S2C Forum Archives
Main Section => Welcome to our virtual Pub Meeting ... => Topic started by: 582LTR on March 03, 2021, 06:03:56 PM
-
Is anyone aware of the legal precedent that was used to enforce seat belt wearing. I am sure people said it was against their human rights to be made to wear one but something must have overcome that argument.
Thanks
Martin
-
Hi Martin
Only slightly related to your question ...
Many yonks ago, I was stopped by a "training exercise" in Pontardawe. Long queue of traffic while trainee Plods (term of affection) checked them over.
I asked the Rooky if he'd caught anybody? He proudly told us he'd booked a woman for not wearing her seat belt.
Barbara complained about needing a "comfort station"... urgently. The Sergeant (who had got involved, probably enjoyed our banter) told her she should have "gone" before settingn out.
"Yeah, a ten minute journey ... and you kept us sitting here for half an hour!"
Strange ... usually she argues ... she once refused to get out of her car until Plod showed his warrant card ... he didn't, so she didn't.
"I clocked you at 115mph! Don't let me catch you again!" Funny, another Plod clocked her at 105mph, same car (Honda CRX), same road (M4, South Wales) Same time (the wee small hours). Same request ... "Don't let me catch you again!"
I'm wondering if there is a DISABLED marker on her licence? I know there are lots of meaningless numbers/letters on your licence. I think Google knows what they mean.
602
-
Here in the States seatbelts became mandatory in all new vehicles starting in 1968 - yet there were no laws mandating they had to be worn. Such laws didn't start coming about until the '80s for the most part. Each State's laws are different though; all states, except 1, require they be worn (who has to wear them varies by State). Roughly half the State's will stop you and ticket you if you aren't wearing them; yet the other States will only ticket you if you are stopped for some other reason (such as speeding, running a stop sign and so on).
However, if you try to find the reason as to why manufacturers were required to install them starting in 1968 you won't get any clear answers. Some state auto accidents, and some say it was purely financial and many say it's a combo of each. I've tried, more than once, to find the accident reports and stats that supposedly led to it, but have as yet to find them. As many have pointed out... if it was so important to mandate them in 1968,why wasn't it important enough to mandate using them back then instead of waiting almost 20 years.
In regard to older vehicles... every State (at least the last I knew) grandfathered them in and say that if seatbelts weren't standard equipment when made they are not required now.
-
Don't know for seatbelts but your rights count for a little against the health and safety mob, freedoms go easily against safety arguments whether valid or tenuous. When the crash helmet laws came in for motorbikes Fred Hill refused and was subsequently arrested and died in prison - many bikers still mark his passing every February as a hero that stood up to big government interference, but he is still dead and you still have to wear a helmet the second you hit a road (or risk the law).
I did once wonder about getting a black marker and drawing a seatbelt on a white t shirt for the times when you just forget to put on, but most things I drive now beep madly if you don't put a belt on the second you hit 5 miles an hour so you have to go with it in that case
-
More, I suspect, the impact on the rest of us. I'm told the admin and investigations around a road fatality cost in excess of £1m?
-
More, I suspect, the impact on the rest of us. I'm told the admin and investigations around a road fatality cost in excess of £1m?
That was the figure I was told in 1992,
so I imagine it may have gone up a bit...
-
A while back when I was in Salamanca, Spain the taxi drivers cut the belt leaving a bit of the strap hanging and the buckle in place.
When you got in you had to flip the belt remains over your shoulder to trick the cops you were wearing a belt.
Crazy world :stars
-
That was the figure I was told in 1992,
so I imagine it may have gone up a bit...
You are right. Looks like its now £2m per fatal casualty.
-
Hi,
Many yoncs ago, too far to remember exactly when, RoSPA published a letter from the "Revenue Men" saying that seat belts were not subject to Purchase Tax. I think in those days, belts were fitted after the "Point of Sale". (In have memories of Barbara telling me that babies feeding bottles, tooth brushes, STs, and bog rolls were not subject to Purchase Tax. Nor were children's clothes ... which she managed to wear ... then).
