The Dodge Challenger Message Board

Not the sort of accident you see every day.

http://forum.pug205.nl/viewtopic.php?gid=7&did=1304#

dave-r wrote:Not the sort of accident you see every day.

http://forum.pug205.nl/viewtopic.php?gid=7&did=1304#

The knights of the round table are back! I bet it was an englishman who crashed into the pole in the first place....

More seriously: How did this acually happen? Can anyone translate the text please? Hans?

It looks as if the pole got knocked over and the Corsa drove onto it. But a translation would help!

Can't see any blood so hopefully the driver got no more than a bruise or two. And a hell of a fright!

It was a mature female driver not wearing a seat belt. The pole was already on the floor when she just came along and drove straight into it without seeing it.
The fact she was not wearing the seat belt probably saved her life.

On the subject of surviving due to not wearing a seatbelt this happened to my grandfather (years ago) who would never have gotten out of an upturned car in time before it was crushed by an oncoming truck had he been wearing one.
I have never in my entire life worn a seatbelt as the driver or front seat passenger of any car..I object to it on the grounds of personal freedom, if it were advisory instead of compulsory I might consider it, but we supposedly live in a democracy and this particular law can never be morally enforceable due to the fact that your action in not wearing one cannot directly affect anyone else, it's a nanny state mickey mouse ruling like the crash helmet one, designed to protect you from yourself...what kind of cheek is that ??
I've been done for it about 4 times in all.
Sorry for the rant, I'd like to lobby parliament about it, would anyone else sign a petition ?
Even though I know it wouldn't do a bit of good I'd just like to have a bloody good protest about it, I'm not a revolutionary, I'm all in favour of certain laws like not drinking and driving, not driving un-insured etc...these are all things that can have a detrimental affect on an innocent member of the public other than yourself, but the idea that the state knows what is best for us is just too much...

The way i see it a seat belt would save your life or save you from serious injury in 99% of cases. There will always be the odd case where not wearing one would be better but the odds are against that.

No way would I drive a race car without belts and I feel a lot safer on a track than on a road with idiots all around doing their best to kill you. The M25 around London springs to mind as a good example of that.

This slightly misses my point though Dave, what you're saying is that you feel safer wearing a seatbelt in a car, we all know what the statistics are, but for failure to wear a belt to be a prosecutable offence, supposedly on the grounds that you have neglected to provide for your own safety, is morally wrong...on this basis you could be fined for not brushing your teeth in the morning because you are risking gum disease.

Yeah I see your point about the Nanny State and all that but there is more to it.

Let me argue the opposite view?

Before seat belts and bike helmets were compulsory the death and injury rate was horrific and it was costing us all a fortune because of the costs to the health service and insurance services. Millions in fact.

After the seat belt law came in the costs to the health service went down to a fraction of what it was.

And since then the number of cars on British roads has increased 70%.

Lets take your argument and take it further just for fun.

The law says we should drive on the left in this country. What a cheek eh? Surely it takes away our freedom of choice? If i want to drive my left hand drive Dodge on the "correct" right hand side of the road why shouldn't I be allowed to? We should all have the choice to drive on whatever part of the road we want.

Now that may sound silly. And of course it is. But that is because it is easier to imagine the consequences when it all goes wrong. It is not so easy to see all the effects having an accident without a seat belt can cause.

You may not care what happens.

But your loved ones will.

I care about my insurance premiums going up just because you wouldn't wear a belt.
I care that my Dad cannot get the drugs he needs for his illness because the local health service has run out of funds because of the extra treatment you needed because you were not wearing your belt.

I care that my mother who is terminally ill cannot get a hospital bed because you were not wearing a seat belt.

That is how I would argue the opposite view. If I particulaly cared that is. I just like arguing.

I get both points being made, but it is very easy for people to take their 'freedom' and 'rights' too far.

