yesterday as i was going to meadowhall the car in front of me had no less than 5 kids, yes 5(on the back seat)!!! jumping around the back of a small micra with no seat belts on. Is it just me or does anyone else think this is disgusting? the kids were under i would say about 7 years old and it was not only distracting to my driving them jumping about and making faces but the muppet (who was not a very good driver i may add!!!) was hitting them in the proceess!
as soon as i get in my car it does not move until everyone has there seatbelt on, if they dont put it on they get kicked out!
if this man crashed even a small bump then these kids could have been seriously injured.:rant: :rant: :rant:
sorry rant over:hihi:

I totally agree. It pains me to see this when I am driving behind said cars.

If the driver had to brake hard they wouldn't be laughing. It would be the poor kids that were worse off.

I can't even drive without my seatbelt on - I feel bare!

I despair of these people - of course they would believe you were an interfering busy-body, and if the kids were injured, it would be the fault of somebody else (in their book) :rant:

Where are the over-zealoous branch of social services when they're needed? :suspect:

If I have children in the car when I'm driving, I won't go anywhere until they're all strapped in. Adults, on the other hand, are a different matter. If they don't strap themselves in, that's their choice, and it would be the adult who is actually breaking the law, not myself.

On a related subject, yesterday I saw this man in a jag, with four kids in the car (they all looked under the age of 10 and appeared to be strapped in), three in the back and one in the front, and he was driving with his left hand on the steering wheel, and the other stuck to his mobile phone which was in turn stuck to his ear. He was driving in an "arrogant" way ~ look at me, I've got a jag and my right hand is stuck to my mobile which is stuck to my right ear ~ with all those kids in the car. If I had been quick enough, I would have taken his number and reported him to the local old bill....I know there are often white van men with their mobile glued to their ear, but I found the sight of this man in the jag the height of irresponsibility.

:rant:

I think the worst I have seen is a hatchback car with two children in the back. And when I say 'in the back', I mean in the boot, with the parcel shelf removed, standing up. They were larking about and playing and, if somebody went into the back of them, having their legs removed to get them out of the vehicle.

Of course, the mother (who was, incidentally, on the mobile at the time. It's funny how these two things coincide...) would blame the person who hit her, with valid reason as it would be considered that person's fault. However, she would have only herself to blame for her crippled children, who would have got away with relatively minor injuries if they were strapped into the back.

I saw (at the end of last week) a car with front passenger seat empty but 2 kids sat in back (strapped in) with 'Mum' sat between them - presumably with lapbelt on - holding tiny baby in arms.

How well she would have been able to hang on to said sprog in the event of a crash lies in her own imagination I guess. :roll:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
I saw (at the end of last week) a car with front passenger seat empty but 2 kids sat in back (strapped in) with 'Mum' sat between them - presumably with lapbelt on - holding tiny baby in arms.

How well she would have been able to hang on to said sprog in the event of a crash lies in her own imagination I guess. :roll:

Unfortunately, that is a legal method of transporting said 'sprog'

On a related note, I remember seeing a survery which revealed that a large proportion of American youngsters preferred not to wear seatbelts because they "creased their clothes".

Originally posted by Strix
Unfortunately, that is a legal method of transporting said 'sprog'

That's news to me. When my children were born in Jessops I was told that the baby must be driven home with the neccessary car seat.

Originally posted by SilentStatic
On a related note, I remember seeing a survery which revealed that a large proportion of American youngsters preferred not to wear seatbelts because they "creased their clothes".
Well it was the American companies that didn't want to introduce safety features to cars in the first place, because it conveyed the idea that their cars crashed :loopy: Not good marketing at all, apparently :roll:

Originally posted by Ann_x
If I have children in the car when I'm driving, I won't go anywhere until they're all strapped in. Adults, on the other hand, are a different matter. If they don't strap themselves in, that's their choice, and it would be the adult who is actually breaking the law, not myself.

so if someone was sat in the seat behind you , you wouldnt mind them not wearing a seatbealt? you wouldnt mind that if there was a crash they would most probably smash your skull causing death and them walking away with most probably broken nose and whiplash?

i know that sounds harsh but its reality, thats why noone in my car goes anywhere until a seatbelt is on.

Originally posted by savbaby
so if someone was sat in the seat behind you , you wouldnt mind them not wearing a seatbealt? you wouldnt mind that if there was a crash they would most probably smash your skull causing death and them walking away with most probably broken nose and whiplash?

i know that sounds harsh but its reality, thats why noone in my car goes anywhere until a seatbelt is on.
Ditto.

When I am driving all passenger wear seatbelts. If they don't want to, they have the option of walking/taking the bus home.

Originally posted by PIF_Tails
Ditto.

When I am driving all passenger wear seatbelts. If they don't want to, they have the option of walking/taking the bus home.

I couldn't agree more. There was a road safety advert on a few years ago that showed a family involved in a crash, and the teenager in the back smashed his Mom's skull because he wasn't wearling a seatbelt.

It literally made my blood run cold every time I saw it, but it did have the desired effect. Nobody travels in my car without a seatbelt on.

Everybody in my car wears a seatbelt, doesn't smoke, and doesn't eat fast food. And I like to think that I drive more responsibly when I have other people in the car.

If this person with all the brats in the back is killed when one of them is catapulted through the back of his head, then he/she will be prevented from producing any more brats and in the longrun the fittest will be the only ones to survive to propogate further the human race.

Originally posted by Ann_x
If I have children in the car when I'm driving, I won't go anywhere until they're all strapped in. Adults, on the other hand, are a different matter. If they don't strap themselves in, that's their choice, and it would be the adult who is actually breaking the law, not myself.


