I have just found out today about the new seat belt rules here in Japan after my mother in-law was busted for ignoring a give-way sign, and the officer said the kids sitting in the back must be belted.
On hearing this I thought immediately the law would apply only to vehicles with them fitted. That's me being naive. More like if there aren't belts in the back then the idea is to make it illegal to sit there. Seat belts for the fluffy dolls on the back shelf as well?
In the case of my M.I.L's car it would mean that two of the four could be belted if they all sit in the back. They're small - see!
Personally I always belt up. I'm not really sure why. Probably something to do with my thinking they are a safety feature which I like to use. I say I always belt-up, but that's not exactly true either as I got busted and lost one point just three days ago. I was just exiting the supermarket and reaching for my belt when the previously hidden policeman suddenly came out from crouching behind a low wall and the rest is history.
The same thing happens with the crawling early-morning traffic in notorious locations here in Amami. The intrepid traffic cops hide behind a wall of the tunnel most people have to go through on their daily grind to the work-place. I must say the law here seems more focused on catching people than it is about safety. I've had many close calls with the local police waiting to catch someone doing something which is against the posted law, but was obviously intended to maintain safety with other road users. I've seen them at 2, 3 and 4 in the morning parked in a dark place and silent --- just waiting! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
But I digress. Back to these back seat belts. I intend to try to ask the ever-recalcitrant cops at their main station here what the law actually is, and I'm asking them for the express purpose of knowing what the exclusions and exceptions are. The laws for front seat passengers are somewhat known. ie.. pregnant women needn't wear them, neither do people with stomach injuries, nor 'morbidly' obese' people. (Whatever that might constitute).
Perhaps the law requires that all vehicles must have back-seat belts fitted? Does any one out there know the details?
* Pregnant women are excluded from seatbelts because the constriction and/or jarring of a belt has been known to cause miscarriages and birth defects. I suppose you don't often see a pregnant Mrs. Tanaka bombing down the road doing the ton and hanging wheelies! I mean that pregnant ladies are at somewhat less risk of an accident than others, and she'll not likely be behind the wheel late at night or in the small hours. Argue with that if you like. Even take it to extremes and say that one life saved is worth it. But it won't wash with me. The line between doing something for the benefit of a society and trampling over people's personal liberties and interfering with people's judgement is not so fine, and is in my view being very much transgressed.
But that said, this kind of tyrannical oppression is only to be expected especially as Japan is the US's leaders' poodle. - ie the Japs are all going to be treated to strangulating beaurocracy and made to cough-up their dwindling salaries by every and any means. - So we must adapt! (Yawn not again).
I feel that laws requiring a seatbelt with penalties for not doing so are an infringement of personal liberties. I feel the same way about helmet laws, but not only do I wear a belt as a rule, I also invariably wear a helmet when I'm riding. I do these things because I take my safety as my own responsibility. I have limited pity for the rider who gets road-rash all over his face when he didn't wear a helmet. And I praise Darwin every time I hear of an unbelted person departing this mortal coil in a high-speed collision. - But I remember a funny thing about two years ago. I was riding on a mountain road and an insect got under the visor so I lifted the helmet off with my left hand and shook the critter out. I was only doing about 30 or 40 k's, but a police car happened to be coming in the opposite direction and you should have seen him panic! First there was a sudden speaker announcement for me to stop, and then his tyres squealed and he was in pursuit. I had by that time replaced my lid, and was somewhat dumfounded. What are they on? A commision?
The police in my neck of the woods are certainly on steroids lately. Dark forbodings of worse things to come no doubt. I just wish I could tell them to shove it and ride something weedy and electric which I can plug into the wall over night which can't break the damn speed limit.
In the past two weeks, my wife got done for our eldest kid (8) not being belted (he was reaching back to comfort the screaming baby on the back seat9. I got busted ouside one supermarket and my dear MIL got caught outside another supermarket. Hmmmmmm????? I doubt my family isn't the only one to lean towards anarchy and lawlessness. (And it's bloody annoying).
