Back seat belting.

[mael]

hehe..

i think this thread should be locked and trashed..☝

An expected reaction from someone who is incapable of understanding it.

How about you just try to resist the temptation to interject with your entirely off-topic 'opinions.'

 

[mael]

What evidence? Personal experience and observation.I am not where you are. I'm on a little island where horses and goat-carts would be more appropriate than cars.

Of course I see your points, and I lived in Osaka for three years so I know what the traffic's like there, and I think people unbelted on the fast roads there would be unwise to say the least. But nevertheless I think it is up to the aware individual to see that he and his passengers are safe.

But adding to that I was usually on two wheels, and I was as wild as they come! Birds flying into my helmet a few years back on Amami reminded me that my personal decision to wear a helmet was the right one. Not only that, but I actually buckled the helmet properly and adjusted it to fit my head. That's more than the 'law' requires. It's commonsense!!!!!!

Imagine yourself on a patched-up narrow road which passes for the 'main drag' on a piddly-little island where fishing boats are at home. Erase the vision of very fast, extremely powerful cars whizzing past you and imagine a place where drivers of small 'K's can trundle down the road. Imagine the driver of these cars stopping to exchange pleasantaries with some aquaintance while a few others also similarly trundling stop behind her understanding that it's OK to wait for a few seconds. Imagine some birds tweeting on a tree stump at the side of the road undisturbed by the unmenacing cars. Then imagine a uniformed police officer suddenly appearing from behind a wall (made of coral) whistling and waving frantically for the driver to stop. It just doesn't fit! It's comical! But where you haunt is entirely different and it is more important that the road systems are regulated carefully in the major conurbations.

How and what evidence do you have to back that up?

Evidence? What? Do you want to go through suspectedly biased articles I might find so you can hit me back with those biased to your point of view? Think about it! I gave you the benefit of my opinion. I'd like yours. I can read what the newspapers and spokespeople of various orgs say any time I care to do an internet search.

And you have done extensive studies to rubutt all of these findings?

* Repetitious! The CD's scratched. The CD's scratched The CD's scratched.

Thats why in the saftey instructions it specifically says not to place seat in front of air bags.

* The 'law' was amended due to unforseen dangers. It was modified. It was and still is a compromise. And all the while victims of these overlooked inherant dangers are kindly providing the statistics which pressure those senior to others who are responsible for pushing these half-cocked schemes to save face in as economically feasable manner as can be done.

Yes and I thought you were being serious?

So you are also guilty of misinterpreting someone's brand of humour?

And yet there is data that says that most accidents that maim or kill occur below 50 km per hour. What speed do you travel at on a constant basis?

* In the applicable circumstance? I'd say about 20 K's. But sometimes for fun I'll gun the engine on the home-straight and get maybe 80. - But not if the kids aren't secured.

Yes and at that time if a car pulled out in front of your wife maybe you would have one less child worry about.

* I told you she was doing twenty. The only way a truck can kill you if it pulls out when you're going at that speed is if it runs over you, in which case a seatbelt would be worse than useless.

Sorry but a screaming child is no reason to unbuckle and put that person at risk of death.

* She was only going twe... *sigh* never mind!

Fully, but your answers are based purely on you feelings and convictions towards this law and NOT I am afraid, of common sense.

* If you think so.

And maybe you could refrain from calling someone stupid. Tit for tat...

* You called yourself stupid and I said I was sorry to hear you thought that way about yourself. - You should pay attention to the details. And remember what you have written so you can avoid embarrassing mistakes which you are solely responsible for and no one else.

 

[KirinMan]

for all the commentary going back and forth here on this topic I would like to point out that noone have commented as I can see on the issue here that is larger in my opinion and that is personal rights.....

The government here is interfering with a persons right to choice. What harm am I doing to you or anyone else if I choose not to wear my seatbelt?

If I am responsible enough to carry enough insurance to cover my own medical costs if I get into an accident what problems am I causing YOU if I dont wear my seatbelt?

What right does the government have to infringe on my right to freedom of movement, within the confines of my own car?

Wearing seatbelts is a common sense issue in my opinion, however it should be an individuals choice. Governments can make all the laws that they want to supposedly protect it's citizens but safety issues infringe on a persons rights and freedom of choice.

