Happy Keith:
Why should my National Insurance contribution pay to fix a blokes face/ribs, etc because he wanted to exercise his rights of flouting the law? Is it more important to fix a selfish bloke’s chops than spend it on cancer treatment or organ transplants for law abiding folk, etc, etc?
Primary health-care legislation such as ‘wear a seat-belt, Muppet’ is there for a reason …whilst equally being there to ensure that the hard earned NI contribution of a law abiding bloke (ie, me) isn’t frittered away by jack****, egocentric, antisocial hooligans.
If your so concerned about NHS funding shouldn’t you be in favor of not letting people wear seat belts.
Low speed crashes yeah the guy with the seatbelt no injuries, the guy with no seatbelt maybe bruised or cracked ribs, so would cost more to the NHS.
But what about high speed crashes, guy with no seat belt on, gets a face full of motorway at 70mph. Afterwards its a simple case of getting out the shovel and scrape him into a black bin bag. Where as Mr Safety i’ll wear a seat belt high speed crash it could be a case of trying to get the emergency services to cut the guy out the car, then maybe condition so bad have to get an air ambulance (£££’s). Badly injured so needs long term care the rest of his life, constantly in and out of hospitals, unable to work. These saftey freaks cost the NHS millions every year.
Kenny1975:
But what about high speed crashes, guy with no seat belt on, gets a face full of motorway at 70mph. Afterwards its a simple case of getting out the shovel and scrape him into a black bin bag. Where as Mr Safety i’ll wear a seat belt high speed crash it could be a case of trying to get the emergency services to cut the guy out the car, then maybe condition so bad have to get an air ambulance (£££’s). Badly injured so needs long term care the rest of his life, constantly in and out of hospitals, unable to work. These saftey freaks cost the NHS millions every year.
Better still, have a poisoned spike from the steering wheel pointing directly at the driver - that way it would be instant death or wear the seatbelt
I dunno what all this talk about not wearing a seat belt has come from. They save lives! Its not just about being thrown into the steering wheel and smashing your face in or being thrown though the windscreen to your death, some accidents can cause the cab doors to spring open, i.e if you bounce off the central reservation or other solid object. Ive heard many stories of drivers being thrown out of their cab. My old ERF isnt fitted with seatbelts and I feel naked without one on. I know If I were involved in a front end shunt id be straight into the screen. A mate of mine hit the rear of another lorry and was scalped by the screen. If theres a seatbelt fitted, wear it. Its not optional!
Forgetting to put your belt on isnt a hanging offence, however. Just a word in the offenders ear would be sufficient.
Kenny1975:
If your so concerned about NHS funding shouldn’t you be in favor of not letting people wear seat belts.
Low speed crashes yeah the guy with the seatbelt no injuries, the guy with no seatbelt maybe bruised or cracked ribs, so would cost more to the NHS.
If the force of the crash was such as to cause an injury with a seat belt how would the same force not cause an injury with no seat belt? Wouldn’t your belly/ribs meet with the steering wheel? Given that the steering wheel has a solid metal core I would suggest that the belly rib damage would be comparable if not worse than that of the spread restraint provided by a seat belt. And what about injury to hands and arms if you were to, quite naturally, brace using the arms, with broken/dislocated fingers, wrists, elbows and shoulders or strained muscles/tendons/ligaments in the whole of the upper body?
Kenny1975:
But what about high speed crashes, guy with no seat belt on, gets a face full of motorway at 70mph. Afterwards its a simple case of getting out the shovel and scrape him into a black bin bag. Where as Mr Safety i’ll wear a seat belt high speed crash it could be a case of trying to get the emergency services to cut the guy out the car, then maybe condition so bad have to get an air ambulance (£££’s). Badly injured so needs long term care the rest of his life, constantly in and out of hospitals, unable to work. These saftey freaks cost the NHS millions every year.
