1 hour ago, brianthainess said:

And using up valuable hospital resources, which as far as i can remember was the reason it became law in the UK.

My point being that people who dont wear seatbelts/helmets dont normally kill other road users. People who drink drive and run red lights for example also take up far more valuable hospital resources and put your life and mine in danger.

19 hours ago, rudi49jr said:

When someone doesn’t wear a seatbelt or helmet in my country and they get in an accident, they can end up in the hospital, when they have serious injuries. Guess who’s going to pay for that? And guess who’s going to pay for it when that person ends up being handicapped and needing help/assistance for the rest of their life?
It’s just plain stupid and irresponsible to not wear a seatbelt or helmet, as far as I’m concerned.

It may be the smallest minority, but what about accidents which have caused death and serious injury to people caused by wearing a seatbelt which has trapped them in the vehicle? I would prefer to be able to duck down if I saw an occasion when something was going to come through the windscreen in front of me.

23 hours ago, Asquith Production said:

This is sheer lunacy. The traffic was pouring out of that junction and the view the motorcyclist and other vehicles had must have been limited. It could only end badly. Why was it so important that he had to stop them there I will never know. Was he going to issue a ticket in the middle of the junction?  As for the no helmet offence I have always said its like seat belts the only person you injure or kill is yourself. Their are far more serious offences.

Id wish it was that easy, but if I hit you with my car and you die then im held responsible. They don't say oh if he had a helmet it would not be that bad so he is partly responsible. (makes things really hard). So its not just you you make trouble for others too in case of an accident. Now if these things were seriously taken into account id agree with you.

15 minutes ago, possum1931 said:

It may be the smallest minority, but what about accidents which have caused death and serious injury to people caused by wearing a seatbelt which has trapped them in the vehicle? I would prefer to be able to duck down if I saw an occasion when something was going to come through the windscreen in front of me.

Like you said its a small minority so it does not make sense not to wear it as in the large majority it saves your life. 

 

What are you saying possum ? That seatbelts should not be mandatory because they save your life most of the time but in rare occasions can cause harm ? That makes no sense at all.

 

I have had my life saved by a seatbelt in Thailand. GF went full speed into a concrete pillar (microsleep with me next to her). If no seatbelts we both would have been launched through the window and dead. I don't need  a law to tell me to wear them as they just make sense only stupid people don't wear them.

 

 

7 hours ago, possum1931 said:

It may be the smallest minority, but what about accidents which have caused death and serious injury to people caused by wearing a seatbelt which has trapped them in the vehicle? I would prefer to be able to duck down if I saw an occasion when something was going to come through the windscreen in front of me.

Weird argument. I think many more lives are saved by wearing a seatbelt, than lives are lost because of wearing a seatbelt. And it’s not as if you’re completely immobile when wearing a seatbelt, is it?