By allowing the government to have it's way on issues like this it becomes easier for it to enact laws regarding other rights as well.

Seat belts are a health and safety issue right? Ok ban alcohol next, it impairs judgement and causes a huge list of other health problems when used in excess. Tobacco, hell make it an illicit drug. Care for me to go on?

Statistics can be twisted to whatever purpose or point the writer wants to make....half full....half empty.

Fact is the government here has now taken away one more freedom of choice issue.......Mael I give you a "7" for your jump

 

[JimmySeal]

for all the commentary going back and forth here on this topic I would like to point out that noone have commented as I can see on the issue here that is larger in my opinion and that is personal rights.....

Here you go:

The government here is interfering with a persons right to choice. What harm am I doing to you or anyone else if I choose not to wear my seatbelt?

It has already been fully established here that you are not only a threat to yourself when you go unbelted. Next!

If I am responsible enough to carry enough insurance to cover my own medical costs if I get into an accident what problems am I causing YOU if I dont wear my seatbelt?

Insurance exists to help those who, through some stroke of bad luck, need medical care. It is not for those with a flagrant disregard for safety. People who need medical care because they didn't feel like wearing a seatbelt are wasting the insurance companies' money.

What right does the government have to infringe on my right to freedom of movement, within the confines of my own car?

The insurance and health care systems are backed by the government, and the people of Japan expect this of the government. So the government has the right to say, "You want us to pay your medical costs? We have the right to keep you from wasting our money."

Additionally, a government has the right to try to keep its citizens alive, within reasonable limits, even if the citizens lack the necessary judgement to ensure that.

 

[KirinMan]

It has already been fully established here that you are not only a threat to yourself when you go unbelted. Next!

No it hasnt because if I am alone in my car there is noone else I am going to injure besides me.

Next if an adult makes the choice with the consent of the driver not to use the seat belt then it doesnt, actually shouldnt, matter one way or another what you, I, or anyone else for that matter thinks.

However with regards to children I personally feel that the law should be stiffer. Children can not make their own choices wisely and we as parents and adults are charged with their care.

Insurance exists to help those who, through some stroke of bad luck, need medical care. It is not for those with a flagrant disregard for safety. People who need medical care because they didn't feel like wearing a seatbelt are wasting the insurance companies' money.

Actually I disagree with the premise that a person is "wasting" the insurance companies money. I pay for that insurance and if I choose to participate in behavior that is detrimental to my health then the insurance company should charge me accordingly.

Nothing wasted there, if nothing happens they make out like bandits, as most insurance companies already do I think.

If you consider it a flagrant disregard for safety then I would suggest that you don't drive on the road at all because every single time you sit behind the wheel of the car you are taking a calculated risk that there could be an incident where your driving could be seen as the same.

There are plenty of other examples from daily life along with driving that I could give examples here where people take flagrant risks.

The insurance and health care systems are backed by the government, and the people of Japan expect this of the government. So the government has the right to say, "You want us to pay your medical costs? We have the right to keep you from wasting our money."

You assume much here. Of course an insurance company will want to increase it revenues by keeping risky behavior to a minimum. To them it is their bottom line, that much is plain and simple.

And yes within the guide lines stated in a persons contract with said insurance company the company has a responsibility by law to pay for, in this case if the person wasnt wearing a belt and they get injured.

Want to change that then the companies must include that clause in their contracts with drivers.

It is also in my opinion a waste of money, in fact a larger waste of money for government to be involved in restricting the rights of it's citizens to do what they want.

Additionally, a government has the right to try to keep its citizens alive, within reasonable limits, even if the citizens lack the necessary judgement to ensure that

Really? There is nowhere in the constitution of Japan that I have seen written where the government is charged with the "right" in keeping it's citizens alive.

If I or anyone, adult that is, is ever stopped for not wearing a seatbelt and I can prove that I have sufficient insurance to cover any event then the government should not be getting into the business of telling me whether or not I want to make the choice to die or injure myself due to my behavior.
Society on the other hand has given up thier rights to choice by allowing the government to enact laws that restrict their freedoms.

I am not going to argue about whether this law is right or not. I have stated my position about the subject clearly here.

However I am going to continue to state to people here that little by little they are allowing the government to "tell" them how they should be leading their lives and in the overwhelming majority of cases I personally think that the people are following along blindly and will someday come to the realization that no matter what they do it will be regulated by the government as being either good or bad, in a desire to "protect" it's citizens.

