Do unmarked police have to show you ID?

Welsh_Exile

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I almost never wear a seat belt, only slung over my shoulder. Like Crash Helmets, the decision to take safety precautions should be my choice, and not imposed on me by some bloody Nanny State bureaucrat.

Ive been caught twice in 20 years. Im entirely unconvinced the benefits of seat belts out weight the snags, such as getting a crushed chest and broken ribs from it, as well as being trapped in a car and burning to death cos u cant get out.

Bloody Nanny State, wanting to save lives! Health and Safety Gone Mad!!!!


And no doubt the NHS would pick up the bill for your stupidity if you managed to survive a serious accident.
Do you wear a seatbelt when you're a passenger in the back? How would you feel if you killed the driver or front seat passenger?

LincolnshireYokel

Welsh_Exile wrote: »

Bloody Nanny State, wanting to save lives! Health and Safety Gone Mad!!!!

A nanny state is but a police state in a pretty dress. Its the thin end of the wedge in removing your right to choose.

And no doubt the NHS would pick up the bill for your stupidity if you managed to survive a serious accident.

And quite right, since Ive paid into the system all my life. Smokers get treated and thats self inflicted, and im not likely to go round self inflicting RTA injuries. Or are you suggesting the state discriminates against me fior exercising choice?

Do you wear a seatbelt when you're a passenger in the back? How would you feel if you killed the driver or front seat passenger?

I never sit in the back of a vehicle, I dont trust any other driver and i dont desire to delegate my right to choose to drive myself and take responsibility for that.

The_Slithy_Tove

Getting OT, but ...

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I've been caught twice in 20 years. Im entirely unconvinced the benefits of seat belts out weight the snags, such as getting a crushed chest and broken ribs from it, as well as being trapped in a car and burning to death cos u cant get out.

So, your "gut feel" or whatever outweighs all the statistical evidence that shows otherwise?

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

I never sit in the back of a vehicle, I dont trust any other driver...

Says it all, really.

LincolnshireYokel

The_Slithy_Tove wrote: »

Getting OT, but ...
So, your "gut feel" or whatever outweighs all the statistical evidence that shows otherwise?

Well based on the mass of lies we've been told about speeding. i suggest you start treating any statistics produced by the government to prove a case with a large pinch of salt and do your own research instead.

And in my view most other drivers these days are incompetent, and best avoided, which is what i try and do. This is due to the 15 year long dumbing down of the education system by Nu Labour, in order to produce a population of dim obedient sheeple. What we have ended up with is a hoard of drivers under 35 who think its perfectly all right to text and fix your lippy in the rear view mirror whilst doing 60mph down a back street.

spadoosh

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

What we have ended up with is a hoard of drivers under 35 who think its perfectly all right to text and fix your lippy in the rear view mirror whilst doing 60mph down a back street.

And people who think it is appropriate to not where a seat belt, go figure!?!

LincolnshireYokel

spadoosh wrote: »

And people who think it is appropriate to not where a seat belt, go figure!?!

or even 'not wear' it, I assume you were educated by Nu Labour........... I dont go round texting, phoning, performing ablutions in the mirror or doing 60 down back streets. And consequently I am far less of a danger to anyone who does than they are to me.

But it IS the reason my car has front and rear dashcams. If i sent the police all the video footage i captured of peopel doing the above, the resulting fines would probably pay for another copper on the beat.

The_Slithy_Tove

LincolnshireYokel wrote: »

Well based on the mass of lies we've been told about speeding. i suggest you start treating any statistics produced by the government to prove a case with a large pinch of salt and do your own research instead.

Oh, I do. Particularly the claim that reducing the drink drive limit to 50 will save X lives (with no supporting evidence, and no indication of how many road deaths are caused by drivers between 50 and 80). Or the latest one that reducing all rural non-A road limits to 40 will save Y lives - again, no indication of fatals caused by people travelling between the new proposed limit and the old limit (whereas it's likely the fatals are caused by people travelling faster than the old limit, and are just as likely to go just as fast whatever the limit).

However, some of your other posts seem to have a rather heavy hint of "conspiracy theorist" about them.