Police operation catches drivers (From thisisoxfordshire)

They should come and sit on Thames Street, or St. Aldates, they could hand out more than that in a morning

Ticket Mobile phone users of course, but surely not wearing a seatbelt only affects yourself, and should be your choice, a bit like cycle helmets.

paul from Kennington wrote:
Ticket Mobile phone users of course, but surely not wearing a seatbelt only affects yourself, and should be your choice, a bit like cycle helmets.

I'm sure those who deal with the aftermath of someone going through a windscreen will entirely agree with you.

Sid Hunt wrote:

paul from Kennington wrote:
Ticket Mobile phone users of course, but surely not wearing a seatbelt only affects yourself, and should be your choice, a bit like cycle helmets.

I'm sure those who deal with the aftermath of someone going through a windscreen will entirely agree with you.

And what about those who deal with scraped skulls after cyclists fall off, or if we are going to take your thread onwards, those who deal with drunks at the weekend, or with people at deaths door due to smoking, or people run over on country roads because they were wearing dark clothes. Where does it end Sidney Lad. WE, YES YOU AND ME AND ALL OF US, have our own lives, and we all pay our way, if we want to risk our own health then it is up to us if it does not put any other person in danger. May I ask you a question?. You are in favour of fining drivers that put only themselves in danger by not wearing seatbelts, "but are you in favour of fining Cyclists that do not wear helmets (as their motorised cousins are) and fining pedestrians walking along country roads without Hi-Vis jackets, and should alcohol and nicotene be illegal due to the suffering caused to those loved ones who lose their parents? I hope that you did not fall victim to Blair's nannyism as most of the uninformed populace seemed to have done, I had you down as far more educated than that.

I hadn't realised that I had said so much (probably because I actually hadn't), however, I will endeavour to respond to your rather vociferous retort.

Your comment " but surely not wearing a seatbelt only affects yourself" is without foundation. The potential consequences from not wearing a seatbelt can be far-reaching. Assuming you have family, friends, etc. do you not believe that they would be affected by your loss of life or limb or suffering serious injury? If your not wearing a seatbelt results in injury to others (e.g. as a rear passenger being thrown against a front passenger) how is it only you that is affected? Why would you entertain such risks when the simple act of wearing a seatbelt would mitigate them?

Aside from the impact on those immediately involved, there is the impact on those who have to clear up the mess - police, fire, medical, etc. as well as the monetary costs which affects all of us. Seatbelts have been proven to save lives and reduce injuries, the responsible thing to do is to wear them.

I do not wear a helmet whilst on a bicycle but I do whilst on a motorcycle. I can not see how so-called cycle helmets offer any protection given the current designs available and there is no evidence that they are effective.

I agree we should live our own lives but with that we should also be responsible for our own actions and for the potential consequences of those actions. That includes "walking along country roads without Hi-Vis jackets" - I have done this on many occasions but I get out of the way when a vehicle is approaching, it would be rather silly not to.

Drinking and smoking are personal choices - again it is up to the individual to be responsible for their behaviour and appreciate its consequences.

BTW, I passed my driving test before the introduction of the seat belt law and long before Blair appeared on the scene.