Nowadays, of course, everything is subject to VAT ... including anti-virus face masks.
Spain! I read a few years ago, that Spanish police found a nice little earner. British drivers would stop at a toll booth, and had to unhook their belts to pay the toll ... and drive off without re-buckling.
602
-
In 1971 when I purchased my first new LR S3, the seat belts were required to be fitted if the vehicle was used on the road, not when it was sold new. This meant a vehicle could be sold without them , but not driven from the dealer. The thinking, I believe, was to give the customer a choice as to which make/model of belt would be fitted. I had the Land Rover supplied without belts, picked up two from the parts department ( supplied less 25% as a BL employee) and fitted them myself on the forecourt before driving off. I even used the tools supplied with the vehicle in its tool roll. This saved me the fitting cost which the garage would have invoiced if they had fitted them and had a greater discount on the belts. The issue of purchase tax is interesting as spare parts were not subject to purchase tax either.
-
From the comments made then, the pivot for changing the law was deaths. There came a point when there were enough deaths, or the cost of those deaths, was great enough that it’s significance surpassed the individual right to choose to wear one. The law was then changed.
M
-
you still have to wear a helmet the second you hit a road
That's leaving it a bit late to be putting your helmet on? :)
-
Hmm I wonder what the rationale was in allowing turban wearers to continue riding motorcycles without crash helmets ???
Does this " perk " still exist today ?
-
My 1966 2A had never had seat belts fitted from new. (Had been originally taxed as "farmers")
I never fitted belts when I restored it and it passed its mot with no problem. AFAIK it is still trundling round like that.
I know all pre 1965 cars are exempt. Maybe it was classed as commercial ???
-
If fitted, you must wear them. So on your old S2 you can remove them (or not fit them) and its legal. But if you fit them or they are fitted already, you must wear them.
Interesting other laws about children and rear seats.
If you have belts in the front but NOT in the tub/back than a child MUST travel in the front, but adults can travel in the tub.
If you have no belts than children can sit anywhere, front or in the tub/back.
-
My 1966 2A had never had seat belts fitted from new. (Had been originally taxed as "farmers")
I never fitted belts when I restored it and it passed its mot with no problem. AFAIK it is still trundling round like that.
I know all pre 1965 cars are exempt. Maybe it was classed as commercial ???
According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars) 1st Jan. 1965
-
According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars) 1st Jan. 1965
That agrees quite well with this pamphlet from the early 80s.
I remember in the 60s, new vehicles only had to have seat belt anchorage points. Later a retrospective law said "all vehicles with anchorage points must be fitted with belts". (There was still no law requiring them to be worn.)
The retrospective law meant we all had to scour the scrap yards for cheap belts, just to keep our cars legal.
Then in 1982? it became a legal requirement to wear them.
-
We have several members based in Norway.
I wonder how they manage with the centre seat ???
As we all know the centre front seat was a Land Rover feature straight from the factory.
Were Norwegian Land Rover owners expected to rip out their centre seats when the seat belt laws came in ?
I don't know what the testing procedure is in Norway, but I'd be inclined to find another testing station.
That said a cubby box/tool/spares storage can be quite useful....
:RHD
-
I had a nice spat with LR when I purchased a 9 seat One Ten station wagon and it had no seat belt anchorages for the rear forward facing ( 2nd Row) seats , when they were legally required .
Initially they said they had never made or sold a 9 seater . Eventually it was agreed they had and yes, anchorages should have been included. Fortunately they are all add on items and were fitted by the supplying dealer.
-
According to the MoT regs. , goods vehicles needed front seat belts from 1st April 1967 , passenger vehicles (Cars) 1st Jan. 1965
Interesting. So my 2A must have been classed as a "light van" ???
Grey area now it is classed as "historic" ?
Someone else's problem now though.
-
My April 67 station wagon didn't have seat belts or screen washers originally but it was an export one going to Malta, maybe they had different rules?
When it was returned to the UK in October 67 seat belts were fitted but only bolted in through the door pillars and through the aluminium seat box sides! How it passed MOT's for all those years I'm not sure.