Ann, (I'm asking as a non-driver) doesn't the responsibility still lie with the driver and, as such wouldn't the driver get slapped with the instant fine if caught with (and for each) passenger/s not wearing seatbelts? :confused:

Originally posted by Don_Kiddick
Ann, (I'm asking as a non-driver) doesn't the responsibility still lie with the driver and, as such wouldn't the driver get slapped with the instant fine if caught with (and for each) passenger/s not wearing seatbelts? :confused:

i think the law is anyone under 14 is the drivers responsibility and otherwise its the passenger who gets the fine
i dont pay attention too much to this as they alll wear them anyway

As far as the law is concerned, those over the age of 14 are responsible for their decision to wear a seatbelt. So if they are caught not wearing one, it's them who have to pay up. Although in the case of minors (those still in their parents care) it's ultimately the parents who pay up.

Penalising a driver who is wearing a seatbelt for a 15 year old sitting in the back seat who is not wearing a seatbelt (and not their responsibility) seems rather harsh. Although if the teenager is their child, they'll have to pay up the fine anyhow and make the kid work for it.

Well, I would.

the driver is responsible for everyone in the car, and adults can also be held responsible for themselves.
So adult passengers without seatbelts mean a ticket for themselves and for the driver.
No one goes anywhere without a seatbelt in my car.

I can also second the 'bare' feeling if not putting the seatbelt on. I've forgotten when leaving a car park before and only got about 20 metres whilst trying to figure out what was wrong before I realised.

on one occasion i parked the car until my gran put her seatbelt back on, we were about 2 mins from home and she took it off, i told her to put it on and she said we are nearly there, she is the classic peter kay too " i will just hold it round me"!!!!

it the first thing i do when i get in car and if passengers are in i always check!

Originally posted by savbaby
on one occasion i parked the car until my gran put her seatbelt back on, we were about 2 mins from home and she took it off, i told her to put it on and she said we are nearly there, she is the classic peter kay too " i will just hold it round me"!!!!

it the first thing i do when i get in car and if passengers are in i always check!

My Gran used to do exactly the same....bless em!!

She always made me 'hover' at public toilets too!!!

:hihi:

It is upsetting to see anyone in a moving car not wearing a seatbelt, but especially a small child.

The law here in the US says that EVERYONE must wear their seat belt. You can be heavily fined if they catch you without one.

All children 40 lbs. or less must ride in a car seat in the backseat, as anyone under 100 lbs. can be injured or even killed by the airbags in the front seat.

Kids 40-80 lbs. must be in a booster seat, also in the back.

Having said this, I was coming home yesterday on the old Highway 99, (not a main road) when what do I see but a half dozen kids riding in the bed of a pick-up truck ahead of me.

It's illegal in California for even a dog to ride untethered in the back of a truck, let alone a child. I only hope they made it safely to wherever they were going.

We always put our seatbelts on, no matter how short the ride is.

:) Sierra

A couple of you have raised the issue about who's responsibility it is to check that passengers wear their seatbelts; my question to you is, how would you feel if you hadn't addressed the issue, and they were then harmed while you were driving.

A close friend of mine had three children very close in age. She was going somewhere in the car, and had all three of the kids strapped safely into car seats in the back. About 50 yards down the road, the oldest boy did something to the youngest (still a baby) and the baby started to cry. My friend instinctively turned around momentarily to look what was happening, and in that moment, crossed into the path of another car and hit them head on.

Neither car was doing more than about 20 miles an hour, but the driver of the other car was not wearing a seatbelt. The steering column went through her chest, and she died as a result of her injuries.

My friend holds herself entirely responsible for the accident, and while it's now many years ago, she is still haunted about it.

Personally I can't help feeling that if the driver that died had been wearing a seatbelt, the memory of the incident would be far less unpleasant for my friend.

Buckle up people! :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Sierra
It is upsetting to see anyone in a moving car not wearing a seatbelt, but especially a small child.

The law here in the US says that EVERYONE must wear their seat belt. You can be heavily fined if they catch you without one.

All children 40 lbs. or less must ride in a car seat in the backseat, as anyone under 100 lbs. can be injured or even killed by the airbags in the front seat.

Kids 40-80 lbs. must be in a booster seat, also in the back.

Having said this, I was coming home yesterday on the old Highway 99, (not a main road) when what do I see but a half dozen kids riding in the bed of a pick-up truck ahead of me.

It's illegal in California for even a dog to ride untethered in the back of a truck, let alone a child. I only hope they made it safely to wherever they were going.

We always put our seatbelts on, no matter how short the ride is.

:) Sierra

Sierra, am I correct in thinking that airbags in the US are much bigger than in Europe? I seem to remember that it was something to do with many Amerians not wearing seatbelts?

Originally posted by Cyclone
the driver is responsible for everyone in the car, and adults can also be held responsible for themselves.
So adult passengers without seatbelts mean a ticket for themselves and for the driver.
No one goes anywhere without a seatbelt in my car.

I can also second the 'bare' feeling if not putting the seatbelt on. I've forgotten when leaving a car park before and only got about 20 metres whilst trying to figure out what was wrong before I realised.
Here (http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/seatbelt_law.htm#Cars) you will see that anyone aged over 14 is responsible for themselves, and is not the responsibility of the driver so, therefore, the driver is not fined. However, I consider an adult as anyone over the age of 18, so would probably insist that anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 belt up.

