Wearing Seatbelt..

bennyx_o

My uncle was cought not wearing a seatbelt in a laneway, and AFAIK he was only pulling out.
Can he still be done for penaltly points?

Thanks.

Turner

If its a public place, yes!!

PBC_1966

Seatbelt violations get you penalty points in Ireland??? :eek:

That's outrageous! Bad enough that just about everywhere has passed these unconstitutional laws, but at least here it's just a fixed-penalty ticket: Pay it and forget about it until the next one a few years down the line.

Turner

Seatbelt already saved my life in a head on collision at 60+mph, i dont need to be scared by any penalty points to put mine on in the future.

Guy:Incognito

both myself and the ex were spared a nasty trip through the windscreen by seatbelts. I cant drive without a seatbelt on , feels very uncomfortable.


@pbc, what part of the constitution says you are immune from wearing a seatbelt? they are a good thing, and im sure if you ended up 30 yards in front of your car in a crippled heap after an accident you'd wish you had been wearing a seatbelt

mike65

Originally posted by Stekelly
[B
@pbc...im sure if you ended up 30 yards in front of your car in a crippled heap after an accident you'd wish you had been wearing a seatbelt [/B]

Nope he'd be dead....or if not screaming and alive then thanking God he's rights had'nt been infringed.

Mike.

ando

i dont see the big deal. I didnt have any problems wearing the seatbelt before they started punishing ppl with the points system., I didnt realise it was such a problem

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
these unconstitutional laws

Unless you live in New Hampshire, please do elaborate.

the evil belly

are you still allowed to not wear a seatbelt while reversing? makes it a hell of a lot easier sometimes to be able to turn around more to see stuff. i do feel strangely uncomfortable not wearing a seatbelt in the front of any car whether driving or not but it doesn't bother me in the back(must be the years as i child i spent unrestrained in the back seat. it was the 80's after all) standard rule in my car and most of my friends cars is put a belt on or walk. i've asked people to get out of my car for not wearing a belt after being asked several times to put it on. don't fancy being killed or injured by someone from the backseat if there's an accident

Seth Brundle

Originally posted by ando
i dont see the big deal. I didnt have any problems wearing the seatbelt before they started punishing ppl with the points system., I didnt realise it was such a problem

you don't have a problem with it but there are still loads out there who, despite all the reports etc., do!

unkel

Originally posted by kbannon
you don't have a problem with it but there are still loads out there who, despite all the reports etc., do!

Ireland was until recently the country with the lowest level of seatbelt-wearing in the EU. Two years ago a third of male drivers and two thirds of female drivers wore a seatbelt :eek:

This seems to have changed dramatically though starting even before the penalty points were loaded for this

Still it is my experience that few back seat passengers are wearing a seatbelt. Is everyone here aware that the driver will get penalty points if there's a 17 year old in the back seat not wearing the belt?

Also my experience that even Gardai are starting to wear the belt now

@everybody: FFS Belt up!!

Peace

If you're not going to wear a seat belt at least get an organ donor card...

unkel

Originally posted by Peace
If you're not going to wear a seat belt at least get an organ donor card...

LOL as in do at least one useful thing in (or after) your life

seamus

For me, driving a car without a seatbelt is like driving a motorbike without a helmet. You feel naked and exposed.

Apparently it is quite a big problem. Tis something that definitely needed to be added to the points system.

ChipZilla

Originally posted by the evil belly
are you still allowed to not wear a seatbelt while reversing? makes it a hell of a lot easier sometimes to be able to turn around more to see stuff. i do feel strangely uncomfortable not wearing a seatbelt in the front of any car whether driving or not but it doesn't bother me in the back(must be the years as i child i spent unrestrained in the back seat. it was the 80's after all) standard rule in my car and most of my friends cars is put a belt on or walk. i've asked people to get out of my car for not wearing a belt after being asked several times to put it on. don't fancy being killed or injured by someone from the backseat if there's an accident

Umm, when you are thought to drive by a proper driving instructor you learn how to reverse using your mirrors - not by sticking your arm behind the passenger seat and looking straight out the back windows.

PBC_1966

Oh dear...... Is there nobody here on the anti-belt side?

The reason that quite a few of us object to the compulsory seatbelt law is two-fold.