When I restored it the belts were a bit past it so they were replaced with modern look-a-likes and I retrofitted the proper anchorages.
Craig.
-
UK rules, Construction & Use regs would not apply outside of the UK. Anything the factory & dealers could do to
save make money.
-
Is anyone aware of the legal precedent that was used to enforce seat belt wearing. I am sure people said it was against their human rights to be made to wear one but something must have overcome that argument.
Thanks
Martin
There is no legal precedent relating to the wearing of seatbelts. The requirement was introduced as an act of parliament. Legal precedents relate to case law, i.e. where there is no clearly defined law, a judge makes a ruling and subsequent cases take that ruling as a precedent and it is accepted as law
Parliament is the ultimate law maker and acts of parliament trump everything else (except when an international court decides that parliament has been a naught boy!).
-
Excellent answer :o
... and quite correct.
-
Excellent answer :o
... and quite correct.
Wow, that must be the only time in my life when the law module I did at uni has been of any use!
-
Rustynuts, so my question then is what was the ‘thing’ that tipped Parliament to overrule human freedom to choose whether to wear one and make it compulsory. From previous replies it was the cost of the deaths.
Martin
-
The Hansard record shows the actual discussion in Parliament. I suggest a bit of searching. Its often quite fun, some of our Lawmakers were ( and are) quite strange in their opinions... I recall looking at Hansard on vehicle lighting and finding an honourable member in the 1950s seriously suggesting that vehicles should turn off their headlights when approaching each other, lest the drivers be dazzled ... Imagining the M25 on a December evening, every car on sidelights...
-
You should come to Norfolk, most drive round on sidelights or no lights at all !
Newer cars have auto lights, which means things are getting a little better - except to say a lot of those drivers just assume the car will turn the lights on when needed.
To say nothing of the cars with just one working headlight :thud
Always remembering the bon mot wrongly attributed to Joseph Lucas: - A gentleman doesn't venture out after dark.
:RHD
-
Rustynuts, so my question then is what was the ‘thing’ that tipped Parliament to overrule human freedom to choose whether to wear one and make it compulsory. From previous replies it was the cost of the deaths.
Martin
Don't know. At the time I was more interested in my Commodore VIC 20 computer, dreaming about being able to get a motorbike in a few years time and starting to wonder what girls were all about.
Seriously though, I think that you are right about the cost of deaths, together with the level of risk that is tolerated by the public, which reduces over the years. Years ago if you got your arm ripped off by an unguarded machine tool or an entire town suffered the consequences of being downwind of an asbestos factory that was just accepted as normal life. Today we have different expectations and legislation reflects that.
As someone who works in high hazard industries, I know that as well as risk tolerance, the cost of life is something that drives legislation and standards. Taking into account legal costs, fines and reputational damage, the price of a life can be measured in millions. In other parts of the world sadly it can be somewhat less. For example, here a chemical plant processing highly toxic material will be automated and remotely operated. In somewhere like India it may be cheaper to send someone out to manually operate the plant. If a valve leaks and the operator is killed, no problem, bung his family a few hundred quid and get some other poor sod to do the job.
You can always argue that any law infringes upon personal freedom. The scales of justice that symbolise law represent a balance of public good versus private good. If there were no laws we could rob and kill with impunity, which might be good for the individual doing so, but not for society. Ultimately we have no legal right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road: we have to be licenced to do so and therefore cannot argue that any of our rights are being infringed by having to comply with legislation.
-
You can always argue that any law infringes upon personal freedom. The scales of justice that symbolise law represent a balance of public good versus private good. If there were no laws we could rob and kill with impunity, which might be good for the individual doing so, but not for society. Ultimately we have no legal right to drive a motor vehicle on a public road: we have to be licenced to do so and therefore cannot argue that any of our rights are being infringed by having to comply with legislation.
Heading way OT...The old Norse sentence of "Outlaw" meant that the individual was outside the protection of the Law, any one could do as they wished to the person so sentenced. They were not people to be feared, they were in fear themselves, generally had to flee, go hide somewhere from a population of grumpy and armed neighbours... In current terms, the removal of all Human Rights permanently or for a period of X years.