Feel free to keep following along and allowing the government to tell you how to live your life, that's your choice as well, and one of the benefits of living in a free society.

 

[Glenski]

** Well let's straighten you out a little:-
Wearing seatbelts is something which affects the safety of the wearer. It has no effect on anyone else.

WRONG! You are not reading the information I've linked, therefore this thread should be locked!

 

[alantin]

Seat belts are a health and safety issue right? Ok ban alcohol next, it impairs judgement and causes a huge list of other health problems when used in excess. Tobacco, hell make it an illicit drug. Care for me to go on?

I would be all for these ideas because these too cause danger, to not only the person using them but, to other people.

Just imagine! No drunk drivers, no passive smoking...

Is it freedom to endanger other people's health and lives?

I'm sorry.. I was just held awake till 2am by my drunk neighbour's yelling and shouting. It was nice to get up at 4am and leave for work..


Btw. hasn't anyone here considered the pain caused to the family of a simpleton who dies in a car accident just because "he doesn't need to wear a seat belt while in alone in his own car"..?

By supposedly endangering only himself, is he the only one to suffer?

 

[FrustratedDave]

What evidence? Personal experience and observation.I am not where you are. I'm on a little island where horses and goat-carts would be more appropriate than cars.

No, that seems to be your basis of reasoning, I on the other hand have provided the data and I am waiting to for you show data that will prove that wrong and until you do all you are doing is making assumptions and opinions that hold no water.

Of course I see your points, and I lived in Osaka for three years so I know what the traffic's like there, and I think people unbelted on the fast roads there would be unwise to say the least. But nevertheless I think it is up to the aware individual to see that he and his passengers are safe.
But adding to that I was usually on two wheels, and I was as wild as they come! Birds flying into my helmet a few years back on Amami reminded me that my personal decision to wear a helmet was the right one. Not only that, but I actually buckled the helmet properly and adjusted it to fit my head. That's more than the 'law' requires. It's commonsense!!!!!!
Imagine yourself on a patched-up narrow road which passes for the 'main drag' on a piddly-little island where fishing boats are at home. Erase the vision of very fast, extremely powerful cars whizzing past you and imagine a place where drivers of small 'K's can trundle down the road. Imagine the driver of these cars stopping to exchange pleasantaries with some aquaintance while a few others also similarly trundling stop behind her understanding that it's OK to wait for a few seconds. Imagine some birds tweeting on a tree stump at the side of the road undisturbed by the unmenacing cars. Then imagine a uniformed police officer suddenly appearing from behind a wall (made of coral) whistling and waving frantically for the driver to stop. It just doesn't fit! It's comical! But where you haunt is entirely different and it is more important that the road systems are regulated carefully in the major conurbations.

Hold on a second, you say that you have the commonsense to use them but you were pulled over not using them? I am confused , does that commonse sense come in and out a you see fit. A quote from you earlier from you. "* I can only repeat what I have mentioned many times before which is that I think they are a sensible idea and that I use them and enforce their use when I'm driving." So were you not using that common sense when you were pulled over? Now that is why there should be a law like this.
If like you say everyone had the commonsense to apply the neccesary steps to avoid injury to yourself and others there would be no need for the law would it? Or any other laws regarding seat belts, I would love to see your take on the law requiring the front seat passengers to wear belts or is that law an invasion of liberty too?
Going by your way of thinking there should not be speed limits either, no laws requiring you to stop at traffic lights, no laws to stop at stop signs and so on and so forth. B/c as you say everyone should have the commonsense to do the right thing, right? I couldn't even begin to imagine the carnage...

Evidence? What? Do you want to go through suspectedly biased articles I might find so you can hit me back with those biased to your point of view?

Do want them in other langauges too, or is the majority of developed countries wrong in their research and data and you are right with your beliefs?
But wait , you aggreed that it was in fact the safe thing to do , so why then do you say the artcles are biased? quote "* I can only repeat what I have mentioned many times before which is that I think they are a sensible idea and that I use them and enforce their use when I'm driving."