I concede that a passenger in the rear can be responsible for the death of the person in front of him or her, but all new cars, for some years now, have head restraints, which are there not only to protect the person in the front seat from injuries such as whiplash but also, if those head restraints are used in the proper position, they will prevent a passenger in the rear from hitting the head of the person in front. If the person in the front seat is wearing a seatbelt, that should prevent that person from being thrown forward onto the dashboard. The trouble is that a lot people do not know how to properly position the head restraints.

For myself, I wear a seatbelt whether I'm in the front or rear seat, and would suggest to any adult passenger to put their seatbelt on, but, short of forcibly doing that for them, there isn't much I can do if they won't wear a seatbelt. I bought a car about 10 years ago which did not have rear seatbelts, and I fitted them because I knew that I would be driving children around, and couldn't live with myself if I had an accident and a child was killed because I hadn't done anything about it.

The law about children under 3 is very clear. They should be in some sort of restraint whether in the front or the rear, and legally should not be held on an adult's or anybody else's lap.

short of forcibly doing that for them, there isn't much I can do if they won't wear a seatbelt

tell them to get out and walk.

You do appear to be correct thought that the driver wouldn't be charged, I will remember that, thanks.

Originally posted by Ann_x
Here (http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/seatbelt_law.htm#Cars) you will see that anyone aged over 14 is responsible for themselves, and is not the responsibility of the driver so, therefore, the driver is not fined. However, I consider an adult as anyone over the age of 18, so would probably insist that anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 belt up.

I concede that a passenger in the rear can be responsible for the death of the person in front of him or her, but all new cars, for some years now, have head restraints, which are there not only to protect the person in the front seat from injuries such as whiplash but also, if those head restraints are used in the proper position, they will prevent a passenger in the rear from hitting the head of the person in front. If the person in the front seat is wearing a seatbelt, that should prevent that person from being thrown forward onto the dashboard. The trouble is that a lot people do not know how to properly position the head restraints.

For myself, I wear a seatbelt whether I'm in the front or rear seat, and would suggest to any adult passenger to put their seatbelt on, but, short of forcibly doing that for them, there isn't much I can do if they won't wear a seatbelt. I bought a car about 10 years ago which did not have rear seatbelts, and I fitted them because I knew that I would be driving children around, and couldn't live with myself if I had an accident and a child was killed because I hadn't done anything about it.

The law about children under 3 is very clear. They should be in some sort of restraint whether in the front of the rear, and legally should not be held on an adult's or anybody else's lap.
the advert where the boy killed his mum had head restsraints in the car,its the forceof which he hit it that killed her

there is something you can do if they will not wear a seatbelt, refuse to let them in your car!

Originally posted by Kristian
Sierra, am I correct in thinking that airbags in the US are much bigger than in Europe? I seem to remember that it was something to do with many Amerians not wearing seatbelts?

You know Kristian,

I'm not sure. I've no idea how big air bags are in Europe, or if they're smaller than the ones in American cars. Although, does it make sense to assume the bigger the vehicle, the bigger the airbag? I do know that when we bought the car we have now, it said in the owner's manual that anyone under 100 lbs. was NOT to ride in the front passenger seat because of the airbag.

There are those who don't use seatbelts. I think they're crazy, but most people do use them. I know I do!

:) Sierra

I haven't read all of the messages on this thread and I apologise for that. BUT........there is no way that anybody would travel in my car without the seatbelts on. We even paid over £80 for a babyseat for our Grandson.....and he doesn't travel that often in our car, but I wouldn't have it any other way.
We were recently behind a car in Barnsley. A woman was driving and was wearing her seatbelt. Her male front seat passenger wasn't wearing his seatbelt........neither were the three very young children in the back! In fact there was a babyseat fitted and the baby of about 18 months was using the seat in order to stand on and look out of the rear window! The other two young children were rolling and bouncing all over the place and clearly having a good time!! The woman driver set off at a very busy roundabout near the alhambra centre.......in the wrong lane.......she was busy talking to the man in the front passenger seat!!! She changed lanes and was very nearly hit by another car who was sounding his anger via his horn....and she was oblivious to it all!! My heart was in my mouth.....and my gut instinct was to get hold of this very stupid and ignorant woman and scrag her!! In my opinion anybody that is caught in such circumstances should lose their license because they are DANGEROUS drivers! If they haven't got any regard for the lives of their passengers then what hope is there that they have any regard for the safety of any other road users?
I cannot believe that in this day and age............light years away from the original clunk click campaign.....there are still people that are willing to take the risk!! Back to my example.............the woman driver clearly viewed her life as precious because she had her seatbelt on!!
Selfish or what??

Originally posted by Cyclone
I can also second the 'bare' feeling if not putting the seatbelt on. I've forgotten when leaving a car park before and only got about 20 metres whilst trying to figure out what was wrong before I realised.

:hihi: I must be tired :hihi:
I thought you were leaving the carpark on foot :D Ptwoing!

Ann - all I can say is lets hope you don't end up with your rear passengers fronth teeth embedded in the back of your head. Your theory about the headrest stopping your rearseat passenger from travelling into the front of the cabin is bollax. You need to toughen up and insist they wear their belts.

You said you would feel bad if you caused the death of a child. Adults don't matter then I assume and you would feel no remorse?

Originally posted by Ann_x
The law about children under 3 is very clear. They should be in some sort of restraint whether in the front or the rear, and legally should not be held on an adult's or anybody else's lap.
That's not true :confused:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/05.htm

CHILD under 3 years of age
Front seat: Appropriate child restraint MUST be worn
Rear seat: Appropriate child restraint MUST be worn if available


I agree with you though Ann - It's safer for them to be strapped in. It's no good being 'right' if somebody is dead anyway :(

And.....and....and.....we went to asda yesterday and witnessed the antics of a couple with three kids, in the carpark. They had just parked their car up and two children got out of the back seat.........then they opened the boot of the car up and there was a third child curled up in there!!! They were asking him if he had enjoyed his trip and asking him to get out of the boot. He refused!!!! It would have been rude of us to stand about any longer waiting to see the end result but I could not believe my eyes!!!! Lunatics running the assylum sprang to mind!!