First, although belts may prevent injury, there are plenty of cases where a seat-belt has caused injury. There are people walking around today who have survived accidents which would have been fatal had they been buckled up. The government is therefore mandating that people do something which may be harmful, which is a violation of the right to the security of one's person.

Second, even if we ignore that point and assume that belts automatically provide protection in all cases, when did we give up our right of self-determination to the nanny-state? Laws are there to protect people against the actions of others, not to protect people against themselves.

The argument that "It's for your own good" doesn't wash. If we accept that argument, then there is almost no limit to where legislation could end.

"It's for your own good" not to go running around outside in freezing cold weather without wrapping up warm. Would you accept laws enforcing this? If you went out in the middle of January when it's 30 degrees outside wearing just a T-shirt and shorts, and a police officer stopped you and issued you with a citation for this "illegal" activity, would you just accept it and pay the fine, because "it's for your own good," or would you be complaining that you have the right to run around in the cold if yoiu want to?

ChipZilla

Oh bollocks. I'd love to see some studies done on that. Name one situation where not wearing a seatbelt would increase your chances of surviving. And don't say "your car going on fire"...

koneko

If you're not the only person in the car, when you're not wearing a seatbelt you could cause serious injury to the other passengers.
Imagine you give a mate a lift, he goes "I don't wear my seatbelt I hate nanny-states", you end up in an accident and he kills you. It's not just your own safety.

But sure, fighting the nanny-state is more important than safety isn't it.

mike65

Originally posted by PBC_1966


First, although belts may prevent injury, there are plenty of cases where a seat-belt has caused injury. There are people walking around today who have survived accidents which would have been fatal had they been buckled up.

I have an occassional bad right shoulder due to the strain put on it during a rollover crash many years ago
I am happy to put up with it as if I had'nt been buckled up I WOULD BE DEAD! No question in my mind.

Mike.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Oh dear...... Is there nobody here on the anti-belt side?

The reason that quite a few of us object to the compulsory seatbelt law is two-fold.

First, although belts may prevent injury, there are plenty of cases where a seat-belt has caused injury. There are people walking around today who have survived accidents which would have been fatal had they been buckled up. The government is therefore mandating that people do something which may be harmful, which is a violation of the right to the security of one's person.

Second, even if we ignore that point and assume that belts automatically provide protection in all cases, when did we give up our right of self-determination to the nanny-state? Laws are there to protect people against the actions of others, not to protect people against themselves.

Oh dear God I can't believe someone in this day and age actually thinks like that :rolleyes:

Laws are also there to protect people too stupid to protect themselves
I don't care if you are a taxi driver, not wearing a seatbelt is STUPID and DUMB, DUMB, DUMB!

Sure, there may be a few stories in the National Enquirer
"Seatbelt would have killed me if I'd had it on"
but 99.9% of the time wearing a seatbelt will do far more to protect you from serious head injuries than not wearing it. It's simple statistics.

Just thinking about the mechanics & physics of being propelled at 30mph plus into a steering wheel and through laminated glass should make you slap your head and say "DOH!"

ChipZilla

Hmm, here's the US Government's accident statistics site:

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/main.cfm

Have a look in the 'Did you know' section.

Ejection from the vehicle is one of the most injurious events that can happen to a person in a crash. In fatal crashes, 75 percent of passenger car occupants who were totally ejected from the vehicle were killed. - (restraint systems ; 2000 )

In 2000, NHTSA conducted the National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS). The overall observed shoulder belt use rate was 71 percent, compared to 69 percent observed in 1998, 61 percent in 1996, and 58 percent in 1994. - (restraint systems ; 2000 )

If the Americans can get it through their skulls, and make that much of an improvement in seat belt use, there's not much excuse for us, is there?

the evil belly

Originally posted by ChipZilla
Umm, when you are thought to drive by a proper driving instructor you learn how to reverse using your mirrors - not by sticking your arm behind the passenger seat and looking straight out the back windows.

where did i say i couldn't reverse using my mirrors? i only asked if it was still legal to not wear a seat belt while reversing

seamus

Originally posted by the evil belly
where did i say i couldn't reverse using my mirrors? i only asked if it was still legal to not wear a seat belt while reversing

No it's not. You are required to wear a safety belt while using the vehicle. Your direction is irrelevant.

