In the UK, can a person be stopped and ticketed for no other reason that
>> the failure to wear a seatbelt? I wonder because I think in the US, the
>> seatbelt ticket would be secondary to some other moving violation.
>>
>>
>
> Not wearing a seatbelt *is* a moving violation, and grounds for a traffic
> stop.
>
> The seatbelt law is pretty reasonable, when you think about it. If some
> seatbelt-ignoring fuckwit gets in an 'accident' and goes through his
> windscreen or whatever, the medical care he receives comes out of my
> pocket. If something as simple as putting on a seatbelt saves the NHS
> money then I'm all for it. Many road-traffic injuries are totally
> avoidable just by employing this simple procedure.
Oh, I'm all for seatbelt laws. They are a sensible, realistic fix for many
of the injuries caused by automobile accidents. Seatbelts legislation and
enforcement are strictly handled on a state by state basis, and not all
states have primary seatbelt laws, that's why I was asking.
http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage
>
> The same goes for using a mobile phone while driving- it's a moving
> traffic violation, putting the driver at four times the risk of being
> involved in an accident, which is exactly the same as driving at the legal
> drink-driving limit.
I also believe that talking on a cell phone, while driving a vehicle should
be against the law, but I don't think there are many of those types of laws
in this country. The notion that "hands free" is somehow better is wrong as
well, since it's usually the actual conversation that causes the problem.
Some states have hands free laws, many states prohibit school bus drivers
from cell phone usage and many states collect crash data following
accidents. I think there should be much tougher legislation.
http://yhst-76365443877610.stores.yahoo.net/cephlawbyst.html
~BD~
> I also believe that talking on a cell phone, while driving a vehicle should
> be against the law, but I don't think there are many of those types of laws
> in this country. The notion that "hands free" is somehow better is wrong as
> well, since it's usually the actual conversation that causes the problem.
> Some states have hands free laws, many states prohibit school bus drivers
> from cell phone usage and many states collect crash data following
> accidents. I think there should be much tougher legislation.
> http://yhst-76365443877610.stores.yahoo.net/cephlawbyst.html
You'd no doubt have been as horrified as me when this little gem hit the
news here recently!
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/822705-bus-driver-filmed-reading-a-book-while-driving-bus
--
Dave
Aardvark
> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> news:lCCBn.4747$zs5....@newsfe08.ams2...
>> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:20:26 -0400, SeaNymph wrote:
>>
>>> "Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>>> news:sWABn.13030$r81....@newsfe30.ams2...
>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:32:30 -0700, Eagle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A poignant view on seatbelt safety, UK style.
>>>>> http://embracethis.co.uk/
>>>>
>>>> Only an idiot doesn't wear a seat belt. It's illegal not to wear one
>>>> in this country anyway.
>>>
>>> In the UK, can a person be stopped and ticketed for no other reason
>>> that the failure to wear a seatbelt? I wonder because I think in the
>>> US, the seatbelt ticket would be secondary to some other moving
>>> violation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Not wearing a seatbelt *is* a moving violation, and grounds for a
>> traffic stop.
>>
>
> Oh, I'm all for seatbelt laws. They are a sensible, realistic fix for
> many of the injuries caused by automobile accidents. Seatbelts
> legislation and enforcement are strictly handled on a state by state
> basis, and not all states have primary seatbelt laws, that's why I was
> asking. http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/seat-belt-usage
>
>
>
>> The same goes for using a mobile phone while driving- it's a moving
>> traffic violation, putting the driver at four times the risk of being
>> involved in an accident, which is exactly the same as driving at the
>> legal drink-driving limit.
>
> I also believe that talking on a cell phone, while driving a vehicle
> should be against the law, but I don't think there are many of those
> types of laws in this country. The notion that "hands free" is somehow
> better is wrong as well, since it's usually the actual conversation that
> causes the problem. Some states have hands free laws, many states
> prohibit school bus drivers from cell phone usage and many states
> collect crash data following accidents. I think there should be much
> tougher legislation.
> http://yhst-76365443877610.stores.yahoo.net/cephlawbyst.html
>
Don't you get idiots in the states who complain that making them wear
seatbelts and preventing them from using mobile phones while driving is
somehow trampling on their constitutional rights?
