Drivers seat belt into passenger lock

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 07 Jun 2016, 18:02

TrueBlueTerrier wrote:
jetblack wrote:
Tman wrote:.... even by the conspiracy theorists, as above.
I wondered how long it would take for you to turn up.
@mods - might be an idea to implement an ignore feature on this forum, it gets a bit much having to endure trolls TBH. Just a suggestion.
Way ahead of you - probably 8 years http://www.royalmailchat.co.uk/communit ... &mode=foes" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; That should open your Foe list, just add as necessary

Thanks - I was unaware of it.

LouBarlow · Post by **LouBarlow** » 07 Jun 2016, 18:25

jetblack wrote:
Yep, the local bobby was explaining it to me not too long ago as well. The law was framed in such a way (for delivery drivers) because it recognised the impracticality of not having such an exemption.

It doesn't matter what the law says in regards delivery drivers. RM's policy says wear a seat-belt or be conduct-coded. You can't then turn around and say 'well it's not against the law' when they threaten you with the sack, as a lot of things against RM's policy you sign up for, aren't against the 'law' of the land either, but will still get you in trouble with RM.

In other words, if a cop sees you driving 50m down the road with no belt on, he probably won't give a toss, but if your manager sees you doing it, you are in the s**t.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 07 Jun 2016, 18:36

I've heard that they are going to introduce a new reg. that bans the use/drinking of tea within half an hour prior to the driving of a RM vehicle. Caffeine makes people jumpy apparently. Makes posties take risks they wouldn't have otherwise. A stimulant. It also makes them want to urinate - which makes them hurry even more to get to the toilet, thereby drastically increasing the chances of an accident.

We can, however, still have the digestive biscuit that goes with the tea

Post by **TrueBlueTerrier** » 07 Jun 2016, 18:40

jetblack wrote:I've heard that they are going to introduce a new reg. that bans the use/drinking of tea within half an hour prior to the driving of a RM vehicle. Caffeine makes people jumpy apparently. Makes posties take risks they wouldn't have otherwise. A stimulant. It also makes them want to urinate - which makes them hurry even more to get to the toilet, thereby drastically increasing the chances of an accident.

We can, however, still have the digestive biscuit that goes with the tea

But not the chocolate ones because of the cocoa bean and is sounds too much like cocaine

fishtank · Post by **fishtank** » 07 Jun 2016, 19:31

I'm not sure where this thread is going with regards to the law, it's not against the law to disregard most of royal mail's rules and procedures so why are people trying to use the law as an excuse with this one?

Maybe when you get sacked you should try your hand at the legal profession.

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 07 Jun 2016, 19:53

Maybe when I don't get sacked and serve out my time as an employee with an exemplary record I'll look back and wonder why so many of my colleagues accepted their medicine without question of why it was prescribed in the first place ie. rolled over and had their bellies tickled.

Pfft - its good to question authority.

Always.

postmandick · Post by **postmandick** » 07 Jun 2016, 20:03

We are employed by Royal Mail
and if the company says that we must wear seat belts at all times so be it !

The police will spot a big red postvan and understand that we do multiply deliveries over a short distance and 'not bother'

but your manager knows or worst a visting manager who wants to make a name for themselves by conducting you !!

its your job

I did point this out to a post lady who was smoking and on her 'phone without her sear belt on who told me to .....

f#@K off Knobhead ......

Classy Bird

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 07 Jun 2016, 20:36

fishtank wrote:I'm not sure where this thread is going with regards to the law, it's not against the law to disregard most of royal mail's rules and procedures so why are people trying to use the law as an excuse with this one?

Maybe when you get sacked you should try your hand at the legal profession.

one alcoholic drink may not put you over the drink drive limit and thus legal to drive, but pretty sure if rm found out you were going to a pub on your break having a drink then driving the van again, you are more than likely going to lose your job regardless if breaking the law or not

your right ft the law is irrelevant in this case as rm have given us all a written instruction to wear seat belts, disregarding that and worse circumventing measures to ensure we do could be gross misconduct

it's also worth pointing out that jetblack has also previously stated that a manager knocking on your door to check if you are ok is a clear breach of human rights, I personally don't take much stock in his legal knowledge

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 07 Jun 2016, 21:29

zx135 wrote:
fishtank wrote: it's also worth pointing out that jetblack has also previously stated that a manager knocking on your door to check if you are ok is a clear breach of human rights, I personally don't take much stock in his legal knowledge

LOL - good memory zx - but to be fair you have quoted me out of context. But yes, I do believe that a human being has a right to privacy, a human right if you like. Off Topic, but I do also believe that a manager knocking on my door when I'm off sick could be seen as an infringement of that right.
My interests lay with the rights of the worker ZX, not the management or the shareholders.