See "Erik the Red" and the settlement of Greenland. "Erik had to flee Norway, for he had committed Man-Slaughter..."
-
Seat belts came in before Health & Safety was invented, compulsory wearing came in after H&S.
Human Rights came along after seat belts - the start of the slippery slope to nannyism ???
I suppose you have to weigh up the cost of an accident against Darwinism.
-
Seat belts came in before Health & Safety was invented
Not sure that I agree with that. The foundation of current H&S legislation is the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, but the origins of that were from the Factories Act of 1948 and even earlier acts such as the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1872.
-
Sorry Alan, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its third session on 10 December 1948.... its a Series 1.
....and it was written in large part by British lawyers.
-
Heading way OT...The old Norse sentence of "Outlaw" meant that the individual was outside the protection of the Law, any one could do as they wished to the person so sentenced. They were not people to be feared, they were in fear themselves, generally had to flee, go hide somewhere from a population of grumpy and armed neighbours... In current terms, the removal of all Human Rights permanently or for a period of X years.
See "Erik the Red" and the settlement of Greenland. "Erik had to flee Norway, for he had committed Man-Slaughter..."
I like the sound of that. Can we please outlaw:
People who clutter up supermarkets by shopping in groups despite signs saying that we should do so individually.
Etc
Etc
-
I like the sound of that. Can we please outlaw:
People who clutter up supermarkets by shopping in groups despite signs saying that we should do so individually.
Etc
Etc
You have rules telling you how to shop?!?! :agh :thud
-
Hi,
Something in my memory about some sort of chair, that had a back-rest (squab?) that could be hinged forward, so the the person sitting in it faced the other way. (Obviously, for a car, it would need to lock in both settings. My windscreen is required to give a clear view to the front ... is that the same cleat view as my mirrors are required to give?
602
Er ... can anyone see where this is going (seat belt wise)? And should I get my coat?
-
You have rules telling you how to shop?!?! :agh :thud
It's to help stop the spread of Covid-19.
-
an honourable member in the 1950s seriously suggesting that vehicles should turn off their headlights when approaching each other, lest the drivers be dazzled ..
The law for a long time required that dipping the lights extinguished the offside headlight and dipped the nearside. This was usually achieved by pivotting the reflector, activated by an electromagnet.
When I bought my 1947 Triumph Roadster in 1966 it still had this mechanism, and shortly afterwards the double-dipping law was extended retrospectively to include all vehicles, including those originally only have single-dipping. At about the same time the requirement for two rear lights was also similarly retro-activated.
i believe these, and the windscreen washer requirement, are the only examples of such retrospective law-changing.
I recall a lively debate in the Roadster Club as to how to modify our vehicles. The silliest suggestion was to acquire a second pivotting reflector to replace the fixed one on the offside too - the drawback was that the mechanism, like that operating trafficators, was notoriously prone to sticking, and often only activated after passing over the next rut in the road. Two such headlights would not necessarily have dipped at the same time.
When I started driving in 1966 it was still considered gentlemanly to extinguish headlights when stopping behind another vehicle in a queue, or when passing pedestrians. In those days there were still two classes of motorist, the older ones having been driving before the war. The younger brasher post-war drivers threw aside all such considerations of politeness, so we now have today's universal free-for-all.
-
Heading way OT...The old Norse sentence of "Outlaw" meant that the individual was outside the protection of the Law, any one could do as they wished to the person so sentenced. They were not people to be feared, they were in fear themselves, generally had to flee, go hide somewhere from a population of grumpy and armed neighbours... In current terms, the removal of all Human Rights permanently or for a period of X years.
See "Erik the Red" and the settlement of Greenland. "Erik had to flee Norway, for he had committed Man-Slaughter..."
The sentence of Outlaw is still in the statutes of a few of the former Viking kingdoms.
-
"The outlaws" is now a semi-jocular reference to the family of someone's partner, not married, in comparison with the traditional "inlaws" saddled on the married. :)
Also the gang in the "Just William" stories.
