London Banter - View Single Post

Piccadilly Pilot · September 11th 04, 08:50 AM posted to uk.transport.london

wrote:
"Piccadilly Pilot" wrote:
Martin J wrote:
What's the explanation given for not wearing a seatbelt, which in
London for drivers would be lucky to get much above 50%?
Are some people lulled into a false sense of safety because of air
bags?
Or is it because they don't understand Isaac Newton's laws of motion
and therefore they don't apply to them?

Perhaps they recognise that the best way to avoid death and injury
is to avoid the collision in the first place and drive defensively.

Perhaps they don't realize that the reason it's called an "accident"
is because it goes against ALL planning. You could be driving
perfectly safe and have a lorry run smack into you!
And if that isn't enough, maybe they should consider that airbags are
only truly effective when use WITH seatbelts... Otherwise the airbag
just bats you about like a ping-pong ball...

One of my favorite quotes: "I wasn't planning on having an accident".
Well, it's like planning an accidental-pregnacy... life is what
happens while you had other things PLANNED. So, just take the
additional safety options available to you... It doesn't really take
that much addition time to use your seat belts... and seat belts have
been known to save lives... is your life worth saving... at least to
you?

I don't plan to have accidents - which they're not. I work to avoid
collisions. I passed my car test in 1975 and have never yet, even when
driving up to 1000 miles a week for my living, been anywhere near a
situation where a belt might have been needed.

It's my belief that drivers should not wear seat belts since they bring
about a false sense of security. All drivers should feel unsafe. If you
think this is some sort of illusion try riding a motorcycle and then driving
a Transit or somesuch. See which one gets the most clearance afforded by car
drivers.

It was interesting that before the wearing of seatbelts was made compulsory
the government published not only the number of deaths and injuries, but the
number of "accidents" as well. Since that time they've stopped publicising
the accident figure. I wonder why?