Strix.......you are quite right. Ideally all children in the rear seat should be restrained in an appropriate child seat. BUT.......the law allows for such as taxi's who do not carry child seats......or friends etc who happen to give a lift to a person with a child.
In an ideal world all of our handbags would be bulging with everything to accomodate all eventualities.

Originally posted by Strix
That's not true :confused:
http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/05.htm

CHILD under 3 years of age
Front seat: Appropriate child restraint MUST be worn
Rear seat: Appropriate child restraint MUST be worn if available


I agree with you though Ann - It's safer for them to be strapped in. It's no good being 'right' if somebody is dead anyway :(

I think you will find (as happens in the link I left) that it goes on to say that, if there are no restraints in the rear of the car, the child should be in a restraint in the front passenger seat of a car.

To be honest, if someone is carrying children around in a car with no rear seatbelts, when it is so easy to fit seatbelts (or have them fitted) to the rear of a car (I fitted them myself, as all the fitting points were there) is incomprehensible and totally irresponsible!

:rant:

Originally posted by Ann_x
is incomprehensible and totally irresponsible!

:rant:

as is allowing adults sitting behind you to get away with not wearing them even when fitted!!!

Originally posted by Cyclone
the driver is responsible for everyone in the car, and adults can also be held responsible for themselves.
So adult passengers without seatbelts mean a ticket for themselves and for the driver.

Sorry but the previous posters were correct.

As the law stands, the driver is purely responsible for anyone aged under 14. Anyone over that age and it is not the drivers responsibility, at least legally, although morally it is, and the driver will not get fined, although he/she might get a bo****king.

What annoys me is that the adverts advising you to 'belt up' make no mention of the fact that it is a legal requirement, but make it sound optional. It makes me laugh when I see the police motorbike going down the queues of traffic on the Parkway some mornings looking for people without seatbelts on, and doing them on the spot. Serves them right.

Why are Taxi drivers exempt?

It's not like they have to get out of the car every 10 minutes is it.

I think they dont wear seat belts just because they are allowed not to.

Originally posted by Saxon
Sorry but the previous posters were correct.

As the law stands, the driver is purely responsible for anyone aged under 14. Anyone over that age and it is not the drivers responsibility, at least legally, although morally it is, and the driver will not get fined, although he/she might get a bo****king.

What annoys me is that the adverts advising you to 'belt up' make no mention of the fact that it is a legal requirement, but make it sound optional. It makes me laugh when I see the police motorbike going down the queues of traffic on the Parkway some mornings looking for people without seatbelts on, and doing them on the spot. Serves them right.

morally though do people not have the right to endanger their own lives as they wish? It's not like not wearing a seatbelt makes them a danger to anyone else (ignoring the passenger behind person scenario for a minute).

I hold my hand up and admit I don't wear my seat belt. I am a white van man but even when in my car I often forget to belt up.

My partner and kids are constantly telling me too. I do always make sure though that the kids are belted in and only recently we had an accident and my son who was secure in his car seat was kept safe.

I very rarely wear a seatbelt whilst driving, however always do as a passenger. This is my choice and I am entitled to it.

Mine goes on as a habit when I get in the car.. To be honest, I don't really pay attention to other people putting their belts on in the car (although I should), as it's only adults that get in.

Originally posted by gatecrasher3
I very rarely wear a seatbelt whilst driving, however always do as a passenger. This is my choice and I am entitled to it.

just to give the obvious answer to my question, since no one else did.

The reason you shouldn't be allowed the freedom, is that in the event of an accident you will sustain more serious injury and this has a cost to society, either through additional treatment or through your death. Thus by not wearing a seatbelt you do cause a cost to others, or at least a potential cost.

So I should wear a seatbelt to reduce cost then? Costs that I also contribute to?

I always belt up through force of habit; unfortunately, I'm still not in the habit of always remembering to strap my youngest daughter in, but fortunately she has a better memory than me and she always reminds me.

Originally posted by viking
Why are Taxi drivers exempt?

It's not like they have to get out of the car every 10 minutes is it.

I think they dont wear seat belts just because they are allowed not to.
I agree with you. I was in a friend's car a few years back, he crashed into a taxi - my friend turned right without seeing the taxi, straight into his path. Even though the taxi was only using sidelights and it was 11pm on a dark road, apparently this is legal so my friend was to blame.

The taxi driver didn't have a seatbelt on. He hit the steering wheel, which collapsed breaking both his wrists. Result = my friend's insurance has to pay out a lot of money for loss of earnings all because this taxi driver couldn't be arsed to wear his seatbelt.

My friend and I were both wearing seatbelts - we were fine other than bruises and a large friction graze on the top of my then-shaved head (the car was a Vauxhall Calibra, very low roof). Another friend was in the back without a seatbelt - fortunately he had been sitting with his feet up, half lying across the length of the back seat, so he had both front seats to absorb the impact and just ended up very bruised.

The irony of this is that the friend who was driving won a "young driver of the year" competition when he was 17 :)

Somebody else I used to know, long ago, refused to wear a seatbelt. He insisted that they were stupid things and that, in the event of an accident, he would always be able to stop himself using his legs. ****head.