Turner

You do not have to wear your seat belt while reversing.

Sleipnir

Originally posted by seamus
No it's not. You are required to wear a safety belt while using the vehicle. Your direction is irrelevant.

You can take it off to reverse.

From Oasis

Exemptions from requirement to wear seatbelts
......2. If you are driving and reversing your vehicle (i.e., moving your vehicle in a backward motion)

seamus

Originally posted by Sleipnir
You can take it off to reverse.

From Oasis

Exemptions from requirement to wear seatbelts
......2. If you are driving and reversing your vehicle (i.e., moving your vehicle in a backward motion)

Interesting.

/me remembers to check Oasis before the irish statute book.

K2

There is also a financial cost to not wearing your seat belt, the cost to the health system in treating idiots who have had accidents and neglected to wear belts in hugh. That's our hard earned taxes that could be better spent elsewhere in the health system, I suppose you could compare it to having to treat smokers for lung cancer. Unfortunately it is still a common occurance to see people drive around with out wearing them, have a look around tonite on the way home.

ChipZilla

Originally posted by the evil belly
where did i say i couldn't reverse using my mirrors? i only asked if it was still legal to not wear a seat belt while reversing

If you use your mirrors to reverse, why would you need to take your belt off? You'd still be facing forward. Or am I doing something wrong when I reverse?

PBC_1966

You are required to wear a safety belt while using the vehicle. Your direction is irrelevant.

In the U.K. law, there is a specific exemption which says a belt need not be worn while carrying out a maneuver which involves reversing.

Other exemptions demonstrate the capricious application of the law. For example, taxi drivers are not required to use a belt while driving their cab. Why not? If the idea of the law is to protect everybody as you claim, then why should somebody who spends his whole day driving around be exempted, while somebody driving a mile to get his groceries risks being stopped and fined for doing the exact same thing. There's no logic in that.

If the Americans can get it through their skulls, and make that much of an improvement in seat belt use, there's not much excuse for us, is there?

There are large numbers of Americans who are also totally opposed to the mandatory seat-belt laws. It's becoming more of a problem as many states have, or are considering, changing belt enforcement from secondary to primary offenses.

Seocndary enforcement is what was in place when I was living in Nebraska. Basically, it means that although the law says buckle-up, you can't be cited for that alone. You can get a ticket only if you've also been stopped for some other offense, such as speeding, running a light, etc.

Have a look at the following:

www.seatbeltchoice.com

http://proliberty.com/observer/20001217.htm

the evil belly

Originally posted by ChipZilla
If you use your mirrors to reverse, why would you need to take your belt off?

i'm not saying i do. i was just wondering if the law still allowed you to take it off when reversing. not much point in having mirrors on the car if i don't look in em. however situations do arise where you may need to look out the rear window when reversing such as a broken mirror

PBC_1966

Originally posted by K2
There is also a financial cost to not wearing your seat belt, the cost to the health system in treating idiots who have had accidents and neglected to wear belts in hugh. That's our hard earned taxes that could be better spent elsewhere in the health system, I suppose you could compare it to having to treat smokers for lung cancer. Unfortunately it is still a common occurance to see people drive around with out wearing them, have a look around tonite on the way home.

And what about the cost to the health service of treating people who have been injured because of a seat-belt? The same applies to air-bags.

So why it is still a common to see people smoking? According to govt. statistics (which I don't always believe) far more people die from smoking-related illness every year than in auto wrecks. So why not just completely ban cigarettes altogether?

Obesity-related illness also costs the helath service a large amount of money. So would you be happy to see a government stipulated diet, backed up with tickets and fines for those who fail to toe the party line? If you're limited to, say, two Big Macs per week, would you accept a police officer issuing a citation and fine if he sees you buying one for the third time in a week?

DrummerBoy

Originally posted by PBC_1966
For example, taxi drivers are not required to use a belt while driving their cab. Why not?

Taxi drivers are not required to use seat belts because the person behind them can use the belt to choke them! And IF they need to get out of the car quickly due to a passenger tryinf to attack them.

Ask an Taxi driver, didn't believe it my self till I seen it in writting!!
A.