And no, I'm not a lawyer (though I do have training in law to a professional level believe it or not) - I wasn't aware that I was stating anything out of the ordinary here, or contraversial.

From Driving Law.Co.Uk :- "

The following exemption to wearing a seatbelt applies by virtue of the Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seatbelts) Regulations 1993:

a person holding a medical certificate;
the driver of or a passenger in a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for carrying goods, while on a journey which does not exceed 50 metres and which is undertaken for the purpose of delivering or collecting any thing;
a person driving a vehicle while performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing; a qualified driver (within the meaning given by regulation 17 of the. Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999) who is supervising the holder of a provisional licence (within the meaning of Part 111 of the Act) while that holder is performing a manoeuvre which includes reversing;
a person by whom, as provided in the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999, a test of competence to drive is being conducted and his wearing a seat belt would endanger himself or any other person;
a person driving or riding in a vehicle while it is being used for fire brigade or, in England, fire and rescue authority or police purposes or for carrying a person in lawful custody (a person who is being so carried being included in this exemption);
the driver of—

(i) a licensed taxi while it is being used for seeking hire, or answering a call for hire, or carrying a passenger for hire, or . .
(ii) a private hire vehicle while it is being used to carry a passenger for Hire;

a person riding in a vehicle, being used under a trade licence, for the purpose of investigating or remedying a mechanical fault in the vehicle;
a disabled person who is wearing a disabled-person's belt; or
a person riding in a vehicle while it is taking part in a procession organised by or on behalf of the Crown."

IcanthelpthewayIam · Post by **IcanthelpthewayIam** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:02

jetblack wrote:
LOL - good memory zx - but to be fair you have quoted me out of context. But yes, I do believe that a human being has a right to privacy, a human right if you like. Off Topic, but I do also believe that a manager knocking on my door when I'm off sick could be seen as an infringement of that right.
My interests lay with the rights of the worker ZX, not the management or the shareholders.

And no, I'm not a lawyer (though I do have training in law to a professional level believe it or not) - I wasn't aware that I was stating anything out of the ordinary here, or contraversial.

legal training to a professional level, I seriously doubt that, obviously not in employment law

you seem to think it's ok to not only disregard health and saftey measures but also to ignore written instructions regarding them, do you believe you could seriously defend someone intentionally circumventing the seatbelt audible warning and being caught doing so?

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 07 Jun 2016, 22:13

zx135 wrote:
legal training to a professional level, I seriously doubt that, obviously not in employment law

No, not in employment law. Mostly company law.

Wear your seat belts kids - at all times. You heard it here first.

And don't drink too much tea. Before you know it you'll be bursting for a pee and ODing on all the phenethylamine you are ingesting by virtue of the chocolate digestives you are (unlawfully) dunking into it

I'm outta here.

Chewster · Post by **Chewster** » 08 Jun 2016, 00:28

I don't believe anyone can be exempt from wearing a seatbelt ever. How can a 50m exemption possibly be enforced? The police come round the corner and spot you, how do they know if you've just gone 50m or 50 miles??

A lot of arguing on here for nothing really. It's company policy and the bloody law to wear your seatbelt - if you don't want to follow that then fine, on your head be it, but why bother coming on here trying to justify it? Just keep your head down if you're breaking the rules like that

Daniel-san · Post by **Daniel-san** » 08 Jun 2016, 14:12

Jesus Christ, Just wear you f***ing seat belt!

k979aaa · Post by **k979aaa** » 08 Jun 2016, 20:17

Ear plugs?

jetblack · Post by **jetblack** » 08 Jun 2016, 20:27

k979aaa wrote:Ear plugs?

Sorry - against reg.s.