Seat belt and car phone laws are useless if they're not enforced

At my home in Pok Fu Lam there is a steady stream of school minibuses, four times a day. Many are fitted with child seat belts but I am lucky if I see one child in each bus using them. Why should they? What example is given to them? My home is served by a green minibus route and a number of them are also fitted with passenger seat belts. I use the service at least twice a day and I seldom see more than one other passenger using a seat belt. Why should they? What example is given to them?

The week before last, as a pedestrian, I was waiting at the junction of Queen's Road Central and Ice House Street, but was unable to use the crossing as the junction was blocked by a Mercedes. It was sitting on the yellow hatching throughout a complete light sequence change and, while the driver was wearing a seat belt (but using a hand-held telephone), the three passengers - a child of about five who was standing in the front seat, and two adults in the rear - were all unrestrained. So there we have it. Children not using the provided seat belts in school buses; the average person not using the provided seat belts in minibuses; the wealthy not using them in their cars.

Why not make it mandatory to wear seat belts when provided? But I forgot, their usage is mandatory when fitted in minibuses and cars. Perhaps readers could be informed by the relevant government department how many fixed penalties were issued in 2009 for:

Passengers not wearing seat belts when their use was mandatory;

The use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving; and

Entering a hatched area at a road junction and stopping upon it because the exit was not clear.