It seems to me that while there are people sto0pid enough not to strap up
and turn off their mobile phones despite the evidence of the vast
difference to the safety of themselves and other road users, there just
have to be laws to compel them to do so. The sto0pid need to be protected
from themselves, as do the rest of us, by law.
SeaNymph
"~BD~" <Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in message
news:f-2dnR491uDydUrW...@bt.com...
Driving is a privilege and one that is taken entirely too lightly. That
seems evidenced by the fact that so many young people are killed,
senselessly, in driving accident. I think it's entirely too easy to get a
drivers license, and traffic violations are not enforced heavily enough.
>
> --
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
Much is this country is about entitlement and has nothing to do with laws
and regulations. People often forget that driving is a privilege, and bad
driving is a serious issue that endangers a lot more people than the idiot
driving. There is no constitutional right to cell phone use, just as there
is nothing in the constitution that protects an individual from being
offended.
The laws are ineffective, and usually only come into play after an accident,
which is rather like trying to put the horse back in the barn after it's
burned down. There are just too many people in the world who are interested
only in themselves and what they want and the rest of us be damned.
I try, very hard, not to travel on holidays, or peak time because that's
when the crazies are out in full force.
>
Aardvark
You'd love the way they do things in Finland, then. From start to finish
(no pun intended) it takes about three years of training to become a fully
qualified driver. That's why Finnish drivers are probably the best rally
drivers in the world.
Bullwinkle
ban would stop him carrying out life-saving work in Afghanistan.
Craftsman Kameron Edmondson, 20, faced a lengthy suspension after being
clocked at nearly three times the speed limit on a stretch of motorway
undergoing roadworks.
But after his commanding officer said stripping him of his licence would
prevent him training to join a unit that tackles roadside bombs, the judge
agreed to let him keep driving.
Of course, if this had been a police officer, there would have been another
outcry along the lines of 'one law for us....' and claims that police
officers are 'above the law'...
Kev
"SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
news:hr9eed$82r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 09:50:03 -0400, SeaNymph wrote:
>
>> "~BD~" <Boate...@hotmail.co.ukk> wrote in message
>> news:f-2dnR491uDydUrW...@bt.com...
>>> SeaNymph wrote:
>>>
>>> You'd no doubt have been as horrified as me when this little gem hit
>>> the news here recently!
>>>
>>> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/822705-bus-driver-filmed-reading-a-book-
> while-driving-bus
>>
>> Driving is a privilege and one that is taken entirely too lightly. That
>> seems evidenced by the fact that so many young people are killed,
>> senselessly, in driving accident. I think it's entirely too easy to get
>> a drivers license, and traffic violations are not enforced heavily
>> enough.
>>
>
> You'd love the way they do things in Finland, then. From start to finish
> (no pun intended) it takes about three years of training to become a fully
> qualified driver. That's why Finnish drivers are probably the best rally
> drivers in the world.
I have no problem with that. To me, it's similar to marriage...way too easy
to get into.
Where I live, the speed limit on the main thoroughfare is 40 mph. If the
people in this town ticketed everyone that sped down that road, at 50 mph or
better, they could most likely provide the entire operating budget of the
town.
Dustin Cook
news:0mUBn.324$Pz5...@newsfe08.ams2:
All the time. I wear my seatbelt, I've wrecked a small pickup head on
into some big trees doing 50mph once. I know if I hadn't of had that
seatbelt on I would have been seriously hurt, if not killed. I walked
away without so much as a scratch. The truck wasn't drivable due to a
damaged tire, but other than some bent metal and a few replacement parts,
I was able to keep driving it for a couple more years.
> It seems to me that while there are people sto0pid enough not to strap
> up and turn off their mobile phones despite the evidence of the vast
> difference to the safety of themselves and other road users, there
> just have to be laws to compel them to do so. The sto0pid need to be
> protected from themselves, as do the rest of us, by law.
Yes. it's why we have so many laws; due to the stupidity of so many. Too
few doing the right thing, too many doing it wrong. So, we all have to
pay.
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
Jenn
news:Xns9D687D873CC...@69.16.185.247...
