CY 187 761 Mazda Double Cab

[Nayr]

I am fully on board with the issue of calling on a cell being dangerous behind the wheel and thus endangering others. Therefore it makes sense for it to be illegal.

 

However I do not see the rationale for driving without a seat belt being illegal. One only endangers oneself when doing so and I do not see any increased risk to any other road user. That leaves a potential argument around the cost of messing yourself up…but if you are privately insured, you effectively pay for this yourself.

 

That only leaves the (IMHO) flimsy argument that the non-wearing of a seat belt results in more people getting seriously hurt and thus would drive up the premium. In reality a serial non seatbelt wearer would probably booted out of his insurance prior to any impact on the overall economics of the insurance business.

 

So the question I have is whether making a seat belt compulsory is just a manifestation of a nanny state or is there a justification I am missing?

 

PS, I am not debating whether it is intelligent or not to wear your seat belt…and I do wear mine  

 

Yes, it's the job of the country to protect it's citizens, i guess this is one way. Just like committing suicide is illegal, although never heard of a case of someone being prosecuted for this offense 

[Skubarra]

 

However I do not see the rationale for driving without a seat belt being illegal. One only endangers oneself when doing so and I do not see any increased risk to any other road user. That leaves a potential argument around the cost of messing yourself up…but if you are privately insured, you effectively pay for this yourself.

 

 

The problem is you do not live in isolation, if you get hurt there are people other than yourself also gets negatively impacted.

 

There is a cost to the economy if the state or your medical aid has to pay for the ambulance picking you up, for the hospital costs you incur. If you are disabled there is a burden on the state or your family to look after you, a burden on your employer that has to pay you while you can't work. If you die your employer has to incur cost to replace you or if you are an employer people might be out of a job. Your dependents now need someone else to take care of them placing a burden on someone else. I can go on but I assume you get my drift.

[Hackster]

I am fully on board with the issue of calling on a cell being dangerous behind the wheel and thus endangering others. Therefore it makes sense for it to be illegal.

 

However I do not see the rationale for driving without a seat belt being illegal. One only endangers oneself when doing so and I do not see any increased risk to any other road user. That leaves a potential argument around the cost of messing yourself up…but if you are privately insured, you effectively pay for this yourself.

 

That only leaves the (IMHO) flimsy argument that the non-wearing of a seat belt results in more people getting seriously hurt and thus would drive up the premium. In reality a serial non seatbelt wearer would probably booted out of his insurance prior to any impact on the overall economics of the insurance business.

 

So the question I have is whether making a seat belt compulsory is just a manifestation of a nanny state or is there a justification I am missing?

 

PS, I am not debating whether it is intelligent or not to wear your seat belt…and I do wear mine  

Sjoe, that's a whole different argument.

 

I guess the response is that there's a societal consequence to your action of not wearing a seatbelt. You will die or be severly injured in a car crash and this will place a load on your nearest and dearest, and the state.

 

Perhaps the same reasons behind why wearing a helmet is mandatory.

[dre]

Well, post your contradicting studies then...

 

My own experience informs me that talking on a cell and a hands free are equally distracting.

 

If you read any of the studies quoted, you'll see that they make the point about it being 'distracted driving', and you're pretty much equally distracted whether on cell or hands-free.

 

So although there's no law against (yet), I try to avoid using either while driving. I confess I'm not 100% clean on this score.

 

This is probably the same reason why I have to ask my GF to stop talking to me when I'm trying to park. And the same reason why there were so many accidents on the M5 when that lingerie billboard was up a few years back.

 

If you're distracted, your driving is kukkerig.

 

Haha I do this too. Also, I turn the music down if I'm looking for street names.

[BBN]

Haha I do this too. Also, I turn the music down if I'm looking for street names.

I assumed that this was just a sign of me getting old......and of course that we men can't multitask, except for riding and shouting at driver on cellphones!

[TK-Sp3cialiSt]

Just something i remember watching from our good friends the Mythbusters, maybe not 100% conclusive, but give a bit of an idea of their conclusion at the end

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5T14GDWymg

[Kranswurm]

Here's another sweeping comment for you Krans. I don't cycle in a gang. 98% of my riding I prefer doing solo and the other cycling nuts I get to call cycling mates all share the view that driving and USING a cell phone is not even an option, let alone an educated debate.

 

But I'll follow that sweeping statement up with another just for you. This joint is known as THE HUB, which is a site that caters towards a cycling mindset and as much as we all have a wildly different perspective on what our own individual virtues and morals are, we do ALL share a commonality. Our collective @sses love to be on a saddle with 2 wheels beneath us. As a fellow 2 wheel enthusiast I take it you just love that on the edge feeling of impending death when a fellow driver unknowingly cruises by jabbering on his cell phone, missing you by a ball hair and you feel that rush of air then...  Warm and fuzzy for you perhaps. Me, not so much thanks...

Not sure if I made myself clear......but not once have I suggested that driving while talking on a cell is acceptable.Exactly the opposite,however,to imply that serious cylists do not do so is ridiculous,even this warm and fuzzy little Hub you embrace, is full of law breakers and hypocrits.

[Jacques@ACT]

Are you mad!!!!!

 

Are you seriously equating talking on your cellphone while stationary, with murder, kidnapping and assault?????

 

I see now why you intervened in the first place. You live in this hazy-crazy twilight world where littering is the same as stabbing someone in the face.

 

What kind of imbecilic world do you live in?