Originally posted by Ann_x
I think you will find (as happens in the link I left) that it goes on to say that, if there are no restraints in the rear of the car, the child should be in a restraint in the front passenger seat of a car.

To be honest, if someone is carrying children around in a car with no rear seatbelts, when it is so easy to fit seatbelts (or have them fitted) to the rear of a car (I fitted them myself, as all the fitting points were there) is incomprehensible and totally irresponsible!
I think the issue is not just whether there is a restraint, but whether there is a appropriate restraint. It's not appropriate to put a very small child in a normal seatbelt, as it could actually strangle or otherwise injure the child in the case of a crash.

Incidentally, when my kids were very small and we travelled in somebody else's car without a child seat, my wife would sometimes hold them on her lap, she would be wearing a seatbelt but would not put it over the child. I thought it would be a good idea to put the seatbelt around the child as well, but she told me that's actually more dangerous as the child would be crushed in the event of an accident. She sounded like she knew what she was talking about :) but I wondered whether anybody knows of evidence for this?

And on the subject of children travelling in the boot: I agree that it's a foolish thing to do on a regular basis, but as a one-off on a short journey it can be a real thrill for a kid: I remember as a kid climbing into the boot of my uncle's saloon car along with my cousin, and being driven around in the dark for five minutes, it was an amazing experience. Yes, it has its risks, but then there are parents who let their kids ride motorbikes or BMXes, cycle on roads, go rock-climbing, and all manner of other dangerous things.

Also, there are cars which have seats in the boot: an ex-girlfriend of mine came from a large family, and they installed two extra seats (with seatbelts) in the boot of their estate for the smallest kids. So just because you see children in the boot, or climbing out of the boot, doesn't mean they haven't been safely strapped in.

Originally posted by Ann_x
[COLOR=purple]I think you will find (as happens in the link I left) that it goes on to say that, if there are no restraints in the rear of the car, the child should be in a restraint in the front passenger seat of a car.

I said I agree with you Ann, babies should be strapped in.

However, I think you'll find you are adding your own little bits to the law there ;)

The child is only permitted to ride in an adult's lap in the back if a suitable restraint is not fitted in the car at all.

As the link I have provided is the highway code itself, and not some interpretation somebody chose to stick on a website, I suggest other readers of this thread make their own minds up :thumbsup:

Originally posted by gatecrasher3
So I should wear a seatbelt to reduce cost then? Costs that I also contribute to?

exactly.
You only contribute, so do I and a lot of other people. We shouldn't have to contribute a little bit more next year because you don't take reasonable precautions with your own safety.

I also recognise the feeling of being bare without a seatbelt! I have to put it on even for just turning the car around in my mum's back yard... Without it, I can't concentrate because I know I've forgotten something and its not right.

In my car, no-one questions whether or not to put a seatbelt on. My Family don't even need reminding as my 10 year old sister always asks: "has everyone got their seatbelts on? Button's down!" Buttons down = manually locking the car door for fear of car-jacking... I'm really glad she knows and respects the rules in the car because hopefully this will stay with her when she's the driver responsible.

Once in a debate, my Dad mentioned that if he didn't have to, he wouldn't wear a seatbelt. He then re-told a story of a fatal accident he saw when he was very young... A couple were in their car which was involved in an accident. The car burst into flames and the couple, conscious but slightly injured couldn't get out because their seatbelts were trapping them in. Both of them burnt alive.... I did manage to convince him that in a collision, a seatbelt would hold him in, compared to being launched through the windscreen...

So, I can understand why he wouldn't want to wear one if it wasn't the law to do so. But instead for his own peace of mind, he bought a device from halfords which can break glass and has a sharp side sharp enough to cut through a seatbelt. It's called something like "Life knife" or something similar...

Originally posted by caprice
Once in a debate, my Dad mentioned that if he didn't have to, he wouldn't wear a seatbelt. He then re-told a story of a fatal accident he saw when he was very young... A couple were in their car which was involved in an accident. The car burst into flames and the couple, conscious but slightly injured couldn't get out because their seatbelts were trapping them in. Both of them burnt alive.... I did manage to convince him that in a collision, a seatbelt would hold him in, compared to being launched through the windscreen...
I once had an old Austin Maxi which caught fire (due to perished fuel pipes, which I'd spotted that very evening and was going to replace the next day). I was trying over and over to start it up, then I noticed the flames licking up the side of my door. I instantly got my seatbelt off, jumped out of the car, ran back into the house where I had a CO2 fire extinguisher by the front door, and back to the car to start spraying it. Meanwhile my friend in the passenger seat hadn't managed to get his seatbelt off, he was panicking too much to be able to cope with the release mechanism, so I had to climb back in the car and grab him out as well.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Meanwhile my friend in the passenger seat hadn't managed to get his seatbelt off, he was panicking too much to be able to cope with the release mechanism, so I had to climb back in the car and grab him out as well.

I think thats half the battle... Coping with the panic and fear enough to have the strength to press the same button as you've pressed daily for years.

One of the first things I told my sister when I first took her out (after enforcing the seatbelt and button down rule) was that if we ever had an accident or something happened to the car while we were in in (ie it caught fire) She had to get out immediately and get as far away from the car as possible. I hope this never happens, but it'd be too late to tell her if the accident occured, nevermind the fact that there might not be a conscious adult to help her anyway. I don't like to think I've frightened her, more along the lines of I've said what goes unsaid and has not been said to me. Common sense tells you to get out of trouble, but I wouldn't want to assume she had this sense when she might not have.