> Aardvark <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in
> All the time. I wear my seatbelt, I've wrecked a small pickup head on
> into some big trees doing 50mph once. I know if I hadn't of had that
> seatbelt on I would have been seriously hurt, if not killed. I walked
> away without so much as a scratch. The truck wasn't drivable due to a
> damaged tire, but other than some bent metal and a few replacement parts,
> I was able to keep driving it for a couple more years.
>> It seems to me that while there are people sto0pid enough not to strap
>> up and turn off their mobile phones despite the evidence of the vast
>> difference to the safety of themselves and other road users, there
>> just have to be laws to compel them to do so. The sto0pid need to be
>> protected from themselves, as do the rest of us, by law.
> Yes. it's why we have so many laws; due to the stupidity of so many. Too
> few doing the right thing, too many doing it wrong. So, we all have to
> pay.
This year we have had alot of road construction everywhere in the city of
Tulsa. Interstate 44 is being widened (finally) to 6 lanes on portions of
it between Riverside and Yale and there are signs everywhere that posts
slower speed limits. The problem is when I try to drive the slower speed
limit, it doesn't matter what lane I'm in, either.. there are these idiots
that tailgate and speed past you like you're standing still and then they
have to slam on their breaks after they cut you off and get in front of you
because the traffic is slowed down. It's becoming rediculous how dangerous
these idiots are becoming on the highways.
Recently, another construction area on a neighborhood road had 3 accidents
consecutively as a result of just the first initial accident because people
just wouldn't slow down and pay attention. A police office got hit on the
last part of that series because he had arrived to help with the 2nd and 1st
accident. He was ok, but still had to be treated at the emergency room for
minor injuries.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
Dustin Cook
news:hr9se8$e3p$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Yes.. it's been that way here for sometime. The drivers are getting ruder
and even more unsafe. So my last vehicle purchase was a 1990 ford
econoline 150 fullsize van. A cargo van at that. It's been involved in 3
accidents (none of which were my fault) and has happily, killed 3 cars
without serious injury to the neglectful drivers. It's paid for itself 3
times now. :) Other than a slightly dented solid metal bumper, and some
paint; you wouldn't even notice. The driving hasn't even come out of
alignment. LOL!
One Honda civic, driven by a 15 year old with no valid license; his moms
car, 2009 model; totaled. One ford escape; 19 year old, running from the
police; and hit me from behind, I wouldn't speed up, so he took it upon
himself to ram me. I just hit the brakes after the first time. His front
end just couldn't bare it, I'm afraid. *grin*, One ford ranger 2002 model
pickup truck, totaled in the front end; He was tailgaiting me, I mean,
right on my ass; so I stopped. lol.
total money spent on the van: 1200, value already collected from driver
at fault insurance, $2164.32, the look on the drivers faces when they're
vehicles required a rollback, fuckin priceless.
Jenn
I have a mini-van, but it has a high crash rating, or it did when I bought
it (so says my husband)... '98 Ford Windstar.. it's paid for, too. I've
thought about trading it for a smaller car, but the nuts on the interstate
just scare me too much. My mini-van is still bigger than alot of the cars
on the road!
And... I can't stand tailgaters, or people who race past me so they can cut
in front of me only to slam on their breaks in front of me. I've seen
people driving small cars cut off fully loaded dump trucks or semi's an I
just wince because I've almost seen a few Semi's where they couldn't slow
down for the car that just cut them off. Scary stuff.
Aardvark
>> Don't you get idiots in the states who complain that making them wear
>> seatbelts and preventing them from using mobile phones while driving is
>> somehow trampling on their constitutional rights?
>
> All the time.
How do they support that notion?
> I wear my seatbelt, I've wrecked a small pickup head on
> into some big trees doing 50mph once. I know if I hadn't of had that
> seatbelt on I would have been seriously hurt, if not killed. I walked
> away without so much as a scratch. The truck wasn't drivable due to a
> damaged tire, but other than some bent metal and a few replacement
> parts, I was able to keep driving it for a couple more years.
>
Sure the chassis didn't get bent?
>> It seems to me that while there are people sto0pid enough not to strap
>> up and turn off their mobile phones despite the evidence of the vast
>> difference to the safety of themselves and other road users, there just
>> have to be laws to compel them to do so. The sto0pid need to be
>> protected from themselves, as do the rest of us, by law.
