The problem with many of the studies has been that, at least in terms of the 'headline findings', deaths and 'serious injuries' (fairly widely defined - sometimes merely an injury resulting in hospitalisation) are lumped together. Wearing seatbelts generally moves one down the severity scale - hence some deaths will turn into serious injuries, some serious injuries into less serious injuries etc - but the lumped-together-total does not necessarily change that much.
And conversely some minor injuries become more serious injuries, and serious injuries become fatalities. But that doesn't hold up when you look at the published figures just for the fatalities in 1982 versus 1983. They simply do not show a significant drop.
Another problem with many of the statistics which compare pre- and post-legislation deaths/injuries is that, by the time the legislation came, a very substantial proportion of people were already ('voluntarily') wearing seatbelts, so the comparison is not really valid.
Again, that doesn't hold up against the government's published estimates for the percentages wearing belts before and after the legislation. The official estimates for immediately before the legislation range quite widely from one source to another from about 20 to 40%. All sources state that usage rose to over 90% afterward. Now obviously government statistics are always suspect, but as these are the figures the government was using to support its other claims, we have little else to go on. Even going from the higher pre-legislation figure of 40% up to over 90%, if they were as effective at saving lives as claimed, you would expect to see a substantial drop in the number of fatalities. That drop simply did not happen.
As I said, virtually everything in this world which is designed to do good also has the capacity to occasionally do harm. If you've ever taken any medicines (or even eaten food), you must have decided to accept that inevitability.
Indeed. When people start talking about "on balance seat belts probably do more good than harm" as a supposed defense of mandatory use that makes for a valid comparison. There are many medicines and drugs which are highly beneficial, but which in a small number of cases can have drastic side effects. That doesn't mean that their use should be mandated by the state because you'll probably be better off taking them. That decision has to rest with the person the drug will affect if it goes wrong. And seat belts - or any other device which has the potential to do good or to cause harm - are no different. In fact during the debate immediately before the 1983 legislation I remember one government spokesman admitting that in a small number of cases belts might prove harmful (something they would not even admit to at all today), but that it was estimated that this would be in only around 0.5% of cases. Personally I think that figure is nowhere near the mark, but even if correct, that still means that in 1 out of every 200 accidents the belt does more harm than good. If a drug killed or seriously damaged the health of somebody in "only" 1 in 200 cases, there would be calls for it to be banned, nevermind trying to make its use compulsory.
But of course, even if a drug is entirely beneficial and has absolutely no potential for harmful side effects, I think we would agree that the state still has no business to try and force people to use it by way of legislation, any more than it should mandate the wearing of a coat to go outside in the winter, or that we should face prosecution and fines for eating the "wrong" foods.
The problem is that the argument is essentially spurious, because you effectively neutralise it yourself. If you were saying that you would agree with compulsory seatbelt use if the risk of it doing harm were zero, then that would be fine. However, the truth presumably is that you would continue to oppose the legislation, for what I regard as the 'right' reasons, even if the risk of seatbelts doing harm was zero.
I most certainly would, just as I would oppose any attempts to make use of certain medicines compulsory, a particular diet compulsory, etc.
In other words, the argument about potential harm does nothing to change views, in which case opponents will grab onto it as a sign that you are arguing for the sake of arguing, since the absence of risk of harm would not change your bottom-line view.
I don't see that as arguing for sake of arguing though. The basic principle that what steps I take for my own personal safety are not for the government to dictate is still there. The fact that the state is mandating something which might actually prove harmful just makes it even worse.
Better get back to wiring.....
The greatest problem would be that they would presumably wheel out a succession of 'experts' who asserted that what the current version of BS7671 says reflects current views of what is acceptably safe (and therefore would satisfy P1) - BAS and many others here would presumably be happy to be part of that 'succession of experts'.
To which one could counter that the government's own "experts" have explicitly stated (by way of the Approved Document, which supposedly represents the view of the Secretary of State, no less) that compliance with other standards is deemed to be compliance with the requirements of P1 of the building regs.
In many senses, you'd be far more likely to win (i.e. be acquitted) if you were facing a criminal prosecution; the defence would then only have to establish 'a reasonable doubt' and the existance of some expert opinions on your side would go a long way to achieving that. However, if you were merely JRing an LABC decision, then I presume (but may be wrong) that the civil 'burden of proof' would apply, so that they would only have to work in terms of 'the balance of probabilities' - i.e. be 51% convinced by the other side's experts to find against you.
That may well be the case if one were just trying to get the local authority to accept the installation and issue a building certificate because it was needed for some purpose. I have to wonder about all the cases in a year in which a local authority refuses to issue a certificate because it claims that something (not necessarily Part P) doesn't meet the building regulations: In how many of those cases where the homeowner then doesn't follow up and do whatever is demanded by the local council does that council attempt to take the matter to court for the offense of failing to comply with the building regulations?
As I've noted before, the legislation on this seems very heavily skewed in favor of the local authority. If you or I do not comply with any provision of the regulations (such as they are, talking only in vague terms about "reasonable provision") that's an offense. The same regulations state the the local authority must issue a completion certificate if it is satisfied that the requirement of the regulations have been met, yet the statute explicitly states that it is
not an offense for the local authority to refuse to issue a certificate.
So the council can prosecute a homeowner for failing to comply with the building regulations, but when a homeowner has complied fully but an obstructive building department is being completely unreasonable and refusing to issue a certificate, the homeowner's only option is that judicial review on a civil level. It seems to be a charter for the local authority to pretty much do whatever it likes with no consequences. But then that seems to be the way the whole system is going.