-
You have rules telling you how to shop?!?! :agh :thud
Advice to shop as an individual rather than a couple/family dragging round the shop. Sensible suggestion to limit number in close proximity ?
I got my 1st jag this morning. Astra Zeneca. The GP practice had taken over the Kirk ( church ) Hall in the centre of town, very efficient set-up - very similar to the Flu jag campaign from October. Walk in the door at my allotted time, asked, by name, to sanitise my hands, asked questions about health status, escorted into the main Hall, met by vaccinator, questions confirmed, advised of possible side-effects, injected, handed some blurb to read and a card with my date for the next jag, out the side door and back in the car... 3 minutes after I left it.
They plan to do 400 people today.
-
I heard on Radio Solent this morning that the Scots call all vaccinations "jags" not "jabs" as you have done Genem, so I know it's not a spell checker error.
-
I was wondering what he was on about...! I thought it had something to do with John Prescott... :stars
Impressed that you can get Radio Solent up in the north of the county. I don't think I can get it here on the borders.
-
I heard on Radio Solent this morning that the Scots call all vaccinations "jags" not "jabs" as you have done Genem, so I know it's not a spell checker error.
Obviously your Health Service uses blunter needles ?
-
DAB and FM here diffwhine.
-
DAB and FM here diffwhine.
Far too modern and high tech for me!
-
I was wondering what he was on about...! I thought it had something to do with John Prescott... :stars
The Jags were from Scarborough :stars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUlU105lkgs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUlU105lkgs)
Let Bruce
(https://needled.files.wordpress.com/2021/01/snow-dogs-84.jpg?w=1100)
explain to you about Scottish (and elsewhere) Jags;
https://kddandco.com/2021/01/18/jags/ (https://kddandco.com/2021/01/18/jags/)
-
I appear to have learned something else today!
I take it that the word "Jagged" must be connected somehow?
-
"The Jags" are also a well known Glasgow football team, otherwise known as "Partick Thistle Nil".
-
I appear to have learned something else today!
I take it that the word "Jagged" must be connected somehow?
Yes, same old British origins.
Meaning sharp or pointy.
Hence Partick Thistle football team being nicknamed the Jags or Jaggies 'cause of the Thistle in their name.
"There will be dancing in the streets of Raith tonight" is another Scottish footballing expression
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Leitch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Leitch)
-
Amazing what else you can learn from a really great club forum!
-
I too started driving in 1966. In London the thought that you would extinguish your headlights when in certain situations, assumed that you had them on in the first place..... Sidelights were only used sparingly, do you know the cost of bulbs, I remember being told. London buses used the one full beam and one dip principle, when dipped the offside one went out. But their rear lights were one only, about the size of half a crown, whatever that was.
Things have not changed much down here. Headlights are used more, but it is essential that one points either up or out, whilst the other is not on. A much used variation is the loose one which wobbles everywhere. I am sure that the potholes have an effect on lights as well.
-
Wobbling headlamps? Standard fit on the Ford Cargo.
-
I love this little sticker but the belts are frightening..
-
You should come to Norfolk, most drive round on sidelights or no lights at all !
Newer cars have auto lights, which means things are getting a little better - except to say a lot of those drivers just assume the car will turn the lights on when needed.
To say nothing of the cars with just one working headlight :thud
Always remembering the bon mot wrongly attributed to Joseph Lucas: - A gentleman doesn't venture out after dark.
:RHD
The “Designed in Fault “ being that most drivers don’t seem to know that the automatic driving lights only illuminate the front lights , not the rear . So from behind they are hard to spot
-
I love this little sticker but the belts are frightening..
I’ve got that sticker too. Happy to say not as much rust around it though 😀
-
The “Designed in Fault “ being that most drivers don’t seem to know that the automatic driving lights only illuminate the front lights , not the rear . So from behind they are hard to spot
Daytime driving lights are just the front ones. But when the computer decides it is dark enough (not actually very dark), it will switch on the headlamps and rear lamps too.
Something we still have to decide for ourselves with our L/Rs.