Think about it! I gave you the benefit of my opinion. I'd like yours. I can read what the newspapers and spokespeople of various orgs say any time I care to do an internet search.
* Repetitious! The CD's scratched. The CD's scratched The CD's scratched.
* The 'law' was amended due to unforseen dangers. It was modified. It was and still is a compromise. And all the while victims of these overlooked inherant dangers are kindly providing the statistics which pressure those senior to others who are responsible for pushing these half-cocked schemes to save face in as economically feasable manner as can be done.

Half cocked schemes.... Hmmm, I would love to hear the basis behind this statement. Please share your thoughts.

* In the applicable circumstance? I'd say about 20 K's. But sometimes for fun I'll gun the engine on the home-straight and get maybe 80. - But not if the kids aren't secured.
* I told you she was doing twenty. The only way a truck can kill you if it pulls out when you're going at that speed is if it runs over you, in which case a seatbelt would be worse than useless.
* She was only going twe... *sigh* never mind!

Fine if you think that way and you really think it is safe, hypothetically would you drive at 20km at a parked car without straping in your child in to prove the point that it was not dangerous and would in fact not cause any kind of serious injury or death? Do you forget that humans are soft bodied animals and even a soft blow to the head can have serious consequences ? And don't dodge the question and say it is ridiculus, b/c it is hypothetical I want to hear if you would deliberately put your child in that situation.

* If you think so.
* You called yourself stupid and I said I was sorry to hear you thought that way about yourself. - You should pay attention to the details. And remember what you have written so you can avoid embarrassing mistakes which you are solely responsible for and no one else.

I paid full attention to your snide remark, any way you put it you said I was stupid b/c I did not suggest that I was stupid in my example ,instead I said "IF" I was stupid, there is a difference and you took it one step further by calling me stupid. Like I said, tit for tat...

 

[alantin]

* I told you she was doing twenty. The only way a truck can kill you if it pulls out when you're going at that speed is if it runs over you, in which case a seatbelt would be worse than useless.

MPH or km/h ?

I wonder.. Have you ever been in a car crash?
I have. In low speed. Another car crashed my side (30 - 40 km/h).
It isn't very soft. Even at a low speed!
If I remember correctly, when speed is doubled, force increases four-fold. If there is nothing to keep the passenger in the seat, he turns into dead weight.
Even a pen on the back shelf thingy behind the back seat (whatever it is called) can turn into a deadly projectile in crash!

I have also gotten hit by a flying purse when a car suddenly stopped on a slippery road training site. First sliding on wet cement, next stopping abruptly on dry cement. Thank God there wasn't anything sharp in it!

 

[Glenski]

Wearing seatbelts is a common sense issue in my opinion, however it should be an individuals choice. Governments can make all the laws that they want to supposedly protect it's citizens but safety issues infringe on a persons rights and freedom of choice.

By allowing the government to have it's way on issues like this it becomes easier for it to enact laws regarding other rights as well.

Seat belts are a health and safety issue right? Ok ban alcohol next, it impairs judgement and causes a huge list of other health problems when used in excess. Tobacco, hell make it an illicit drug. Care for me to go on?

Statistics can be twisted to whatever purpose or point the writer wants to make....half full....half empty.

Stop setting up a smoke and mirrors approach here with the alcohol and drug references. Your arguments about government control and freedoms are unsupported. Seat belts are there to protect. You said it yourself (with the "OK" above). That's good enough. It is not an individual's choice to inflict bodily injury on others, and I've already proven that is what can happen in the situation we are describing. You are trying to get into other areas and masking the issue as human rights, when that is not the case.

However with regards to children I personally feel that the law should be stiffer. Children can not make their own choices wisely and we as parents and adults are charged with their care.

And, at what precise age do you feel a person can make the proper choice? Not one day younger, mind you. So, you see, this doesn't hold water, either. The law is for everyone because of irregularities like that.

If I or anyone, adult that is, is ever stopped for not wearing a seatbelt and I can prove that I have sufficient insurance to cover any event

You may be able to pay for the medical bills, but what about the mental trauma, especially if it comes to loss of limb or organ or eye or life? Again, a whole fishing net of holes here.

she was doing twenty. The only way a truck can kill you if it pulls out when you're going at that speed is if it runs over you

...or if it pushes you into the oncoming path of another vehicle going much faster.

