Query on seatbelts
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: D Walford on 13 Jun 2010 04:14 On 13/06/2010 1:19 PM, John_H wrote: > George W Frost wrote: >> "John_H"<john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message >> news:sc5816dhcor3l9o6mqtnnf7knq9vaveugt(a)4ax.com... >>> >>> FWIW I've always had far more trouble with the claustrophobic fuckers >>> who insist on travelling with the window down than with non seatbelt >>> wearers... perhaps it's the underarm. :) >> >> I almost always travel with the window down, >> but, I guess that you would be talking more about passengers than a driver? > > It's applicable to both, but I'd expect the passenger(s) to conform > with what the driver does. > > I almost always travel with the driver's window down and the a/c off > in towns and cities. I almost never travel with the windows down in > an air conditioned car on highway or rural roads, and especially when > they're dirt... if only to keep the car interior clean (the flow > through ventilation that's standard on modern cars needs the windows > up to pressurise the cab). > > Yet I still come across a surprising number of passengers who'll > insist on having their window down if they can get away with it. > Plenty of drivers are also happy to choke in dust in preference to > having the windows up. > > Not long ago I picked up a bloke who'd run out of fuel on a dirt road. > Had to ask him to put on a seatbelt, which he did willingly, but as > soon as the car started moving the fucker wound the window down. At > that point he was offered the choice of winding it up or walking. He > did comply, but only under sufferance, which isn't particularly > unusual in my experience. > Did he have long ears and a tail? Daryl
From: jonz on 13 Jun 2010 04:38 On 6/13/2010 1:34 PM, John_H wrote: > Athol wrote: >> Noddy<me(a)home.com> wrote: >> >>> Personally, I'd like to see a return to the days where wearing seat belts >>> wasn't compulsory. Not because I don't think they're an effective safety >>> tool, as I do, and I also think their use should be compulsory for children >>> 16 and under. I just think the choice to wear one or not should be left up >>> to the individual adult. >> >> While I'd like to agree with you from a Darwininan selection >> perspective, I have to disagree because of the social cost, in >> particular the increased trauma's effect on emergency services, >> in particular the increased cost of providing the services and the >> reduction in availability for other emergencies. > > That's a socialist's argument! A fairer alternative might be to > abolish socialised services in favour of user pays... which is > precisely what some here were arguing for in the case of rescued > yachties. > > Personally I don't give a stuff about the socialised services so long > as conforming to the lowest common dominator (risk wise) isn't > mandatory. :) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ sez the bloke who`s three steps to the right of Genghis Khan.... > -- jonz "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind - boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford,1992
From: Noddy on 13 Jun 2010 11:15 "John_H" <john4721(a)inbox.com> wrote in message news:oj68161nb575tm228dpc5dorsfv3mprvho(a)4ax.com... > So why make it compulsory for adults then? > > It's just another example of the nanny state in action IMHO! :) Agreed. It's the nanny state "You have to do this because it's good for you" I object to. Not the wearing so seatbelts per se'. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 13 Jun 2010 11:17 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4c13a31b$0$28671$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > It might reduce the road toll but there would be more crashes because > harness's and helmets restrict your sideways movement and vision which is > fine in a race car but not so good on the street. Agreed. More crashes, but a lot less human carnage. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 13 Jun 2010 11:21
"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message news:1276398817.279539(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au... > While I'd like to agree with you from a Darwininan selection > perspective, I have to disagree because of the social cost, in > particular the increased trauma's effect on emergency services, > in particular the increased cost of providing the services and the > reduction in availability for other emergencies. That'd all be true, if we assumed for the sake of the argument that if the seatbelt laws were changed tomorrow to remove the compulsory requirement that everyone would suddenly stop wearing them. Personally I don't think they would, and I'd keep wearing mine. I think the message is crystal clear that they're a very valuable tool as far as road safety is concerned. I just don't like the idea of being told that I *have* to wear one. -- Regards, Noddy. |