Off the top of my head, but the Isles Report was commissioned when they were debating whether or not to introduce the mandatory wearing of seat belts because of complaints and reports from countries who had introduced seat belt laws in the 70’s that the policy wasnt that great.
The conclusions of the report where that wearing a seat belt would reduce fatatlies amongst car drivers but any benifit from that was outweighed by the fact making seat belts mandatory meant that fatalities and accidents involving other road users shot up. So overall there was no benifit over all in the number of road casulties it just shifted the problem.
Its Rog’s spike on the centre of the steering wheel, where people wearing seat belts felt safer and took more risks leading to more accidents.
The report was basically shelved when it looked like it showed no clear benifits for wearing seats belts to overall figures because wasn’t what the government wanted to hear.
When it did see daylight about three years after the introduction of the seat belt laws, the accident figures for the years after showed what the Isles report claimed would happen did happen, no real benifit overall.
20 years on from the law being introduced in 2003 a parlimentary report was made on fatality rates.
Also at the same time as the seat belt laws were introduced, so was the breath testing and clamp down on drunk drivers.
Adams concludes that there is no evidence of the seat belt law having reduced overall fatality numbers, and that there is evidence of fatalities having migrated from drivers to vulnerable road users. Although the Government argued at the time that the law had saved lives, it has subsequently attributed almost all the benefit for the small reduction in overall driver fatalities to the introduction of evidential breath testing.
According to the Durbin-Harvey report, commissioned by the Department of Transport following passage of the law, an analysis of fatality figures before and after the law shows:
a clear increase in pedestrian, cyclist and rear-passenger fatalities in collisions involving passenger cars
no such increase in casualties in collisions involving buses and goods vehicles, which were exempt from the law
a reduction in the number of drivers found to be drunk at the scene of collisions
a reduction in overall fatalities between the hours of 10pm and 4am (peak hours for drink-driving offences)
no reduction in overall fatality rates outside these hours.
i WONDER WHAT COMPANY THIS IS ? these large companies seem to be all about intimadation
surley in cases like this they shoud educate and try to improve safty rather that intimadade threaten
and add to drivers stress levels causing more of a danger than there was in the first place.
if a driver constantly refuses to obey rules then there is a place for the big stick but dont but drivers
under undue stress and maybe cause an accident cause the driver doesn’t have is mind on the job
same happened to me lost my job after simular actions which i say today was not guilty of
if they want rid then you best watch your back
papermonkey:
DENY, DENY, DENY.They can prove nothing. Just hope the muppets don’t log on to TNUK too often?!
It’s not trial by jury, they don’t NEED TO PROVE it. Under employment law it comes down whether or not they believe it to be true. The standard of evidence is based upon the balance of probability not beyond all reasonable doubt. This also applies if a case goes to a tribunal.
Mike-C:
‘…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? …’
Hmmm, is a brew & chill required?
Who has shown intent or desire for a colleague/site member to ‘…really believe…’ observing the law to fall foul of that ghastly yet specific scenario?
Then we’re also understood that a belt would have scant benefit during a nuclear strike or impart much magical power to help poor & abused drivers to survive a direct hit from a meteorite.
Mike-C:
‘…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? …’
Hmmm, is a brew & chill required?
Who has shown intent or desire for a colleague/site member to ‘…really believe…’ observing the law to fall foul of that ghastly yet specific scenario?
Then we’re also understood that a belt would have scant benefit during a nuclear strike or impart much magical power to help poor & abused drivers to survive a direct hit from a meteorite.
For those who hate wearing seatbelts, please think
of the answer some insurance firms in germany have
to combat this, in the small print (NOT READ BY US ALL)
is written in a clause which states the payout for any injuries
death etc etc will be HALVED when the person was not wearing a seatbelt, have you asked your insurance company
what they will do if you are one of the above mentioned,■■?
Have a Nice Day
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 looking to prosecute the truck driver for leaving the scene of an accident and Vosa will be prosecuting for a failure to record a finishing location on his digi card!!!
Think the report would probably finish like this Mike!!!
Ive always wondered why buses (not coaches) arent fitted with seatbelts
I know the majority of buses dont go fast enough etc or out of town, but belive me I’ve driven a bus to a touch over 70mph and I drive out of Basingstoke on routes which have dual carriageways
Workmate on the A90 Forfar, stopped by police done a full ADR check, found nothing wrong then done driver for not wering a belt. Fixed penalty £30. He did not mention it to boss, written warning for us.
Hi guys had the meeting all they had was suspision i was not wearing one. told to make sure i wearit in future
silly way of going about it i must admit
Davey Boy:
Hi guys had the meeting all they had was suspision i was not wearing one. told to make sure i wearit in future
silly way of going about it i must admit
Not so silly DB as there is now a record of the investigation and no need to record any punishment. You can’t now argue that you are unsure of company policy. Agreed it’s a heavy handed way of doing things and glad things worked out alright for you. Just be careful and watch your back. Someone must have raised the suspicion and may not rest at this.
Davey Boy:
Hi guys had the meeting all they had was suspision i was not wearing one. told to make sure i wearit in future
silly way of going about it i must admit
tofer:
Does seem rather stupid to waste that amount of company time for something that could have been handled in a minute with a quiet word.
My thought exactly
but then I found this - Driving For Work from the DfT - dft.gov.uk/drivingforwork/co … asp?pid=57 - so it could be said that the company were following these guidelines…
Davey Boy:
Hi guys had the meeting all they had was suspision i was not wearing one. told to make sure i wearit in future
silly way of going about it i must admit
Nice one Davev Boy. Good result. You got five pages from the seat belt