I think the point people are trying to make is regardless of being at a red light or not, the fact is that it is against the law to talk on your phone while being in control of a car. Would you have the same attitude if it was a police officer telling you not to do it (in a dream world maybe....we will be lucky to see a police officer).

 

What is wrong with someone asking another person not to break the law?

[Tubehunter]

Not sure if I made myself clear......but not once have I suggested that driving while talking on a cell is acceptable.Exactly the opposite,however,to imply that serious cylists do not do so is ridiculous,even this warm and fuzzy little Hub you embrace, is full of law breakers and hypocrits.

 

Dude, as fun as it sometimes is to choose to be deliberately witty and pick an argument, nitpicking phrases of texts and dissecting them to hypothosize all manner of theory, I'll put it to you as simply as I can.

 

Would you like to see the roads we cycle on safer?

If your answer is yes, than I don't care how or what is said, but every bit of controversy and instance that leads to debate is useful in breaking the mindset of those who deliberately choose to endanger our lives, however subconscious their choice is even.

 

You can also wax lyrical about the agendas of the many members to this site, but dysfunctional as it is, it is a community. You can choose to be pessimistic about the intention and validity of any message here and argue the merits on that. Your choice. I'll keep being optimistic that even a small change somewhere will make the world of difference for just one person and their family and loved ones somewhere and deal with it on that basis!

 

The HUB warm and fuzzy....?? We've both been here too long dude!

[DoubleDee]

There are people that obey the law and you get people that don't! The guy in the bakkie was breaking the law, the guy on the bike has every right to remind the guy in the bakkie that he is breaking the law, in fact it should be our responsibility to remind those people who are breaking the law. I think all of those people who are calling the OP self righteous etc etc are maybe also guilty of breaking the law at some point and are trying to justify their actions with,' but everybody does it!" If we all consciously try and be law abiding, maybe, just maybe our country would be a better place to live? Just saying!

[BLACKvoodoo]

I usually don't remind people of the law , although maybe we should as mentioned by DD.  

I do however get very vocal when I see a toddler standing between the driver and passenger seats in a moving vehicle. Unfortunately not only that but the  "parents" are usually puffing away on a cigarette with all the windows rolled up.

In some cases you receive a barrage of swearing from the two , so they're not giving that child a fair shot at maybe becoming an abiding citizen or even living beyond it's next birthday.  

 

#badparenting

[Wannabe]

Typical Seff Efricans. Trying to defend the indefensible and then getting upset when they are proven to be wrong / breaking the law.

 

If you are driving in your car with your "Yuppie Oorbel" plakked against your ear, and someone in another car hoots at you and show you it's a no-no, that someone else might be me. Don't get upset with me, 'cause I'll continue tooting my horn until you put the phone down.

 

Just this afternoon I chased after a cyclist that skipped a red traffic light (he actually had to do a trackstand in the middle of the crossing to prevent him being run over). When I caught up to him I gave him a good earfull. He at first wanted to get defensive, but soon realised the foolishness of his actions, and muttered an apology.

Will it stop him from doing it again? I dunno, but I hope that he will be a bit more circumspect in future.

[BBN]

'Circumspect'.........good word, I are lurning some good fings on vis Hubsa.

[javadude]

Smimby. ...I salute you dude ...you did the right thing. ....tomorrow that dude knocks one of us whilst on the phone ...then we want to we want to hang him....you probably save someone's life ..

 

Do you think he's going to stop? How self righteous must anyone be to think they have that kind of authority or power over others. Whats worse, he doesn't know who Smimby is, all he sees is another one of those self righteous elitist cyclist pr!cks who now have an even bigger target on their backs. I wonder if Smimby is going be there to rescue the day when Mr Mazda Double Cab has had enough of cyclists and nudges one off the road.

[SAGecko]

I really try to stay within the confines of the law. Laws are put in place by society to protect that society from the excesses of itself. I would be seriously stupid to debate the veracity of the law. I fully and totally agree with the ban on driving or even being stationary with your phone glued to your ear (hence my BT system). I am a law abiding citizen and I am often disappointed by the wild west attitude of some of my fellow South Africans. And I most certainly don't agree with anyone who rationalises their illegal acts with "Well, it's fine cos everybody"s doing it".

 

That said, very occasionally I do go a little over the speed limit. It's illegal to do so!

 

I have jumped a red robot (once) in the dead of night. Also illegal.

 

Sometimes I don't come to a complete stop at the junction at the top of my road (just crawling over it, mind you, and in a private estate, but still). Breaking the law!

 

I have overtaken on the left on a highway when I couldn't stand to be behind the slow driver in the right-hand lane. This is contrary to the law.

 

And probably quite a few other infractions that don't immediately come to mind.

 

All of these things are illegal and I can only be glad that certain members of the Hub weren't nearby to yell into my open car window and vociferously point out the error of my ways.

 

And from the tone of his posts, I can only conclude that the OP has never broken the law on any occasion. Has never transgressed in any way, however slight and thus has a right to be smug, self-righteous and sanctimonious, even in this instance. If that is indeed the case Smimby, I apologise whole-heartedly for my unwarranted diatribe.

[Patchelicious]

And from the tone of his posts, I can only conclude that the OP has never broken the law on any occasion. Has never transgressed in any way, however slight and thus has a right to be smug, self-righteous and sanctimonious, even in this instance. If that is indeed the case Smimby, I apologise whole-heartedly for my unwarranted diatribe.

The laws that the OP has broken or not broken is not the topic of conversation here.

 

The way the guy acted and reacted to it being pointed out is.

 

By your own logic, you cannot call him smug if you have ever been smug, not even once.