Turner

Taxi drivers are exempt i presume for safety reasons. For example if they need to leave the car very quickly.. kinda what happens in a crash

Sleipnir

Originally posted by PBC_1966
And what about the cost to the health service of treating people who have been injured because of a seat-belt? The same applies to air-bags.

The point is, the lives saved by wearing seatbelts is far greater then the the number of people injured by wearing them.
It's simply a question which is the greater risk, wearing a seatbelt or not wearing a seatbelt.
Everything, including the most basic common sense points to not wearing a seatbelt as the greater risk.

leeroybrown

From Oasis:
http://www.oasis.gov.ie/transport/motoring/using_seatbelts_when_motoring.html?search=seat+belts

I always wear a seat belt while driving regardless of if I'm the driver or a front/rear passenger. If I'm the drver I'll insist that my passengers belt up.

In a certain very limited set of situations wearing a seat belt may cause minor injury but the vast majority of the time any effects it can have will be less serious than those of an unprotected accident.

Ultimately, it makes sense and it is the law and people should abide by it.

How about this for an idea:

Remove liability from the driver for specific passengers in an accident where injury has occured due to non wearing of seatbelts!

PBC_1966

From Oasis:
Since 1st January 1971, all drivers and anyone occupying a forward facing front seat of any of the vehicles listed above must wear a safety belt or an appropriate child restraint, unless they are exempted.

Is that a typo, or the correct date? I know a couple of states in Australia introduced seat-belt laws that early, but Ireland? The U.K. made buckling up compulsory in the front in 1983.

The exemptions have a few differences from U.K. rules:

Exemptions from requirement to wear seatbelts
3. If you are giving instruction in or in respect of the driving of a vehicle (i.e., you are teaching someone else how to drive).

I don't think there's anything equivalent to that here.

4. If you are driving test examiner conducting a driving test

That is definitely the same here. Why? Like taxi drivers, we have an examiner riding around all day, in this case with inexperienced drivers, so by all the pro-arguments, shouldn't he be required to buckle up as well, for his own protection?

5. If you are a member of An Garda Siochana or the Defence Forces and are driving as part of your duties

The only police exemption I've seen listed here says an officer doesn't have to use the belt when escorting a prisoner.

Furthermore, there is an additional onus on drivers to ensure that persons under 17 are suitably restrained while they are in charge of the vehicle.

The cut-off point for responsibility here is 14.

seamus

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Is that a typo, or the correct date? I know a couple of states in Australia introduced seat-belt laws that early, but Ireland? The U.K. made buckling up compulsory in the front in 1983.

That's the correct date. An exemption though originally was as simple as "My car doesn't have seat belts". It wasn't until 1990 (afaik) that seatbelts were compulsory in new cars.

That is definitely the same here. Why? Like taxi drivers, we have an examiner riding around all day, in this case with inexperienced drivers, so by all the pro-arguments, shouldn't he be required to buckle up as well, for his own protection?

Not sure of that one. It's probably a legacy to the thinking of the 70's. The instructor may need to move around a bit more to look around, but not that much. It may also have been put in for his own safety, like the taxi drivers (so someone who fails can't attack them), but since the test isn't graded until you get back to the tester's desk, that's not required.

The only police exemption I've seen listed here says an officer doesn't have to use the belt when escorting a prisoner.

It's obvious why police on patrol shouldn't have to wear seatbelts. I'd say the UK law is lacking on that one.

Why are you comparing UK and Irish law anyway? Different countries, different laws.

PBC_1966

From Oasis:
All cars first registered in Ireland since 1st June 1971, are required to have safety belts fitted on front seats.

Front belts are required to be fitted here in all cars 1965 and later.

There's another crazy aspect with regard to this point though. If I jump in a 1964 car and it has belts fitted, then I'm subject to being stopped and fined for not using one. But as a 1964 car is not legally required to have belts, I can remove them entirely and then drive around perfectly legally.

Presumably the same would apply in Ireland to a pre-1971 car?

Why are you comparing UK and Irish law anyway? Different countries, different laws.

Just trying to see if there's any sort of logic in the ways that different jurisdictions have implemented these laws.

