Bottomfeeder

We all wear them right ?

They're in coaches, cars, lorries..etc....


One thing puzzles me though...................

How come it's ok to have a max of 21 people standing on a bus ?

King RA

Cos only chavs use buses, they're expendable

Bottomfeeder

Fappin lurker

King RA

corradoboy

How come bikers don't need them ? You'd have thought with the lack of airbags, anti-sub seats, crumple zones, laminated glass, side impact beams etc. that they would at least conform by wearing a seatbelt to back up their thumbs & ***** in the event of an accident. In these PC times, surely they should be banned from the roads, along with push cyclists who are also mostly unqualified, untaxed and uninsured, and the feckin horse riders

No rules for them, bl00dy thousands for the car driver

Dracoro

Buses generally travel at much lower speeds, many not exceeding 20/30 mph. However, I suspect cost is a big factor and hard to enforce - just imagine a busy london bus and the driver having to check everyone has their belts on! buses would never get anywhere and hold up so much traffic. Don't have them on trains either and only have to use them on take off/landing/turbulence on airplanes.

Bottomfeeder

I get why there are no seat belts on busses or trains....I am more interested in the fact that it is ok to stand up on one whilst it is travelling. I had the misfortune once of being on a coach that made an emergency stop whilst travelling at 5 mph, one minute I was sittin in the middle of the back seat, next i was up with the driver......imagine 21 passengers on a bus standing up and it has to brake suddenly.

Brendan Hughes

It's called population control. What's the problem?

ChrisB

The farther of the young girl killed in the recent level crossing incident is (or was) campaigning to have seat belts fitted in trains.

King RA

ok, how come the bus driver gets a seatbelt, but somebody STANDING next to him doesn't even get a seat?

pugoetru

I hope tony is reading this

Just think of all that fine money he could get

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

A few years ago there was a minibush crash on the M4 all the occupants got out, a fireman said if they had been wearing seatbelts none of them would have got out so maybe there is a reason why seatbelts are not compulsary on coaches and trains.
Also some coaches are fitted with lap belts which are worse than useless and the loading on the floor beams would be horrendous if they had 3 point belts, they would need to reinforce the floor and walls of coaches and trains to provent the floor being ripped out by the force of a crash, this would also increase the weight of said vehicle, can you imagine the loading on the floor if 54 people who were strapped in suddenlly shot forward with a force of 11 tons each. The coach would just bend in the middle causing more injury.

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

because it is safer in an accident to not go with the bike, if you are strapped to it you are in more risk of getting injured.

no rules? what about crashhelmets and staged tests making you ride small cc engined bikes for years before being allow to ride bigger etc..

you muppet!!!!

corradoboy

Ooh, crashhelmets A lot of use when you have a broken back and neck, ruptured spleen and no feckin legs. Too bl00dy right on the staggered testing. Used to be too easy for a spotty 17yr old to jump on a 180mph crotch rocket and fast track his way to the organ donation department at the local NHS. If you're over 21 and have driven cars, isn't this rule waived ? With cars, the cost alone prevents most inexperienced users from acquiring such deadly potential, but exceedingly fast bikes can be had for less than the price of a City Rover !

What I'm getting at, is that cars have a list of specific requirements which must be met by manufacturers before they can legally be sold, let alone all the rules which apply to their use on the highway thereafter. Whereas bikes are simply deathtraps. Don't the official stats read something like, bikes = 4% of road traffic, and 36% of road fatalities

As for cyclists, I'd like to see under 16's restricted to 30mph roads, compulsory testing for 16+ resulting in licensing, taxation and mandatory insurance provision to allow use on 30+ roads. And full back up from the police to enforce correct road use, including legal lighting.

Horses can stay in the fields munching grass

Jolly Green Monster

iTrader: (4)

you have a very blinked attitude..

so hold on you want cars less restricted by legistration, so you can what? drive around with no crash test data input into the design, no air bags and poluting the atmosphere whilst killing pedestrians and killing passengers?

Bikes also have to meet regulations you know..

Unfortunatly these days the people that cannot drive only get injured and are not removed from the jene pool.. the bikers that cannot ride get removed..

I think we should all drive with spikes on the steering wheel rather than air bags.. watch the driving standard improve.

corradoboy

Did I say I wanted less regulations for cars

And pedestrians do a great job of killing themselves. IIRC 80% of all pedestrians killed step out into the traffic, and 86% of those killed or injured after 10pm are over the DD limit But it's always the drivers fault.

Bottomfeeder

.....viable arguments here, from both sides, although all I was saying in my original post was that I found it odd that it is considered safe to be 'stood standing' on a bus !!

But, please keep going