Now here I start to be less convinced of the seat belt argument. I recall seeing an advert on the telly, I think it may have been a safety camera/speed sponsored ad, in which the damage to internal organs was explained as being caused by the organs continuing to move forward after the body was restrained by the seat belt/airbag, breaking ribs which then puncture the heart and lungs causing the death of the victim. Working on the prevention is better than cure I’ll go for avoiding hitting anything if possible.
But the force of the organs hitting the rib cage would be less if wearing a seatbelt and if an airbag fitted than if you ploughed into the steering wheel. Thats what things like seatbelt pretensioners are for, and airbags are designed to work in CONJUNCTION WITH seatbelts.
Thats not my understanding of the message in the advert. The seat belt/air bag only works on the outside of the body, the skeleton is the frame around which the rest is formed but the organs within the chest cavity are not fixed and so will continue to move in the direction of travel until they hit something, namely the ribs. The efficiency of the seatbelts and airbags mean there is, at speed, enough momentum in the internal organs to inflict the damage to the ribs.
Kenny1975:
‘…If your so concerned about NHS funding shouldn’t you be in favor of not letting people wear seat belts…’
Eh? Where’s a constructed argument in that? Is the suggestion that it’s OK to begin putting a seat belt on as one accelerates through to 30mph plus?
In paraphrasing argument read on here (much of it with a degree of self-righteous ‘logic’) what I see expressed seemingly advocates:
Ignoring the law - because one is sufficiently qualified to do as one pleases, thus
Potentially & unilaterally mangling oneself …because those proponents of selfishness have paid-in to be mended - so the rest of society therefore pays their credit back to them in facial surgery, etc.
Disrespecting medical staff who really do get cheesed-off in fixing fools when they are stretched to capacity on real needs. (N.B. Many nurses loath idiots …the rest see them charitably as being the way nature weeds out the feeble minded)
Meanwhile, is there really the support out there for delaying buckling up until 30 mph? How many (Barrack Room Lawyers!) are already doing it for real?
For those with snags for the requirement to wear a seatbelt then moan to the MP that you elected …it doesn’t even cost the price of a stamp!
Wiretwister:
I recall seeing an advert on the telly, I think it may have been a safety camera/speed sponsored ad, in which the damage to internal organs was explained as being caused by the organs continuing to move forward after the body was restrained by the seat belt/airbag, breaking ribs which then puncture the heart and lungs causing the death of the victim.
I’ve seen this advert discussed on another website and it did seem to cause confusion; it was showing the effect without a seatbelt, the driver being stopped solely by the airbag, NOT the combined effect of seatbelt and airbag.
Kenny1975:
‘…If your so concerned about NHS funding shouldn’t you be in favor of not letting people wear seat belts…’
Eh? Where’s a constructed argument in that? Is the suggestion that it’s OK to begin putting a seat belt on as one accelerates through to 30mph plus?
In paraphrasing argument read on here (much of it with a degree of self-righteous ‘logic’) what I see expressed seemingly advocates:
Ignoring the law - because one is sufficiently qualified to do as one pleases, thus
Potentially & unilaterally mangling oneself …because those proponents of selfishness have paid-in to be mended - so the rest of society therefore pays their credit back to them in facial surgery, etc.
Disrespecting medical staff who really do get cheesed-off in fixing fools when they are stretched to capacity on real needs. (N.B. Many nurses loath idiots …the rest see them charitably as being the way nature weeds out the feeble minded)
Meanwhile, is there really the support out there for delaying buckling up until 30 mph? How many (Barrack Room Lawyers!) are already doing it for real?
For those with snags for the requirement to wear a seatbelt then moan to the MP that you elected …it doesn’t even cost the price of a stamp!
Your right my argument is pathetic and stupid but i posted it knowing it was pathetic and stupid, because arguing about treatment on the NHS for an accident based on NI contributions is stupidity but it wasn’t me who started it.
But then again what about the Isles Report ■■? Which was proven to be right afterwards about the effects of introducing a mandatory wearing of seat belts law ?
