 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / July 2009Drivers warned over car loading
A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an accident.The obvious danger,is if the car/van is involved in a head on;any objects in the rear can act as lethal missiles. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172025.stm Bod >A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be and >also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an accident.The [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bod Has John Prescott told his insurers how much he weighs? >>A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be and >>also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an accident.The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Has John Prescott told his insurers how much he weighs? All he drives is one of his two big heavy Jags, he's not called Two-Jags for nothing. Regards Mike. >A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be >and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an >accident.The obvious danger,is if the car/van is involved in a head >on;any objects in the rear can act as lethal missiles. > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172025.stm An accident once happened directly outside our office. The priority at a Y junction had been altered and the old road markings burnt off. However during heavy rain in the pitch dark they re-appear looking shiny in the sodium light just like the new white lines. With the result that two cars on conflicting paths crashed into each other. One was a ford cortina estate which was full of old loose clutch disks to the rear of the drivers seat. During the impact they all flew forward, breaking the windscreen from the inside and striking and crushing the drivers hands against the stearing wheel. His hands were completely buggered. Many family motorists dutifully put their suitcases in the boot but without any other constraint. they don't realise that the back parcels shelf is probably only compressed paper, and the back seats may well fold forward only held by a plastic latch. It is quite a common occurrence in an accident involving sudden decelleration for a driver or passenger to be killed when he cops a 35 pound suitcase in the back of the neck travelling at 72+ mph. Derek >> A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be >> and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Derek On the same theme,it highlights the importance of the rear passengers to have their belts on.Sometimes it's a rear passenger catapulting into the front occupants that does the more damage,even killing the ones in front,where-as they may have survived or been less injured had the rears been belted. Bod Bod formulated on Tuesday : > On the same theme,it highlights the importance of the rear passengers to > have their belts on.Sometimes it's a rear passenger catapulting into the > front occupants that does the more damage,even killing the ones in > front,where-as they may have survived or been less injured had the rears been > belted. I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt (if old enough to have a choice), but certainly no one is allowed to travel behind me unless wearing a belt.  SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Bod formulated on Tuesday : >> On the same theme,it highlights the importance of the rear passengers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to have a choice), but certainly no one is allowed to travel behind me > unless wearing a belt. Could backfire on you should your car roll.The front passenger could possibly turn into a missile and injure or kill you. Bod > I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt Then you're an idiot. The driver is responsible for the vehicle and everything in it. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. >> I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt > > Then you're an idiot. The driver is responsible for the vehicle and > everything in it. I thought that the law recognised the impossibility of the driver insisting that grown adults use their seat belts. He's still an idiot though tim > >> I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought that the law recognised the impossibility of the driver insisting > that grown adults use their seat belts. The driver is responsible for the vehicle and its occupants. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. >>>> I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > The driver is responsible for the vehicle and its occupants. Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat belt. Brimstone pretended : >>>>> I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt >>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat belt. Is the correct answer. The driver is responsible for (I think) under 14 year olds wearing their seat belts. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > > Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat belt. > > Is the correct answer. The driver is responsible for (I think) under 14 > year olds wearing their seat belts. You're both wrong. The driver is responsible for ensuring that the vehicle is legal and complies with the RTA which includes passengers. Please feel free to provide actual evidence otherwise. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. >>> Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat belt. >> Is the correct answer. The driver is responsible for (I think) under 14 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Please feel free to provide actual evidence otherwise. Found this on DirGov site: The law - seat belts and child restraints The law requires that drivers and passengers aged 14 and over in cars, vans and other commercial vehicles must wear a seatbelt if available. As a driver you are responsible for ensuring that anyone under the age of 14 wears a seat belt or use an appropriate child restraint as required in the regulations. On 18 September 2006, the law concerning children using seat belts and child restraints changed. Find out more about the new law and your responsibilities as a driver on the link below. http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/AdviceOnKeepingYourVehicle/D G_4022064 Bod >>>> Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat >>>> belt. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Bod I don't care what it says. In my car, you wear a belt or walk. If I'm to cock up and crash, I don't want you to get injured or die. So you wear a belt. MIke P >>>>> Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat >>>>> belt. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > MIke P I totally agree.The same rule applies in my car "Belt up or,on yer bike". Bod > I totally agree.The same rule applies in my car "Belt up or,on yer bike". <aol> Me too. </aol> SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. >> I totally agree.The same rule applies in my car "Belt up or,on yer bike". >> > <aol> > Me too. > </aol> Everyone wears a belt in my car too - but you were still very wrong! SignatureMrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi Bod has brought this to us : > The law requires that drivers and passengers aged 14 and over in cars, vans > and other commercial vehicles must wear a seatbelt if available. As a driver > you are responsible for ensuring that anyone under the age of 14 wears a seat > belt or use an appropriate child restraint as required in the regulations. Which is the same as when I first read it and my reading of it suggests the driver is NOT responsible for ensuring the wearing of seat belts by anyone 14+. As the driver and the person responsible for the vehicle you could of course insist they wear seat beats by refusing to carry them. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Bod has brought this to us : > > The law requires that drivers and passengers aged 14 and over in cars, vans [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the driver is NOT responsible for ensuring the wearing of seat belts by > anyone 14+. Wrong. The driver is responsible for everything to do with the vehicle. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. >> Bod has brought this to us : >>> The law requires that drivers and passengers aged 14 and over in cars, vans [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Wrong. The driver is responsible for everything to do with the vehicle. RTA 14 (3) A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence; but, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, no person other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention. Nick Finnigan has brought this to us : >>> Bod has brought this to us : >>>> The law requires that drivers and passengers aged 14 and over in cars, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by > reason of the contravention. Go on then, how do you interpret that quoted paragraph? SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk > Nick Finnigan has brought this to us : >>>> Bod has brought this to us : [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Go on then, how do you interpret that quoted paragraph? Who, me? that the driver is NOT responsible for ensuring the wearing of seatbelts by anyone 14+. Nor can the SoS change the regulations to make anyone other than the non-wearer responsible. Nor can the police interpret any general 'unsafe carriage' regulations to make the driver responsible. Nick Finnigan pretended : > Who, me? Yep! Wasn't sure whether you thought that the section you pasted supported my own interpretation or not. > that the driver is NOT responsible for ensuring the wearing of > seatbelts by anyone 14+. Nor can the SoS change the regulations to make > anyone other than the non-wearer responsible. Nor can the police interpret > any general 'unsafe carriage' regulations to make the driver responsible. That is exactly how I interpret it, thank you. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk >>> Wrong, the driver is not responsible for other adults wearing a seat belt. >> Is the correct answer. The driver is responsible for (I think) under 14 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Please feel free to provide actual evidence otherwise. RTA 14 (3) A person who drives or rides in a motor vehicle in contravention of regulations under this section is guilty of an offence; but, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law, no person other than the person actually committing the contravention is guilty of an offence by reason of the contravention. (6) Regulations under this section requiring the wearing of seat belts by persons riding in motor vehicles shall not apply to children under the age of fourteen years. >>> I don't insist on a front passenger using the seat belt >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I thought that the law recognised the impossibility of the driver > insisting that grown adults use their seat belts. In my car, they wear a belt or get out and walk. Simple really. > He's still an idiot though Yep. Mike P Mike P presented the following explanation : > In my car, they wear a belt or get out and walk. Simple really. My attitude, but only so far as rear seat passengers are concerned. A front seat passenger not wearing a seat belt is very unlikely to injure anyone else other than themselves in the event of of an accident, even if the vehicle should roll. SignatureRegards, Harry (M1BYT) (L) http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Mike P presented the following explanation : > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- Never wear one, the times plod have stopped me to mention it have only resulted in a bollockings, as yet no action has been taken through the courts. I