On the plus side, seeing this fire taught me that Hollywood-style car explosions are just plain wrong (http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/). The fire took an eternity to progress - it started in the engine, took about 3 minutes to work from there up the steering column and into the main part of the car. A couple of minutes after that, it got very dramatic-looking as the vinyl roof caught fire so the whole inside appeared engulfed in flames, but even that didn't last long and, for a person inside, would probably have been survivable as long as they didn't get coated by molten plastic falling from the roof. After the roofing had gone, the fire pretty much died down - it was at about this point that the fire brigade turned up and put it out anyway. But the whole Hollywood thing of "oh my god, we've crashed, quick get out or the car will explode in five seconds" is so far from the truth.

i once saw a 4x4 explode but this was about half an hour after the fire started and was only because the guy had a full tank. it was nothing like in the movies though, just a big flame ball and that was that... the fire brigade then very quickly got the fire out.
that was about 15 years ago, the fire regulations for the interior are so strict these days it would probably take longer for a new car to become fully engulfed.

Originally posted by caprice
I also recognise the feeling of being bare without a seatbelt! I have to put it on even for just turning the car around in my mum's back yard... Without it, I can't concentrate because I know I've forgotten something and its not right.

In my car, no-one questions whether or not to put a seatbelt on. My Family don't even need reminding as my 10 year old sister always asks: "has everyone got their seatbelts on? Button's down!" Buttons down = manually locking the car door for fear of car-jacking... I'm really glad she knows and respects the rules in the car because hopefully this will stay with her when she's the driver responsible.

Once in a debate, my Dad mentioned that if he didn't have to, he wouldn't wear a seatbelt. He then re-told a story of a fatal accident he saw when he was very young... A couple were in their car which was involved in an accident. The car burst into flames and the couple, conscious but slightly injured couldn't get out because their seatbelts were trapping them in. Both of them burnt alive.... I did manage to convince him that in a collision, a seatbelt would hold him in, compared to being launched through the windscreen...

So, I can understand why he wouldn't want to wear one if it wasn't the law to do so. But instead for his own peace of mind, he bought a device from halfords which can break glass and has a sharp side sharp enough to cut through a seatbelt. It's called something like "Life knife" or something similar...

the young couple in the example might have died in the crash if they didn't have seatbetls on.

I'm not convinced about the idea of locking your doors. Do you have a porsche? If not then the chances of being car jacked are less than the chances of not being able to open the door after an accident because the locking mechanism won't disengage.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the young couple in the example might have died in the crash if they didn't have seatbetls on.

I'm not convinced about the idea of locking your doors. Do you have a porsche? If not then the chances of being car jacked are less than the chances of not being able to open the door after an accident because the locking mechanism won't disengage.
i lock my doors when in the car as once i had some one try to get in! if i am driving on a fast road i do unlock them, there was reports a couple of years ago o youths car jacking in sheffield and they were taking just about anything.
i do understand where your coming from with the safety aspect but its quite frightening when some dude is trying to get your car!

Originally posted by Cyclone
I'm not convinced about the idea of locking your doors. Do you have a porsche? If not then the chances of being car jacked are less than the chances of not being able to open the door after an accident because the locking mechanism won't disengage.

For me, locking the door is as essential as closing it in the first place! It's too late to wish you'd locked your door when there's some scum trying to get in! - I think this is especially relevant when you're alone in the car or with kids.

I do agree about the locking not being useful in a crash... But as far as I can see, I feel more threatened by the thought of being hijacked, than the eventuality of an accident.

Originally posted by caprice
But as far as I can see, I feel more threatened by the thought of being hijacked, than the eventuality of an accident.
I think you'll find that accidents are a lot more common. I've seen reports of accidents happening more recently than a couple of years ago.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I think you'll find that accidents are a lot more common. I've seen reports of accidents happening more recently than a couple of years ago.

They certainly are, I couldn't agree more... But personally, I fear carjacking more than I do an accident. I can prevent car-jacking which is my major concern, by locking my doors... I can do my best to prevent an accident by driving carefully, but the accident may still happen anyway..

I know I'm more likely to have an accident than most people on here (female/18yold) but I can't keep worrying that the next time I pop to the shops I might get killed. Neither can I worry that I might get car-jacked... I simply take precautions ie: seatbelt on/doors locked/drive carefully and treat everyone like they are an idiot. I don't go far wrong
:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone


I'm not convinced about the idea of locking your doors. Do you have a porsche? If not then the chances of being car jacked are less than the chances of not being able to open the door after an accident because the locking mechanism won't disengage.
I remember a couple of years ago, a woman driving through pitsmoor had a man get into her car while she was waiting at lights he then forced her to drive (by holding a knife to her throat) to a secluded spot where he raped her. Since then i always lock my doors when driving.

Originally posted by caprice
They certainly are, I couldn't agree more... But personally, I fear carjacking more than I do an accident. I can prevent car-jacking which is my major concern, by locking my doors... I can do my best to prevent an accident by driving carefully, but the accident may still happen anyway..

I know I'm more likely to have an accident than most people on here (female/18yold) but I can't keep worrying that the next time I pop to the shops I might get killed. Neither can I worry that I might get car-jacked... I simply take precautions ie: seatbelt on/doors locked/drive carefully and treat everyone like they are an idiot. I don't go far wrong
:thumbsup:

given the relative chances of either an accident or a car jacking, i'd say you are actually increasing the danger to yourself by locking the doors.
You are more likely to have an accident by an extremely large factor, and in that case having the doors locked is dangerous.
Personally i'm fairly sure that I would see someone approaching the car if I was stationary, I don't tend to sit at traffic lights with my eyes closed. And it takes a fraction of a second to lock my door if necessary.