What a long rant. Greeting from Amami.
On hearing this I thought immediately the law would apply only to vehicles with them fitted. That's me being naive. More like if there aren't belts in the back then the idea is to make it illegal to sit there. Seat belts for the fluffy dolls on the back shelf as well?
In the case of my M.I.L's car it would mean that two of the four could be belted if they all sit in the back. They're small - see!
Personally I always belt up. I'm not really sure why. Probably something to do with my thinking they are a safety feature which I like to use. I say I always belt-up, but that's not exactly true either as I got busted and lost one point just three days ago. I was just exiting the supermarket and reaching for my belt when the previously hidden policeman suddenly came out from crouching behind a low wall and the rest is history.
The same thing happens with the crawling early-morning traffic in notorious locations here in Amami. The intrepid traffic cops hide behind a wall of the tunnel most people have to go through on their daily grind to the work-place. I must say the law here seems more focused on catching people than it is about safety. I've had many close calls with the local police waiting to catch someone doing something which is against the posted law, but was obviously intended to maintain safety with other road users. I've seen them at 2, 3 and 4 in the morning parked in a dark place and silent --- just waiting! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!
But I digress. Back to these back seat belts. I intend to try to ask the ever-recalcitrant cops at their main station here what the law actually is, and I'm asking them for the express purpose of knowing what the exclusions and exceptions are. The laws for front seat passengers are somewhat known. ie.. pregnant women needn't wear them, neither do people with stomach injuries, nor 'morbidly' obese' people. (Whatever that might constitute).
Perhaps the law requires that all vehicles must have back-seat belts fitted? Does any one out there know the details?
* Pregnant women are excluded from seatbelts because the constriction and/or jarring of a belt has been known to cause miscarriages and birth defects. I suppose you don't often see a pregnant Mrs. Tanaka bombing down the road doing the ton and hanging wheelies! I mean that pregnant ladies are at somewhat less risk of an accident than others, and she'll not likely be behind the wheel late at night or in the small hours. Argue with that if you like. Even take it to extremes and say that one life saved is worth it. But it won't wash with me. The line between doing something for the benefit of a society and trampling over people's personal liberties and interfering with people's judgement is not so fine, and is in my view being very much transgressed.
But that said, this kind of tyrannical oppression is only to be expected especially as Japan is the US's leaders' poodle. - ie the Japs are all going to be treated to strangulating beaurocracy and made to cough-up their dwindling salaries by every and any means. - So we must adapt! (Yawn not again).
I feel that laws requiring a seatbelt with penalties for not doing so are an infringement of personal liberties. I feel the same way about helmet laws, but not only do I wear a belt as a rule, I also invariably wear a helmet when I'm riding. I do these things because I take my safety as my own responsibility. I have limited pity for the rider who gets road-rash all over his face when he didn't wear a helmet. And I praise Darwin every time I hear of an unbelted person departing this mortal coil in a high-speed collision. - But I remember a funny thing about two years ago. I was riding on a mountain road and an insect got under the visor so I lifted the helmet off with my left hand and shook the critter out. I was only doing about 30 or 40 k's, but a police car happened to be coming in the opposite direction and you should have seen him panic! First there was a sudden speaker announcement for me to stop, and then his tyres squealed and he was in pursuit. I had by that time replaced my lid, and was somewhat dumfounded. What are they on? A commision?
The police in my neck of the woods are certainly on steroids lately. Dark forbodings of worse things to come no doubt. I just wish I could tell them to shove it and ride something weedy and electric which I can plug into the wall over night which can't break the damn speed limit.
In the past two weeks, my wife got done for our eldest kid (8) not being belted (he was reaching back to comfort the screaming baby on the back seat9. I got busted ouside one supermarket and my dear MIL got caught outside another supermarket. Hmmmmmm????? I doubt my family isn't the only one to lean towards anarchy and lawlessness. (And it's bloody annoying).
What a long rant. Greeting from Amami.
