Options

Thirty years of compulsory seatbelts.

John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
Forum Member
✭✭✭✭
Today marks 30 years since it became a legal requirement to 'clunk click for every trip'..........
It seems odd that something so obviously sensible took so long to become compulsory.

When does the law banning drivers from using mobile phones when in charge of a vehicle start?:rolleyes::mad:
«1

Comments

  • Options
    turquoiseblueturquoiseblue Posts: 2,431
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How ironic that it was JS who was in the original advert.
  • Options
    pinkyponk34pinkyponk34 Posts: 1,244
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ironic how ?
  • Options
    koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    When does the law banning drivers from using mobile phones when in charge of a vehicle start?:rolleyes::mad:

    I thought there already was one?

    Or is it just covered under the dangerous driving rules?
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blIGVBAMHvA

    This ad always freaked me out as a child together with the one featuring the hammer smashing into an apple.:o
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    I thought there already was one?

    Or is it just covered under the dangerous driving rules?

    I was being facetious because it drives me mad seeing drivers doing it and it's always taxi drivers and 'white van men' who seem to be the worst offenders.:mad:
  • Options
    Pull2OpenPull2Open Posts: 15,138
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    I was being facetious because it drives me mad seeing drivers doing it and it's always taxi drivers and 'white van men' who seem to be the worst offenders.:mad:

    Ironically (and I think this really is irony this time!;)), Taxi drivers are exempt from wearing seatbelts while they have a fare!
  • Options
    Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    I was being facetious because it drives me mad seeing drivers doing it and it's always taxi drivers and 'white van men' who seem to be the worst offenders.:mad:

    How many accidents have you been in as a result of these white van men and taxi drivers?
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 29,701
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    I was being facetious because it drives me mad seeing drivers doing it and it's always taxi drivers and 'white van men' who seem to be the worst offenders.:mad:

    They are the worst, especially taxi drivers! Half the taxi drivers I see in London are on their bloody phone :mad:
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    How many accidents have you been in as a result of these white van men and taxi drivers?

    None but strangely I don't actually seek out avoidably dangerous situations.........:rolleyes::sleep:
  • Options
    Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    maurice45 wrote: »
    They are the worst, especially taxi drivers! Half the taxi drivers I see in London are on their bloody phone :mad:

    If half are on their phone, it cant be that unsafe, or there would be far more accidents.
  • Options
    gasheadgashead Posts: 13,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    Today marks 30 years since it became a legal requirement to 'clunk click for every trip'..........
    It seems odd that something so obviously sensible took so long to become compulsory.

    When does the law banning drivers from using mobile phones when in charge of a vehicle start?:rolleyes::mad:
    That's what happens with new laws though, isn't it, no matter how sensible they seem. How long were we using mobile phones and driving whilst drunk before laws were brought in banning it? Even now, you still can drink and drive, and what about drugs? Is there a specific ban on driving under the influence of them? These things always take years of research into the impact of making it illegal versus not* before a decision is reached. It may seem obvious now, but it presumably wasn't for a long time. Even now, there are people who still defend their right not to wear one, so I can imagine the outcry at the nanny state interfering before the act came in.

    ETA - * consider the compulsory wearing of helmets whilst cycling. One argument is that lives would/could be saved, whilst another says that cycling use would go down if it was made compulsory.
  • Options
    Pumping IronPumping Iron Posts: 29,891
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    None but strangely I don't actually seek out avoidably dangerous situations.........:rolleyes::sleep:

    So how do you avoid these white van men? Do you just run away and hide till the danger passes?
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    If half are on their phone, it cant be that unsafe, or there would be far more accidents.

    But people are fully aware it's illegal and it's odd behaviour for people who would be out of work if they lost their licence...........:sleep:
  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    John Dough wrote: »
    Today marks 30 years since it became a legal requirement to 'clunk click for every trip'..........
    It seems odd that something so obviously sensible took so long to become compulsory.

    Only to vehicles with fitted belts as standard.
  • Options
    John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,606
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    So how do you avoid these white van men? Do you just run away and hide till the danger passes?

    I do yes.:rolleyes::sleep:
  • Options
    turquoiseblueturquoiseblue Posts: 2,431
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ironic how ?

    Clunk Click was the slogan for his series of public safety information broadcasts on the importance of wearing your seatbelt. The clue is in public safety!
  • Options
    nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    John Dough wrote: »
    When does the law banning drivers from using mobile phones when in charge of a vehicle start?:rolleyes::mad:

    I was wondering why you had added that link to the mobile phone website ... but you hadn't.

    Its just DS's new advert software that makes it look like an ordinary hyperlink that you have added yourself.
  • Options
    JELLIES0JELLIES0 Posts: 6,709
    Forum Member
    How many accidents have you been in as a result of these white van men and taxi drivers?

    Coincidentally my wife came home lunchtime complaining about some idiot white van driver who had nearly collided with her and her friend. It was quite clearly his fault too before you ask !
  • Options
    exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    JELLIES0 wrote: »
    Coincidentally my wife came home lunchtime complaining about some idiot white van driver who had nearly collided with her and her friend. It was quite clearly his fault too before you ask !

    Were you there then?
  • Options
    Richard46Richard46 Posts: 59,834
    Forum Member
    it is only thirty years. Seems much longer mainly I suspect because although some people resisted to the end a lot of people (including me) had been using them as second nature for years by 1983. Front belts had been compulsory fitments in new cars for 18 years by then.
  • Options
    [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 12,830
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The only person who survived the Diana crash was the one wearing a seatbelt.
  • Options
    mackaramackara Posts: 4,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    40 years ago motorcycle helmets became compulsory for most of us yet people on pushbikes are not forced to wear them, considering the number of cyclists on the roads they should be compulsory imo
  • Options
    shhhhhshhhhh Posts: 3,752
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    mackara wrote: »
    40 years ago motorcycle helmets became compulsory for most of us yet people on pushbikes are not forced to wear them, considering the number of cyclists on the roads they should be compulsory imo

    Its a known fact that car drivers dont give as much room to cyclists who wear helmets.
  • Options
    mackaramackara Posts: 4,063
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    shhhhh wrote: »
    Its a known fact that car drivers dont give as much room to cyclists who wear helmets.

    First time I ever heard of that, do you have a link?
  • Options
    nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mackara wrote: »
    First time I ever heard of that, do you have a link?

    Here's the one study I found ... Cycle helmets - a hard case to crack
    Dr Walker conducted a study looking into how cyclists wearing a helmet affect the behaviour of drivers. He found that for those wearing a helmet, motorists drove much closer when overtaking.

    "In absolute terms they got 8-9cm closer than they did when I wasn't wearing one," he explains, "And the proportion of vehicles getting within a really close distance went up considerably."
Sign In or Register to comment.