And, who said anything about dying, anyway? Serious injury is still a down side of any car accident. That includes physical and traumatic mental injury. I have a sister-in-law who refuses to drive because of a car accident she was in, and it hardly injured her at all.

And, if you are not belted, some insurance claims will not be paid.

I'm glad you aren't the one making the laws because your ability to think critically is very poor.

MODERATORS, please lock this thread!

 

[KirinMan]

MODERATORS, please lock this thread!

Why lock the thread when the discussion starts to get interesting here Glenski? Dont like the turn it has taken?

Stop setting up a smoke and mirrors approach here with the alcohol and drug references. Your arguments about government control and freedoms are unsupported. Seat belts are there to protect. You said it yourself (with the "OK" above). That's good enough. It is not an individual's choice to inflict bodily injury on others, and I've already proven that is what can happen in the situation we are describing. You are trying to get into other areas and masking the issue as human rights, when that is not the case.

There is no smoke and mirrors in my discussion here Glenski, safety issues like this infrige upon peoples rights to make choices, whether or not the choice is right for them or not, it still is their choice. The examples I gave are "safety issues" as well.

What is there to stop the government from intruding upon other aspects of your privacy?

The point I am making is that freedoms are being infringed upon, whether you like it or not you are also allowing the government to decide what is right for you.

I can decide what's right for myself and my family, hopefully you can as well.
Many laws are infrigements on rights and this is one as well, whether you can see that or not is another story.

I'm glad you aren't the one making the laws because your ability to think critically is very poor.

So you think, that is your opinion as well, just because I dont like the law doesnt mean that I am not going to follow it, however that is MY choice.

I am not advocating anarchy here but I am advocating that people given the right to choose for themselves without having the government interceed.
Your critical thinking powers havent considered that either have they?

And, if you are not belted, some insurance claims will not be paid.

Great, if it is written into the contract of the individual owner of the insurance policy fine. Otherwise it shouldnt count nor matter.

You may be able to pay for the medical bills, but what about the mental trauma, especially if it comes to loss of limb or organ or eye or life? Again, a whole fishing net of holes here.

So? If I made the choice it is something that I have to live with. Have everyone sign a waver, hell they made people get TASPO for cigarettes if they want to purchase them from a vending machine, they could do the same with motor vehicles as well. I know different topic, but the point is made.

And, who said anything about dying, anyway? Serious injury is still a down side of any car accident. That includes physical and traumatic mental injury. I have a sister-in-law who refuses to drive because of a car accident she was in, and it hardly injured her at all.

I made the comment about dying, your "smoke" here is uneccessary too. I am sorry your sister in law had an accident. I have been in a few myself and one's with injuries as well.

There are a few others I could relate here that would make you and everyone else puke too. But I will refrain........

And, at what precise age do you feel a person can make the proper choice? Not one day younger, mind you. So, you see, this doesn't hold water, either. The law is for everyone because of irregularities like that.

Sure it holds water, here is the time and date for you, the day that an individual becomes old enough to legally drive a car is the time that they should be held responsible for their actions.

If they are old enough to get the license then they should be old enough to be able to make their own decisions regarding this subject.

If people are educated about this subject they will make the right decisions on their own.

I dont need the government or any law to tell me or force me to know what I should do within the confines of my own vehicle.

You can follow along if you so choose to that is your choice, and you should be able to make the choice on your own, and not with another law, that is if you are an adult or old enough to drive.

 

[alantin]

If they are old enough to get the license then they should be old enough to be able to make their own decisions regarding this subject.
If people are educated about this subject they will make the right decisions on their own.

The education in driving schools here is very good but still I often read about accidents caused by young drivers who have just recently gotten their license.
Just a couple of weeks ago a girl (18), who had just a couple of days previously gotten her license, crashed to a tree in 40 km/h speed limit area. Three people (About 14 - 17 years of age) in the car died and she herself was hospitalized in critical state.
I found the notion, "Police suspects speeding", quite hilarious..

I see here that you can't expect people to "be able to make their own decisions regarding this subject" at this age.
Also (if my memory serves me right), studies indicate that statistically the most dangerous drivers are middle aged men (!?), (followed by these 18 yr olds) so I wonder.. Do they seem to be able to make good calls when driving. Statistically speaking.