It seems that both have inconsistencies. (I'd be tempted to complain to the EU that it's unfair that member states have different rules, but I don't think I even want to go there.... ).

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
Oh dear...... Is there nobody here on the anti-belt side?

The reason that quite a few of us object to the compulsory seatbelt law is two-fold.

First, although belts may prevent injury, there are plenty of cases where a seat-belt has caused injury. There are people walking around today who have survived accidents which would have been fatal had they been buckled up. The government is therefore mandating that people do something which may be harmful, which is a violation of the right to the security of one's person.

Second, even if we ignore that point and assume that belts automatically provide protection in all cases, when did we give up our right of self-determination to the nanny-state? Laws are there to protect people against the actions of others, not to protect people against themselves.

The argument that "It's for your own good" doesn't wash. If we accept that argument, then there is almost no limit to where legislation could end.

"It's for your own good" not to go running around outside in freezing cold weather without wrapping up warm. Would you accept laws enforcing this? If you went out in the middle of January when it's 30 degrees outside wearing just a T-shirt and shorts, and a police officer stopped you and issued you with a citation for this "illegal" activity, would you just accept it and pay the fine, because "it's for your own good," or would you be complaining that you have the right to run around in the cold if yoiu want to?

Please tell me about these "unconstitutional laws" you made reference to earlier. I won't bring it up again if you decide to ignore me again.

K2

pcb_1966

(a) i don't eat at mcdonalds - i have too much respect for myself to eat that rubbish (pizzahut everytime)

(b) ban smoking completely? Yes, imo its a slow way of killing yourself, preventing people from killing themselves is not such a bad idea, is it?

But this is not the point of this thread. You talk about the nanny state interfering, that's a rather weak argument. I guess you don't like wearing a seatbelt? and this is about the only argument you can make - the argument about injuries incurred by wearing a seat belt is even weaker, some others here have already stated they have received such injuries, and gladly so as they would have been much more seriously injured or even killed without it. And there have been stories reported in the media over here stating that the introduction of penalty points has reduced the number of car crash victims hospitals are treating.

unkel

Originally posted by PBC_1966
There are large numbers of Americans who are also totally opposed to the mandatory seat-belt laws.

Is not fair to compare Europe with America in this respect as American cars typically have full size airbags, designed to protect when people aren't wearing seatbelts. The European ones only protect if you wear the belt as well :eek:

PBC_1966

Please tell me about these "unconstitutional laws" you made reference to earlier. I won't bring it up again if you decide to ignore me again.

I wasn't ignoring the request; I thought I had answered it. A law which mandates that somebody must do something which may be harmful to his health is surely unconstitutional (the right to be secure in one's person that I mentioned above). I'm not familiar with the Irish constitution, but I would assume you have something along those lines, as in other countries.

You may argue that the risk of not buckling up is greater than that of using a seat-belt. Any debate on that aside, by saying that you acknowledge that there are some instances where being strapped in may be detrimental rasther than beneficial. It doesn't matter whether the chance is 1 in 2 or 1 in 10000, it still means that a mandatory seat-belt law is requiring somebody to do something which in certain cirumstances may be harmful to his health.

Is not fair to compare Europe with America in this respect as American cars typically have full size airbags, designed to protect when people aren't wearing seatbelts. The European ones only protect if you wear the belt as well

I think you'll find that despite the difference in air-bags, U.S. manufacturers are also trying to tell people that they are effective only when used in conjunction with a seatbelt.

But we could be talking about two cars neither of which have air-bags anyway. If we wanted to get into that debate, I would argue that many of the small European cars should be banned from the roads here. They would certainly never pass American safety standards.

I guess you don't like wearing a seatbelt?

Quite correct. By the time I took my driver's test the law had just been introduced, so I had to buckle up to pass. I also tried it for a few days before to try to get used to the darned thing. I have never worn one since.

However, let me point out that I would argue against mandatory motorcycle helmets on the same basic principle of freedom of choice. And on that, I have no ax to grind, as I do not ride, nor have I ever ridden a motorcycle.

By the way, in Australia and New Zealand it is now illegal to ride a regular bicycle without a helmet. Would any of you support such a law in Ireland?

