Thursday June 5, 2008
More on seat belt ruling
By CHRISTINA CHIN
THE government's ruling on the compulsory use of sea belts by rear seat passengers has drawn mixed reactions with motorist describing it as "timely", "good" and "cumbersome".
A Perodua Kancil owner who only wanted to be known as Chua Yen, said it was cumbersome as most people preferred sitting at the back because it was more comfortable without having to fasten the seat belt.
“Regardless, I won’t have to worry about it yet because my car is an early model. There is no anchoring point at the back to install a seat belt so we have been given a grace period of three years to get it done.
“Furthermore, Perusahaan Otomobil Kedua (Perodua) is looking into retrofitting older cars with rear seat belts so I will wait and see for now,” she shrugged.
Zulkaha, now back in Penang with his family for the school break, described the government’s ruling as "timely". Perodua Kancil and Kenari cars manufactured between 1998 and mid-2004 will have a three-year grace period to be fitted with rear seat belts.
Salesman Justin Ng, 24, said buckling up at the rear was “good but inconvenient”.
“I am sure my friends in the back seat won’t be buckling up but when the government starts issuing summonses in the coming months, I will force them to do so if they want to ride in my car. I do not want to risk getting fined,” he said.
Jason Quah, 35, said the ruling would be ineffective if there was no enforcement.
“People won’t follow the law if there is no fine,” he said, adding that rear seat belts were “just as important as helmets.”
“It has been proven that passengers sitting at the back will be flung out in an accident so it is safer to wear a safety belt,” he said.
Zulkaha Ahad, 37, who was back in Penang with his family for the school holidays, described the government’s ruling as “timely”.
“I drive a Proton Wira so it is easy to make sure that my kids are fastening the seat belts. I think for those driving multi-purpose vehicles, it may be slightly difficult to keep an eye on the kids,” he said, adding that he would always make sure his children at the back buckle up.
“The main reason for compliance is safety – not fear of being fined,” he said.
A security officer, who only wanted to be known as Lee, supported the move because “safety must always come first.”
“The problem with Malaysians is that we wait until something happens and then have a knee-jerk reaction – by then it will be too late.
Lee's wife Rashidah Ahmad (second right) making sure everyone is strapped in properly. “This back passenger seat belt ruling is not new in European countries but it is only now that we are enforcing it here.
“Ideally, drivers should also make sure that they do not overload their vehicles by ferrying too many passengers. After all, there are only three seat belts at the back. Don’t wait for an accident to happen before you act,” the 41-year-old said.
The father of four also opined that safety features like seat belts and airbags should be “a must” in all cars.
His two eldest children, Firdaus, 11, and Farehah, 9, however, were not keen on the ruling.
“Lemaslah (suffocating),” they echoed in unison.
“We don’t like wearing seat belts because our movements are restricted,” Firdaus said.
The rear safety belt ruling came into effect on Sunday. However, no summonses will be issued until the end of August.
The government also announced that owners of locally-produced cars without rear safety belts will have them installed for free.
There is still deliberation, however, on who should bear the cost.
The ruling would initially cover public vehicles and cars manufactured in 1995 and after, which would have come with rear safety belts.
Owners of cars without rear seat belts have three years to get them installed.
Road Safety Department director-general Datuk Suret Singh was earlier reported as saying that in cases when there were more than three back seat passengers, the person not wearing the seat belt would not be fined because “usually, there are only three seat belts in the back seat”.
RSS
