Topic ID 3068
Hertfordshire Constabulary are actively targetting drivers who do not wear seat belts this week. http://www.herts.police.uk/crimedatabase/site/content.php?article_id=3946
Reply ID 44221
I hope they target mobile phone users as well, we seem to be getting more and more drivers using them in Hertford as the drive. Old Cross seems to be a favourite place to spot them negotiating the lights while using one hand for the phone!
Reply ID 44234
Is there something about today?? I have seen 3 separate drives without seat belts and using mobiles, one in waltham Cross and 2 in Hertford................maybe they are targeting the wrong places, I think they need to stand by traffic lights that seems to be a favourite place to spot them!
Reply ID 44235
They could also do with tackling parents who dont use the apprioate car seat with young childern.
Reply ID 44236
quote:Looks like the press release has been removed
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Hertfordshire Constabulary are actively targetting drivers who do not wear seat belts this week. http://www.herts.police.uk/crimedatabase/site/content.php?article_id=3946
Reply ID 44237
It is still there just doesn't work on that link, you can find it elsewhere on the site, at least you could yesterday. here 3rd from bottom http://www.herts.police.uk/crimedatabase/site/content.php
Reply ID 44239
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44244
quote:I see your point but you don't see many motorcyclist on the phone though...................
Originally posted by shunt
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44246
quote:I quite agree Marilyn. However there are plenty of cyclists on Hertford's roads on the phone, without lights, cycling the wrong way etc etc... I'm generalising but, in my experience, motorcyclists usually tend to have a bit of self-preservation and common sense. Cyclists on the other hand tend not to, although there are some responsible cyclists on the roads too. All you need is the combination of a dazzling security light and a cyclist without lights going the wrong way, and it won't matter if you're wearing a seatbelt or not!
[i]I see your point but you don't see many motorcyclist on the phone though...................
Reply ID 44250
quote:I was thinking of seatbelts. My first cars didn't have them. I'm also a motorcyclist and I ride a pushbike without a helmet, I smoke and don't use sunscreen[:0]. Egad, it's a miracle I'm still alive!....or maybe some these things are less dangerous when approached with an understanding of personal risk and are my own responsibility anyway. Now, if I were to put others at risk, by driving whilst using a mobile phone, I'd expect the state to intevene.
Originally posted by Marilynquote:I see your point but you don't see many motorcyclist on the phone though...................
Originally posted by shunt
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44251
quote:I find motorcyclists are the most courteous on the road probably because they are more vulnerable and aware of the conditions and the traffic. I find those who have spent significant time on two wheels in traffic tend to be safer on four wheels. However.........if motorcyclists are so aware of their vulnerability why do they weave in and out of vehicles at speed, crossing the lanes and undertaking? Surely the logical thing to do is to reduce the risk and vulnerability by staying in the lane and not undertaking.
Originally posted by shunt
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44252
quote:An interesting point, but the opposite might also be true; someone who decides that the rules don't apply to them and that they don't need to wear a seatbelt probably believes other rules, such as speed limits, red traffic lights, mobile phone laws etc. also don't apply to them. Far from making them "more aware of their own vulnerability" and therefore safer, they in fact pose more of a danger to others. (Incidentally, by your logic, the state should enforce seatbelt use in the back of cars but not in the front.)
Originally posted by shunt
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44253
quote:The key is in the word "rules". People will break rules for the sake of it, but they are less likely to risk their own life. Jumping a red light is more likely than risking being hit by an 50mph 18 wheeler by not looking at a crossroads without any statutory traffic signals. The risk of a 30mph accident is some bent metal, three points and and an insurance claim, if everybody involved is in a car with seatbelts; hence the motorist with that protection is more likely to take the risk. For a motorcyclist, cyclist or pedestrian, the risk is the loss of limb or death. As for motorcyclists moving through traffic, they are permitted to do so, if the traffic is stationary or moving in queues. The greater manouverabilty of a bike makes this possible and permissable. Generally it is lack of awareness of car drivers or their road rage which causes the hazzard. I often see motorists deliberately obstructing. There are always some motorcyclists who take stupid risks however, or attempt it when the traffic is moving at higher speeds. We call them "organ doners". As the driver of a car, you take on the responsibility for the safety of everyone inside, and outside, that vehicle.
