Print

[582LTR]

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

[w3526602]

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

[Larry S.]

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.

[DogDave]

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 

 

[Genem]

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?

[Manxcat]

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...

[Wittsend]

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 

[Genem]

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.

[w3526602]

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

[autorover1]

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.

[582LTR]

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

[Clifford Pope]

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?   :)

[geoff]

Hmm I wonder what the rationale was in allowing turban wearers to continue riding motorcycles without crash helmets 

Does this " perk " still exist today ?

[Worf]

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

[andrewR]

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.