Originally posted by gatecrasher3
I very rarely wear a seatbelt whilst driving, however always do as a passenger. This is my choice and I am entitled to it.


Unless you are exempt, it is illegal to drive without wearing a seat belt.

Originally posted by gatecrasher3
So I should wear a seatbelt to reduce cost then? Costs that I also contribute to?


Are you deliberately misunderstanding Cyclone? I thought his words and meaning was quite clear ......

Originally posted by Cyclone

The reason you shouldn't be allowed the freedom, is that in the event of an accident you will sustain more serious injury and this has a cost to society, either through additional treatment or through your death. Thus by not wearing a seatbelt you do cause a cost to others, or at least a potential cost.

In the case of an accident when not wearing your seat-belt, your cost to society is that everyone else picks up the bill for your hospital treatment, surgery, medication, physiotherapy, clearing up the mess left on the road, and suchlike.

Do stop being so foolish. I wish you could spend a day with my mate who works for the police. It's part of his job to literally pick up the separated pieces of a body in road traffic accidents, and where there is more than one body, try and match the bits of limbs to the correct victim. The number of times he tells me that one or more of the victims wasn't wearing a seat-belt.

You have no freedom of choice over wearing a seat belt. The law is quite clear on the matter. The law is the law. Break the law - and you risk the consequences of your action.

Maybe though I'm mistaken. Maybe I missed seeing that sub-clause when the law on wearing seat belts was passed by parliament, which states "with the exception of gatecrasher3".

there have been mentions of people who are exempt, who is exempt and why?

You can apply for an exemption on medical grounds (http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/seatbelts.htm).

Other exemptions are:


(b) a person using a vehicle constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumers or addressees, as the case may be, while engaged in making local rounds of deliveries or collections;

(c) a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;

(d) a qualified driver (within the meaning given by regulation 9 of the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987) who is supervising the holder of a provisional licence (within the meaning of Part III of the Act) while that holder is performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;

(e) a person by whom, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1987, a test of competence to drive is being conducted and his wearing a seat belt would endanger himself or any other person;

(f) a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);

(g) the driver of—
(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or
(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for hire;

(h) a person riding in a vehicle, being used under a trade licence, for the purpose of investigating or remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle;

(j) a disabled person who is wearing a disabled person's belt; or

(k) a person riding in a vehicle while it is taking part in a procession organised by or on behalf of the Crown."

thanks dansumption:thumbsup: why on earth taxi drivers are exempt i will never know! not like they ever get outta there cars!

found it this thread on seat belts and why do they not wear them. right just thought I would tell you this what happened a few a couple of days ago, I was in the hospital grounds at rotherham and there was 4 colored lads in this car they had just come in the grounds at the hospital being followed by a unmarked police car when they stopped this police man gets outof his car, and walks over to them and says why are you all not wearing seat belts so the driver says in my country we dont wear them and our laws states that but you are not in your own country you are here in england oh yeah says the driver well you have to wear your seat belts because thats your law not mine ours is different. oh and they were all knicked by the copper. it is the same if you were to stand on wellgate in rotherham just near wh smiths you would be amazed at the amount of coloured youths who do not wear seat belts and there is some coloured ladies who will not wear there seat belts, today I was stood on the path near wh smiths and I counted in just under 5 mins 45 people who was not wearing seat belts if I was a copper thats where I would stand all day I would make a right killing giving out fines for not wearing seat belts. they dont seem to notice the danger they are in when they dont wear seat belts.

Originally posted by bigkev
found it this thread on seat belts and why do they not wear them. right just thought I would tell you this what happened a few a couple of days ago, I was in the hospital grounds at rotherham and there was 4 colored lads in this car they had just come in the grounds at the hospital being followed by a unmarked police car when they stopped this police man gets outof his car, and walks over to them and says why are you all not wearing seat belts so the driver says in my country we dont wear them and our laws states that but you are not in your own country you are here in england oh yeah says the driver well you have to wear your seat belts because thats your law not mine ours is different. oh and they were all knicked by the copper. it is the same if you were to stand on wellgate in rotherham just near wh smiths you would be amazed at the amount of coloured youths who do not wear seat belts and there is some coloured ladies who will not wear there seat belts, today I was stood on the path near wh smiths and I counted in just under 5 mins 45 people who was not wearing seat belts if I was a copper thats where I would stand all day I would make a right killing giving out fines for not wearing seat belts. they dont seem to notice the danger they are in when they dont wear seat belts.

Nice use of random. punctuation.
What are you trying to say - the damned black folks again? Maybe you should get together with Roy and start a BNP off shoot.

Originally posted by Strix
Unfortunately, that is a legal method of transporting said 'sprog'

Not true should be fastened in a child seat by law.

What I find amazing is that most of the time the parents are strapped in their seatbelts! Where do they think the kids are going to go if they have to do an emergency stop or if someone rams them.

hi peeps,

re the responsibility of driver/passenger re seatbelts

last week a young DRIVER was convicted, because his passengers were leaning out of the window etc,(generally being prats) and though he argued otherwise, the verdict was that he WAS reponsible for the actions of his passengers.
So, although there is not a specific law that says a driver is responsible for insuring his passengers belt up, if they want to they can do both passenger and driver, as driver is still ultimately responsible for his passengers actions.
go argue it in court
"well do you feel lucky, punk........."
hehehe
(there is a law to cover almost every situation and most people break loads each day, it is the PRICE of living in a FREE society ehem, - how full are the coffers and how much of a nuisance are you to them)

I really can't see the argument really. There aren't many cars around these days that don't have rear seat belts, and why would you want to put the lives of your children in danger? You protect them from it any onther way you can don't you?