>
> Yes. it's why we have so many laws; due to the stupidity of so many. Too
> few doing the right thing, too many doing it wrong. So, we all have to
> pay.
>
If there are laws that save the NHS money and resources better used for
the more deserving, I'm okay with that.
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <m...@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message
news:hr9se8$e3p$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D687D873CC...@69.16.185.247...
>> Aardvark <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in
>
>
>> few doing the right thing, too many doing it wrong. So, we all have to
>> pay.
>
> This year we have had alot of road construction everywhere in the city of
> Tulsa. Interstate 44 is being widened (finally) to 6 lanes on portions of
> it between Riverside and Yale and there are signs everywhere that posts
> slower speed limits. The problem is when I try to drive the slower speed
> limit, it doesn't matter what lane I'm in, either.. there are these idiots
> that tailgate and speed past you like you're standing still and then they
> have to slam on their breaks after they cut you off and get in front of
> you because the traffic is slowed down. It's becoming rediculous how
> dangerous these idiots are becoming on the highways.
>
> Recently, another construction area on a neighborhood road had 3 accidents
> consecutively as a result of just the first initial accident because
> people just wouldn't slow down and pay attention. A police office got hit
> on the last part of that series because he had arrived to help with the
> 2nd and 1st accident. He was ok, but still had to be treated at the
> emergency room for minor injuries.
Around here it's becomes a much more serious offense if you are speeding or
are driving in a manner considered agressive. The fines are quite
substantial, clearly posted and heavily enforced in construction areas.
> --
Jenn
Fines double here if caught speeding in a construction zone... problem is
... the city of Tulsa has laid off alot of police officers, so they either
aren't working the construction zones because of less officers, or they
don't want to work them in order to put pressure on the city to re-hire
those officers back. I rarely ever see a police car or anyone pulled over
for speeding anywhere now.
Dustin Cook
@newsfe01.ams2:
> On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:13:10 +0000, Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>>> Don't you get idiots in the states who complain that making them wear
>>> seatbelts and preventing them from using mobile phones while driving is
>>> somehow trampling on their constitutional rights?
>>
>> All the time.
>
> How do they support that notion?
One friend of mine claims that if he had been wearing his seat belt in the
last 5 wrecks he's been involved in, that he would have been killed for
sure.
Another somewhat common fear is that if they drive off a bridge, they'll
wind up upside down in the water and unable to free themselves from the
seatbelt.
I don't know how true either of the statements is. as I said, i wear mine.
>> I wear my seatbelt, I've wrecked a small pickup head on
>> into some big trees doing 50mph once. I know if I hadn't of had that
>> seatbelt on I would have been seriously hurt, if not killed. I walked
>> away without so much as a scratch. The truck wasn't drivable due to a
>> damaged tire, but other than some bent metal and a few replacement
>> parts, I was able to keep driving it for a couple more years.
>>
>
> Sure the chassis didn't get bent?
I don't think it did, I never had any alignment issues with the front tires
or back ones. I'm not sure I actually hit the trees as fast as the
speedometer said either, as I lost control of the truck around a turn
because the road as wet. My tires might have been doing 50mph at that
point, but I really don't think the truck and I hit that fast...
>>> It seems to me that while there are people sto0pid enough not to strap
>>> up and turn off their mobile phones despite the evidence of the vast
>>> difference to the safety of themselves and other road users, there just
>>> have to be laws to compel them to do so. The sto0pid need to be
>>> protected from themselves, as do the rest of us, by law.
>>
>> Yes. it's why we have so many laws; due to the stupidity of so many. Too
>> few doing the right thing, too many doing it wrong. So, we all have to
>> pay.
>>
>
> If there are laws that save the NHS money and resources better used for
> the more deserving, I'm okay with that.
I wouldn't have any issues with that either, but I don't know what NHS is.
:)
~BD~
> I don't know what the NHS is.
FYI
On 5 July 1948, the National Health Service was launched with the proud
expectation that it would make the UK the 'envy of the world'.