determine my own level of acceptable risk and I am happy to trade the un-restricted more comfortable drive for the security of a seat belt. (Sadly gone are the days when one could make one's own decisions). Cue bleatings about the cost to NHS etc. > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Cue bleatings about the cost to NHS etc. I used to feel exactly the same way as you but I have slowly warmed to the fact that it does actually make sense to wear one and now it's an automatic thing. If you are carrying passengers,in a way it is being selfish because if your passengers all belted up and you didn't and you were then involved in a nasty crunch.It's possible that you could cause serious injuries to your passengers by being thrown around the car like a missile. Ok, that's a 'drama queen' scenario, but nevertheless, possible. Bod > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the un-restricted more comfortable drive for the security of a seat > belt. You must be huge or fat then, because I'm 6'1 and well built, and I don't notice any restriction or lack of comfort caused by wearing a belt. I feel uncomfortable without one as it goes. > Cue bleatings about the cost to NHS etc. I don't care about costs to the NHS, what your tax and Nat Ins gets spent on is your business, not mine. I'll laugh and say "I told you so" if something hits you hard from behind and throws you through the windscreen though. Mike P >> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Mike P More likely,the rear window. <pedantic mode> Bod > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > don't notice any restriction or lack of comfort caused by wearing a > belt. I feel uncomfortable without one as it goes. Massive extrapolation from zero facts, just because you do/feel/want/ need, may not be the same for others. > > Cue bleatings about the cost to NHS etc. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Mike P Such is free choice, I'm free to assess the risks myself and you are free to smirk if it turns out wrong for me. (I was thrown out of a land rover in a collision many years ago suffering only minor scrapes and abrasions, the car that hit us head on was a write off, land rover severly damaged, car driver badly damaged and hospitalised, he was wearing a seat belt, I consider myself lucky I wasn't or I would have been in the next bed). > > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Massive extrapolation from zero facts, just because you do/feel/want/ > need, may not be the same for others. No, not massive at all. If you're normal sized, how does a belt restrict you? I'm not trolling here, it's a serious question that I don't know the answer to. I could see if you were 6'6" tall and/or extremely rotund, that a standard belt would be a nuisance, likewise if you were 4'9" and it crossed over your face, but I fail to see otherwise how a properly working, well adjusted belt of any sort can be a restriction. I don't even notice it when it's on, I can easily reach across into the glovebox, I can turn round and my movement in the car is not restricted at all, until the inertia reel kicks in and locks if I move quickly. Mike P > > > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Mike P Ok, I'm standard size and construction, after a while the belt aggravates my shoulder and neck, it's restrictive if I want to move around in my seat and I find it hard to reach some objects I want whilst driving. When in the truck having this imposed up to sixteen hours a day then it becomes unacceptable. It's difficult to fill the kettle, make the coffee, stand up and open the roof hatch, adjust the tv aerial, change the DVD, root through the fridge for a snack amoungst other things, in short it make life difficult, I prefer an unsafe comfortable life as opposted to a strictly controlled safe one. >>>>> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > short it make life difficult, I prefer an unsafe comfortable life as > opposted to a strictly controlled safe one. No wonder it hurts your neck and shoulder if you're standing up adjusting the roof hatch/adjusting the tv aerial/filling the kettle and rooting through the fridge whilst driving! :-) Bod > >>>>> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > >>>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > Bod I don't have time or inclination to stop for any of these activities, if you get on the right bit of road like some sections of the M5 where trucks have worn grooves into the n/s lane the truck, on auto pilot, will follow the grooves leaving plenty of time to wander around if necessary. In article <4e77a041-376e-40e5-8303-e3f3b62117e3 @w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, NM says... > When in the truck having this imposed up to sixteen hours a day then > it becomes unacceptable. I'd like to know why the truck ones aren't height adjustable. AFAIR, they're mounted wholly into the seat (no mount points on the cab) so it'd not be that hard to do. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. > In article <4e77a041-376e-40e5-8303-e3f3b62117e3 > @w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, NM says... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they're mounted wholly into the seat (no mount points on the cab) so > it'd not be that hard to do. Yes, very weird that. I'd have thought there'd even be some H&S bollocks to ensure safety and comfort in these overly PC times.. Mike P >> > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield >> > > <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > I could see if you were 6'6" tall and/or extremely rotund, that a > standard belt would be a nuisance, I am 6ft 6 and weight 26 stone - the seat belt fits fine and doesn't restrict me at all - the same for all cars I have driven for 30 years. SignatureMrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi > >> > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield > >> > > <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > MrBitsy > Rover 75 CDTi But you never do anything, if you don't move then you will not experience restriction. > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Cue bleatings about the cost to NHS etc. If you die at the scene of the accident, rather than surviving to require expensive care, it will save money. MBQ >> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > MBQ The trouble is, that there's no guarantee...a wicked gamble; death or possible paraplegic. Bod > >> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The trouble is, that there's no guarantee...a wicked gamble; death or > possible paraplegic. Well indeed.. Years ago (1996?) I was in a Rover 216 that got flipped into a roll and landed on it's roof as we desperately tried to avoid some pillock who'd driven out in front of us in a NSL zone and stopped dead. There was a truck coming the opposite direction, so my friend who was driving (and doing over the NSL, it has to be said) braked hard and tried to squeeze up the pavement between the car that had pulled out and stopped, and the pub. This was a rural road at 7am, so no pedestrians. Unfortunately the car was slightly wider than the footpath and the left front wheel rode up the 2ft high wall, and launched us into a roll . We did a full roll and a half, and landed upside down on the road and slid for maybe 50 yards. If I hadn't been wearing a belt, I wouldn't be typing this. As it was, I just undid the belt, fell onto the roof of the car, and slid out the window with nothing more than a bump on my head and a stiff neck. My friend had the same injuries, but also a cut elbow where his arm had smashed the driver side window. Mike P >>>> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Mike P Or even worse,you could be typing via a straw in your mouth. Bod > >>>> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Bod "could be" but much more than likely, not. > > >>>> On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > >>>> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > "could be" but much more than likely, not. Who knows? I know my laptop that was in it's proper bag, in the back seat of the car suffered a smashed screen and a cracked case from being thrown about. The thomson local directory that was there got ripped too. Mike P > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > MBQ That would apply to justy about anyone in any accident, your point is? > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > belt. (Sadly gone are the days when one could make one's own > decisions). In what way unrestricted? With a belt on I can operate all controls, see all mirrors etc. SignatureMrBitsy Rover 75 CDTi > > On 28 July, 23:41, Harry Bloomfield <harry.m1...@NOSPAM.tiscali.co.uk> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > MrBitsy > Rover 75 CDTi Can you fill the kettle and put the coffee in the pot, including rinsing the pot out of the window? > Bod formulated on Tuesday : >> On the same theme,it highlights the importance of the rear passengers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to have a choice), but certainly no one is allowed to travel behind me > unless wearing a belt. Then you're not very bright. hth Mike P > A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be > and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bod The fine might be worth it if, as the reporter says at 1:06 , you can get "three licence points deducted". That would offset a speeding endorsement. SignatureReentrant > A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be > and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an > accident.The obvious danger,is if the car/van is involved in a head > on;any objects in the rear can act as lethal missiles. Car drivers unaware that they also have to comply with weight limits shocker.... SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. || In article <7d8a9gF2aeteuU1@mid.individual.net>, Bod says... ||| [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] || Car drivers unaware that they also have to comply with weight limits || shocker.... Which weight limits? SignatureRob > || In article <7d8a9gF2aeteuU1@mid.individual.net>, Bod says... > ||| [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Which weight limits? Axle, gross and train weights as specified by the manufacturer AND taxation class weight as specified by VOSA AND maximum vehicle weight you're allowed to drive on your licence as specified by DVLA AS WELL AS any weight restriction, both axle and GTW, you may come across as you travel such as weak bridges. SignatureGOM I'm not prejudiced. I hate everyone equally. > A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be > and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an > accident.The obvious danger,is if the car/van is involved in a head > on;any objects in the rear can act as lethal missiles. Oh FFS. The same bloody warning is raised at this time, every year. <rolls eyes> I wonder why that is? > A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be and > also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an accident.The > obvious danger,is if the car/van is involved in a head on;any objects in > the rear can act as lethal missiles. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8172025.stm What you mean is the BBC have yet again stopped reporting news in favour of being the mouthpiece for another government propaganda campaign. > A lot people don't realise how dangerous that overloading a car can be > and also how it can invalidate your insurance should you be in an [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Bod ...it's called an "insecure load" and is certainly punishable in its own right. McKevvy |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.