Dave,
Yours is a reasoned argument, and one that has been put to me before, that we do not have the right to allow ourselves to be injured via our own negligence thereby taking up hospital beds etc. etc., but on that basis shouldn't there be a blanket ban on smoking because of all those who did it to themselves having lung operations and treatment for emphesema at the expense of the non-smoker?
An elected leadership with freedom of choice as it's foremost concern could overcome both sides of this argument by passing a law allowing the police to stop you if they saw you driving without a seatbelt or riding a bike without a crash helmet, and demand to see evidence of your personal private medical insurance, which would exempt you from either restriction due to your being personally liable to the risks to your health and welfare.
Now I would just like to say one thing, despite my grumbling about the un-democratic nature of certain aspects of the law this is still one of the very finest countries in the world...and I speak with some experience having lived and worked in various others......RULE BRITTANIA...

neuralyser wrote:but on that basis shouldn't there be a blanket ban on smoking because of all those who did it to themselves having lung operations and treatment for emphesema at the expense of the non-smoker?

Well they are working on it.

I have to agree with Neuralyser on this point for almost exactly the same reasons. Many years ago ( I think I was about 4 or 5 ) my father had a serious accident in an E-type Jag. Without going into too much detail , the end result was him being forced into the tree lined central reservation of a dual carriageway at about 100mph. After slicing through the first 5 trees the car finally came to a stop and the sixth tree subsequently fell on top of the car crushing it. Luckily , my father was able to lie across the transmission tunnel and the passenger seat and only suffered a broken leg and some minor cuts and bruising. I dread to think what would have happened had he been wearing a belt at the time and been unable to move out of the drivers seat.

There is no argument that occasionally there is an accident where not wearing a seat belt has proved the better option.

The argument is in fact that in 90-odd cases out of 100 you are better off with a seat belt. In particular in a head-on crash. It is a case of playing with the better odds.

If you hit something at any angle which is strong or has high mass then the car is going to decellerate a lot faster than you are and you are going to hit the dash, steering wheel, windshield, and anything in the car you are going to meet as you fly over the bonnet or out the side glass.

The good news is that everything in front of you in a modern car should deform and crush which decellerates you more slowly. The bad news is that if you hit something that is not designed to crush the same way such as a wall or tree or truck or American SUV then your car will crunch up like tin foil as it tries to absord the energy of your car and whatever you have hit.

And if you roll a car your chances are very slim unless you are wearing a belt. You will be like an egg shook around in a tin can.

I am arguing the case for but my personal opinion is divided over if it should be compulsory or not. So go easy on me lads.

It's called devil's advocate, dave...

neuralyser wrote:It's called devil's advocate, dave...

Yeah I know. I just can't spell it.

Christer wrote:

dave-r wrote:Not the sort of accident you see every day.

http://forum.pug205.nl/viewtopic.php?gid=7&did=1304#

The knights of the round table are back! I bet it was an englishman who crashed into the pole in the first place....

More seriously: How did this acually happen? Can anyone translate the text please? Hans?

Before you check out the pictures I will tell you nobody got hurt.

The pole of the lamppost was already down and the lady driving hadn't seen it. The fact she didn't wear her seatbelt saved her life, due the hit she slide to the front / steering wheel so the pole went in just behind her.

Later it's stated that the pole was 'driven down' just a couple of minutes ago by a portugeus truckdriver who shoved it to the side of the road and went on.

That's the translation guys.

But ehh...Dave, what are you doing hanging out on those kind of forums...

I was directed there Hans. Not normally my kind of thing.

Got pulled up for no belt yesterday...you don't reckon they had been reading my rant and put out a yellow Dodge apb do ya?
30 quid again..

Do you get points for that? I shouldn't think so but I'm interested all the same. Already got 6!

Chuck_Key wrote:Do you get points for that? I shouldn't think so but I'm interested all the same. Already got 6!

My god...if you got points for it as well I think I'd take it to the European court of human rights...no, it's what is termed a "non-endorseable offence"
although even with it being (wrongly) against the law I think the word offence is wrong, it should be just misdemeanour.
Interestingly the Irish do regard it as an endorsable offence for some reason.
I've learned my lesson about giving coppers a piece of my mind about the ethics of enforcing the seat belt law when I get stopped, cos I had one a few years ago who went all over the car until he found something else to book me on, now when they asked me why I wasn't wearing it I just said I forgot.