Originally posted by Jobyquote:An interesting point, but the opposite might also be true; someone who decides that the rules don't apply to them and that they don't need to wear a seatbelt probably believes other rules, such as speed limits, red traffic lights, mobile phone laws etc. also don't apply to them. Far from making them "more aware of their own vulnerability" and therefore safer, they in fact pose more of a danger to others. (Incidentally, by your logic, the state should enforce seatbelt use in the back of cars but not in the front.)
Originally posted by shunt
It is interesting that something which was acceptable is now on a "crime" database. We do have a habit of making laws to address survivability of accidents, rather than avoiding them in the first place. On the introduction of seatbelts, the accident rate went up, as people felt more secure and drove more carelessly. I suppose being lined up with a non-collapsible steering column with no belt was contributing to the sharpness of the senses somewhat. Motorcyclists rarely find themselves "dropping off" because they are always aware of their vulnerability and are not rummaging through handbags, unwrapping chewing gum, singing along to the radio or anything else but concentrating on avoiding being struck by those who are. Belted, surrounded by air-bags, crumple zones, side protection bars, soundproofing and a good music system;- standards drop as the illusion of invincibility increases.......IMO.
Reply ID 44254
quote:I am not referring to situations where some lanes to the left are moving faster than those to the right. In these cases all vehicles are permitted to remain in the left lane and move with the speed of the traffic. I am clearly referring to weaving in and out, undertaking and driving between lanes, between vehicles. According to The Highway Code rules specific for motorcycles: 242: Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake. It specifically states, "Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake". Unless there is some other legislation that overides The Highway Code then I guess 'do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake' is quite conclusive. In the absence of such perhaps you have inadvertently highlighted the problem. Perhaps motorcyclists think it is permissable to weave in and out and undertake. Let us also not forget that while drivers on 4 wheels or more (let's not limit it to just car drivers) are afforded greater safety they are not the only road users who have responsibility for the safety of everyone inside and outside the vehicle. All road users have that responsibility, including motorcyclists and even cyclists.
Originally posted by shunt
As for motorcyclists moving through traffic, they are permitted to do so, if the traffic is stationary or moving in queues. The greater manouverabilty of a bike makes this possible and permissable. Generally it is lack of awareness of car drivers or their road rage which causes the hazzard. I often see motorists deliberately obstructing. There are always some motorcyclists who take stupid risks however, or attempt it when the traffic is moving at higher speeds. We call them "organ doners". As the driver of a car, you take on the responsibility for the safety of everyone inside, and outside, that vehicle.
Reply ID 44256
I thought I made the distinction of traffic in queues adequately, as opposed to undertaking moving traffic. Watch a police motorcyclist in London for examples. In a non-emergency situation he'll follow traffic when it's moving, but not sit at the back when it's not. I'm not exempting anyone. There's some pretty poor motorcyclists out there too. What I find difficult is that, with roads increasingly designed to favour four-wheeled users at the expense of safety for other road users, we still concentrate on car occupant survivabiity above all else. I agree with your point on responsibility of all drivers, but my point was that if the driver and occupants of a car are cossetted against the risk to themselves, the less likely they are to be aware of the risk the vehicle poses to others. If I crash my car my family might be saved by the seat belts, but the biker/pedestrian/cyclist I hit won't be. Only my alertness, skill and care can save him. On my bike, the likelihood of my own injury is higher than that of injuring others. My awareness of what other road users are doing and the hazzards they may present are instinctively sharpened as a result. I'd rather see the police targeting something that is a danger to everyone, rather than just to the offender.
Reply ID 44286
The Highway Code is not the Law, it is mostly a voluntary code of conduct - although some of the rules are underpinned by traffic laws.