'Freedom of choice on belts must stay with driver'
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
,T he tragic loss of a loved one, particularly someone in their early years, is a devastating event for any family. I know that Katy Thomas, who Lost her brother in a road accident, must be continually asking herself how it happened (CM 28 May3 June).
Long before the inquest has begun she is led to believe that a seatbelt would have saved her brother's life — a young truck driver at the start of his career. Her grief has been converted into action. That grief with the support of a leading manufacturer has launched a campaign to make the wearing of seatbelts compulsory in trucks. Nobody has asked me about the subject. Nobody ever does.
I'm a professional driver and I'm very concerned with my own well being. Along with many of my colleagues I've thought about using the seatbelts fitted in my vehicle, but I can't do it. If I had an accident I would like to believe that I could use the cab space to get out of danger at the last moment. Seatbelts would not allow it.
Because of the high professional standards that most of us attempt to attain we ensure that accidents per mile are very low. But the idea of sitting in a cab with the truck weight behind you and being strapped in terrifies me.
It isn't bravado, machismo or anything heroic. Our own professional knowledge would ensure we would wear sea tbelts if we considered them of benefit.
The freedom of choice, to wear or not to wear, should always remain with the driver. It shouldn't be influenced by a grieving relative.
If you want to sound off about a road transport issue write to assistant editor Murdo Morrison.