I suppose you are one of these people who argue as well people smoking, drinking etc… shouldnt get treated on the NHS because they place a supposed huge burden on it ?
to original poster do not be honest, the company you work for sounds like it has the exact same practices as mine and they sacked a agency driver on the spot because a member of the public reported him for smoking in the cab…and the stupid git owned up to it, if he didn’t he would still have a job
oh and i enjoy the odd binge on the drink and if the NHS ever refused me care if i ever needed it, id want a full refund of all the contributions Ive made but i know i wouldn’t get them back
Kenny1975:
‘…Your right my argument is pathetic and stupid…’
I have neither written, implied or intended sentiments in that way.
Kenny1975:
‘…But then again what about the Isles Report ■■?..’
Many might be pleased to find out: Is it a tease?
Kenny1975:
'…I suppose you are one of these people who argue as well people smoking, drinking etc… shouldnt get treated on the NHS because they place a supposed huge burden on it ?
Nah, mate …wrong tack: The amount the NHS spends on education alone reaps huge benefits whilst close experience of NHS intervention re’ drink has now established a 100% healthy person.
Thus, I’ve learned to challenge misplaced belief when it presents dodgy social myth as kosher good gen in the face of democratically superior knowledge advocating compulsory seatbelt usage.
My understanding of a study carried out between 1973-76 and summarising that the investigative ‘…model is too simple…[within]…a no-change hypothesis…’ is insufficient to hang a hat on in 2009.
Not least, those days of introduction were awash with wearer confusion, inadequately worn apparatus & easily knotted but difficult to adjust buckles, etc and prior to the more user-friendly introduction of inertia reel systems.
notice went up on the board at work yesterday saying TM noticed some drivers by-passing seat belt warning systems in the truck, in other words plugging seatbelt in but not wearing it and reminded us what the law states on seat belts,some people will be in for a shock when the wheel tappers get their new super powers
pecjam23:
notice went up on the board at work yesterday saying TM noticed some drivers by-passing seat belt warning systems in the truck, in other words plugging seatbelt in but not wearing it and reminded us what the law states on seat belts,some people will be in for a shock when the wheel tappers get their new super powers
i did that on tuesday, was out in a new iveco van and has a stupid beeper if uve not got the seat belt on. now i was doing edinburgh city centre at the time so was basically back out the van by the time i could get a belt on so there was no point, but for the ride back to the depot it was put on and any sort of distance.
My understanding of a study carried out between 1973-76 and summarising that the investigative ‘…model is too simple…[within]…a no-change hypothesis…’ is insufficient to hang a hat on in 2009.
Not least, those days of introduction were awash with wearer confusion, inadequately worn apparatus & easily knotted but difficult to adjust buckles, etc and prior to the more user-friendly introduction of inertia reel systems.
And you still really believe that something that can stop the impeteus of a 44 tonne laden artic enough to throw the driver foreward would not have crumpled the front and thus the driver and thus rendering the seatbelt practically useless? I can agree with you (hard not to) that its a legal requirement, its benefits in a HGV are really debatable. The only one i can think of is that it would stop me banging my head if i was to tip over. As for the suggestion (by someone else further up the thread) that a driver could come out his windscreen and hurt the occupant in a car, well, where to start !!! It could look like this…
a car driver was in a head on collision with a 44 tonne artic today, his car was crushed beyond recognition, but he was alive albeit with massive internal injuries and every bone broken in his body broken. Unbeliavably the driver of the truck was not wearing a seatbelt and flew through his windscreen and hit the poor car driver on the head thus killing him. Police are not viewing the incident as suspicious!!!
As the old saying goes…if you cant do the time…dont do the crime…a lot of guys at our place ask me why i always use the seat belt…and i always answer…cos its £30 of my money.
truckyboy:
As the old saying goes…if you cant do the time…dont do the crime…a lot of guys at our place ask me why i always use the seat belt…and i always answer…cos its £30 of my money.
However when it comes to speeding re:Truckys Court Case the same does not apply. You actually do the crime and don’t want to do the time.In your case you got a fine and no points, in this guys case he probably just wants to keep his job.
but i know i wouldn’t get them back 