(a) i don't eat at mcdonalds - i have too much respect for myself to eat that rubbish (pizzahut everytime)

Ah.... Something on which to agree! I prefer BK or Wendy's to MacD anyway.

sceptre

Originally posted by PBC_1966
I wasn't ignoring the request; I thought I had answered it. A law which mandates that somebody must do something which may be harmful to his health is surely unconstitutional (the right to be secure in one's person that I mentioned above). I'm not familiar with the Irish constitution, but I would assume you have something along those lines, as in other countries.

Ah, yeah there is, but we had that one out in the Gladys Ryan water fluoridation case in the mid 60s (Ryan v AG). Public health concerns blah blah, it'd never wash (no pun intended) even if there are cases (and I'll happily take your word for it) where a seat belt has impaired the health of someone in a crash.

K2

PBC_1966 -
I don't suppose you are built like Jordan? I would imagine it is rather uncomfortable for big chested women to wear seat belts, but that's not a good enough reason not to. In fact I would say we need to protect all the big chested women out there:D

the evil belly

Originally posted by PBC_1966
By the way, in Australia and New Zealand it is now illegal to ride a regular bicycle without a helmet. Would any of you support such a law in Ireland?

hell ya i'd support it. you're using a road with fast moving objects that weigh tens of times what you do and if nothing else the air movements a truck creates at speed will take you off a bike. i've been hit by 2 cars and a had a near miss with a bus all on the straight road in cork. all 3 times the vechicles in question turned into me or cut across me across me. been blessed to escape with only cuts and bruises each time. that said i've had stiches in my face after coming off a bike going down steps (i was younger and stupider) only thing that saved me from a cracked skull was a helmet.

i heard on the radio here during the week that some road safety group (can't remember which one) are calling for it be made compulsory that children under 12 have an adult with them when cycling on public roads

Gurgle

So ya think thats stupid...
MAG Ireland wants wearing helmets on motorcycles to be on a voluntary basis.
Linky

Having broken the windscreen of a Transit with the back of my helmet, and a few other bounces down the roads, I would be inclined to disagree.

Seth Brundle

at a time when motorcycle related fatalities are at the levels they are it is ridiculous for MAG to be calling for the law on mandatory helmet wearing to be abolished.
Get biker related accident rates down and then consider it!

Victor

I was in an accident three years ago. I was the back seat passenger in a taxi that hit a car that had run a red light. I suffered bruises and pulled muscles. If I wasn't wearing a seatbelt, I would have splatted the driver off the steering wheel.

Originally posted by K2
Unfortunately it is still a common occurance to see people drive around with out wearing them, have a look around tonite on the way home.

Oi! eyes on the road please.

Originally posted by K2
PBC_1966 - I don't suppose you are built like Jordan? I would imagine it is rather uncomfortable for big chested women to wear seat belts, but that's not a good enough reason not to. In fact I would say we need to protect all the big chested women out there:D

Get a four point seat belt - they are available in the states, certainly for rear seat passengers.

Kermitt

i've just read through this thread and these are my conclusions.....

1. PCB_1966 is a cosmic tool..... what is going through that person's head... shut up you idiot...... you are rebelling for the sake of it.. to your own detriment... god almighty you just don't get it....... go get killed in your car without a seat belt if you like.... and coming up with ludicrous stats to argue against what 99.99% of the free world knows is right... you lunatic!

2. Wear a seat belt ........ Like every sane person.

K2

victor - I did of course mean when you are stopped at the lights. God forbid I should take my eyes of the road at any time, though it is hard in this good weather not to notice the eye candy. But really pbc_1966 has a point - I mean how dare the goverment interfer in our daily lives, I woke up this morning convinced of this and proceeded to drive to work at 90mph, on the right hand side while wearing a walkman, reading the paper and eating a bowl of cornflakes!;) I'm off to the garage this weekend to have the seatbelts removed along with the airbags, abs, ebd and the brake lights. Seamus Brennan can shove the rules of the road up his arse, I'm a responsible adult and don't need to be told how to behave behind the wheel

btw are fout point seatbelts espcially made for the bigger woman?


ps please note the smilies, ww)

the evil belly

Originally posted by Gurgle
MAG Ireland wants wearing helmets on motorcycles to be on a voluntary basis.

without helmets lots of bikers will end up becoming major organ doners