Originally posted by savbaby
yesterday as i was going to meadowhall the car in front of me had no less than 5 kids, yes 5(on the back seat)!!! jumping around the back of a small micra with no seat belts on. Is it just me or does anyone else think this is disgusting? the kids were under i would say about 7 years old and it was not only distracting to my driving them jumping about and making faces but the muppet (who was not a very good driver i may add!!!) was hitting them in the proceess!
as soon as i get in my car it does not move until everyone has there seatbelt on, if they dont put it on they get kicked out!
if this man crashed even a small bump then these kids could have been seriously injured.:rant: :rant: :rant:
sorry rant over:hihi:

the guys breaking the law any way having 5 people on the back seat, so that s prob why they didnt have belts on. shoule only be 3 in the back of a micra.

Originally posted by Ann_x
Here (http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/advice/motorvehicles/seatbelt_law.htm#Cars) you will see that anyone aged over 14 is responsible for themselves, and is not the responsibility of the driver so, therefore, the driver is not fined. However, I consider an adult as anyone over the age of 18, so would probably insist that anyone between the ages of 14 and 18 belt up.

I concede that a passenger in the rear can be responsible for the death of the person in front of him or her, but all new cars, for some years now, have head restraints, which are there not only to protect the person in the front seat from injuries such as whiplash but also, if those head restraints are used in the proper position, they will prevent a passenger in the rear from hitting the head of the person in front. If the person in the front seat is wearing a seatbelt, that should prevent that person from being thrown forward onto the dashboard. The trouble is that a lot people do not know how to properly position the head restraints.

For myself, I wear a seatbelt whether I'm in the front or rear seat, and would suggest to any adult passenger to put their seatbelt on, but, short of forcibly doing that for them, there isn't much I can do if they won't wear a seatbelt. I bought a car about 10 years ago which did not have rear seatbelts, and I fitted them because I knew that I would be driving children around, and couldn't live with myself if I had an accident and a child was killed because I hadn't done anything about it.

The law about children under 3 is very clear. They should be in some sort of restraint whether in the front or the rear, and legally should not be held on an adult's or anybody else's lap.

its the responsibilty of the 14+ person to put it on, ie close the belt. the driver can still be fined for his passengers not wearing them.the driver has a duty of care & is therefore ultimatelt the one wo will pay the fine.

Originally posted by gatecrasher3
I very rarely wear a seatbelt whilst driving, however always do as a passenger. This is my choice and I am entitled to it.
no its not.

My children were born in 3 different hospitals (one in Germany). At each one it was hospital policy not to let you take the baby home if you didn't carry it out in a suitable car seat - assuming you were travelling by car of course! Is that still the case?

My kids are so drummed into seatbelt wearing that they squawk if you even start the engine before they're strapped in. I heard a nasty horror story once (don't think it's an urban myth) about a dad reversing off the drive while the mum was still strapping their toddler into his seat. A car went into them and the toddler was killed.

We go nowhere until everyone's properly strapped in - and yes that has meant sitting tapping the steering wheel for several minutes until the kids have persuaded Grandad that the rules count for him too!

Yesterday we passed a parked Ford Transit van, with a baby, in a baby seat, facing forwards, unattended, on the end of South Road near the lights:o

Originally posted by Anj1364
Not true should be fastened in a child seat by law.

Somebody didn't read the rest of that debate before 'setting me straight' :rolleyes:

They only need to be strapped into a child seat by law if there is a child seat available

My personal opinion is that this law falls short of common sense, but I was stating a fact

My mistake - I didn't realise it was only the law 'if one was available'. But I would have thought if you have children and a car - you should have car seats. Can you remember to Jimmy Saville (showing my age) public information films in the 70's? How many times do people need reminding it is dangerous practise not to belt up however short the journey.
Like you say though 'common sense'.

I think Saxon provided a highway code link to the relevant info Anj ;)

On BBC1 last night at 7 o'clock there was a programme called Road Rage or something like that; the nightmare woman who disobeyed virtually every rule of the road also disobeyed the one about wearing her seatbelt. Everybody in our car always wears one.

However... on the other hand we are all encouraged to get onto public transport i.e. buses & trams, where there aren't any seatbelts at all, and indeed we spend a lot of our time standing up in those vehicles. All the people who have complained at the antics of kids in cars that aren't strapped in - how many of them send their kids on the school bus?

It would be interesting for someone to come up with some statistics as to how many deaths/injuries would have been prevented by having seatbelts on school buses (and probably the drivers would be all for it too, for other reasons).

So how many of you use the seatbelts on coaches or minibuses? That's one regulation I've been guilty of ignoring, although I always use them in the car. I always feel a bit silly buckling up in the back of a taxi too, but the way taxi drivers "drive", it would be pretty daft to not bother! :)

When you've seen someone sprawled across the bonnet of a burning car, his face ripped off, and his legs somewhere behind his shoulders, you don't think twice about wearing a seatbelt! :o

I once saw an elderley couple bombing down the M1 at 100, the 2 year old grandson sat on his gran's knee, bobbing up and down and climbing on the dashboard. I was shocked, but then I've done stupid things in the past such as cramming 6 passengers into one car. But since seeing what I saw above, no way. I won't even sit in the front seat of anything without an airbag.

Originally posted by Strix
Somebody didn't read the rest of that debate before 'setting me straight' :rolleyes:

They only need to be strapped into a child seat by law if there is a child seat available

My personal opinion is that this law falls short of common sense, but I was stating a fact

So you think that the law should say "they must be strapped in, even if a seatbelt is not available"??? How would that be common sense?