Here you can follow the early years of the NHS from radical plan through
to triumphant birth and on to fully fledged but sometimes problematic
service.
Through programmes, documents and images taken from the BBC's archives
you can witness for yourself a time before the NHS existed, the disputes
surrounding its inception and the difficulties it faced in the early years.
Ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/archive/nhs/
When last I checked, the NHS employed more people than all the men and
women serving in *all* the US armed services combined!
HTH
--
Dave
Aardvark
>> If there are laws that save the NHS money and resources better used for
>> the more deserving, I'm okay with that.
>
> I wouldn't have any issues with that either, but I don't know what NHS
> is.
The National Health Service is the jewel in the crown of our Welfare State.
Dustin Cook
news:hrc5ra$adg$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Mind you, I really distaste most police; but.. to lay off a bunch of them
isn't the best idea. I understand they are a necessary evil. :)
Dustin Cook
news:iK2dnUjHMosfLUTW...@bt.com:
Oh wait, I think I might have seen a demonstration of your free health
care on a dvd I watched. I was impressed from what I saw. We don't have
that here, tho. If you have to goto the emergency room, it's going to
cost you. I have a lost a few friends who wouldn't go because they
couldn't afford the bill that was coming. they just thought they had the
flu or something.
Jenn
Well..... the city didn't want to lay them off. Just like many cities
around the country, there are lots of budget shortfalls because of the
economy. The city just didn't take in enough revenue to pay for those
officers.
Dustin Cook
news:hrcmi4$4q6$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I understand. And, don't get me wrong by what I said above; I do
understand some police officers are indeed upstanding individuals who
really are interested in helping. With that said tho, I have encountered
a few in my time on this planet who were looking to cause more harm than
good.
Jenn
> "Jenn" <m...@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
>>> Mind you, I really distaste most police; but.. to lay off a bunch of
>>> them isn't the best idea. I understand they are a necessary evil. :)
>> Well..... the city didn't want to lay them off. Just like many cities
>> around the country, there are lots of budget shortfalls because of the
>> economy. The city just didn't take in enough revenue to pay for those
>> officers.
> I understand. And, don't get me wrong by what I said above; I do
> understand some police officers are indeed upstanding individuals who
> really are interested in helping. With that said tho, I have encountered
> a few in my time on this planet who were looking to cause more harm than
> good.
oh yeah .. I got on the interstate yesterday on my way home and this police
car got right behind me in the left lane on my bumper and it was in a
construction zone so I couldn't move to the right immediately.. but when I
did he sped past only to tailgate the car in front, and so on. I eventually
caught up to the police car and he didn't even appear to be going on a
*call*... he was just intimidating people so he could get to his station
because it was shift change!! I had a few choice words I was mumbling under
my breath watching that guy do that to everyone in front of me.
Aardvark
> When last I checked, the NHS employed more people than all the men and
> women serving in *all* the US armed services combined!
Just goes to show that Brits would sooner pay taxes to save lives rather
than take them.
Dustin Cook
news:hrctdv$k76$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
I had the fortune of watching one tailgate a friends truck as he drove
past my house. He had his blinker on, but the cop didn't seem to notice;
as my friends truck stopped.. the cruiser didn't.
Sadly tho, did you know, here in tn, normally if you hit someone in the
ass, it's automatically your fault; following too close, failure to
maintain control of your vehicle, etc.. However, if a cop nails you in
the ass, it's your fault! :(
My friends insurance company had to pay for the damage the cop car
sustained when it rear-ended my friends fullsize truck. He was found to
be at-fault; as he "stopped too quickly."
Dustin Cook
@newsfe13.ams2:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:14:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> When last I checked, the NHS employed more people than all the men and
>> women serving in *all* the US armed services combined!
>
> Just goes to show that Brits would sooner pay taxes to save lives rather
> than take them.
>
>
>
Times change, people sometimes do as well. :)
~BD~
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 17:14:57 +0100, ~BD~ wrote:
>
>> When last I checked, the NHS employed more people than all the men and
>> women serving in *all* the US armed services combined!
>
> Just goes to show that Brits would sooner pay taxes to save lives rather
> than take them.
>
>
>
Do you think we should now scrap Trident's successor?
New thread if you wish!
--
Dave