All in all. It seems that often the only way to have people observe any kinds of safe driving habits is by forcing it with laws. In fact, if people were different, there would not be those laws. They usually are attempts to solve an existing problem rather than to prevent one in advance.
So. Does objecting to legislation, meant to prevent injury and death, constitute to advocating anarchy? I would very much think so!


Btw. It is likely that the kids in the car would have survived had they been wearing seat belts..

 

[KirinMan]

The education in driving schools here is very good but still I often read about accidents caused by young drivers who have just recently gotten their license.
Just a couple of weeks ago a girl (18), who had just a couple of days previously gotten her license, crashed to a tree in 40 km/h speed limit area. Three people (About 14 - 17 years of age) in the car died and she herself was hospitalized in critical state.
I found the notion, "Police suspects speeding", quite hilarious..

I see here that you can't expect people to "be able to make their own decisions regarding this subject" at this age.
Also (if my memory serves me right), studies indicate that statistically the most dangerous drivers are middle aged men (!?), (followed by these 18 yr olds) so I wonder.. Do they seem to be able to make good calls when driving. Statistically speaking.

All in all. It seems that often the only way to have people observe any kinds of safe driving habits is by forcing it with laws. In fact, if people were different, there would not be those laws. They usually are attempts to solve an existing problem rather than to prevent one in advance.
So. Does objecting to legislation, meant to prevent injury and death, constitute to advocating anarchy? I would very much think so!

I do not disagree with the law as it stands, my point all along here is not whether or not I agree with it or not but with the point that the government here is enforcing a law that people here should be following with common sense on their own.

However since there are those that choose not to take things into their own hands they should be given the option of following the law on their own.

If they make the choice not to adhere to the tenents of the law they should have to pay for the additional coverage through their insurance carrier.

I do not appreciate the government of any nation creating laws that infringe upon a persons right to choice. The government in this case, in my opinion, is taking away another right to choice.

This to me isnt about an issue of safety alone, but an issue of people losing the right to make a choice on their own.

Btw. It is likely that the kids in the car would have survived had they been wearing seat belts.

I agree with you, and regards to the safety and welfare of children I think that the current "new" law as it stands is not strict enough.

But that is another topic.......

 

[orochi]

KirinMan,

Why do you support choice when it involves seatbelts, yet tell people who choose to bring up problems about the law to just leave the country?

 

[Glenski]

Why lock the thread when the discussion starts to get interesting here Glenski? Dont like the turn it has taken?

Duh, isn't that obvious? When you and mael spout idiotic nonsense, and refuse to listen to reason, then yes, it's time to control things. But, I suppose you find that to be an intrusion on your personal freedom, too. I call it trolling.

There is no smoke and mirrors in my discussion here Glenski, safety issues like this infrige upon peoples rights to make choices, whether or not the choice is right for them or not, it still is their choice. The examples I gave are "safety issues" as well.

Quote me the safety aspect again. You lose me in the smoke.

What is there to stop the government from intruding upon other aspects of your privacy?

Stay on topic, instead of bringing up a straw man defense.

I can decide what's right for myself and my family, hopefully you can as well.
Many laws are infrigements on rights and this is one as well, whether you can see that or not is another story.

What is "right" and what is safe are two different things here. If you rode in the back seat of my car and refused to use the seat belt, I would kick you out. Not safe for you or me, and against the law (which means I would be the one to suffer financially and on losing points on my license, not you). YOU infringe on MY personal rights in that way.

So you think, that is your opinion as well, just because I dont like the law doesnt mean that I am not going to follow it, however that is MY choice.

Go ahead, but you can't convince people with common sense otherwise.

here is the time and date for you, the day that an individual becomes old enough to legally drive a car is the time that they should be held responsible for their actions.

But since this varies with countries, what happens when a 16-year-old from the USA drives in Japan (where the legal driving age is 20)? Your critical thinking loses. Moreover, that one day from 19 years and 364 days old to 20 years old is not so much a difference, but you didn't catch that from my previous post. You lose again.

If they are old enough to get the license then they should be old enough to be able to make their own decisions regarding this subject.

Support this with facts. You can't.

If people are educated about this subject they will make the right decisions on their own.

You are educated, yet you don't make the right decision.

I dont need the government or any law to tell me or force me to know what I should do within the confines of my own vehicle.

If it affects others, yes, you do. But you haven't become educated enough to realize that.

Want more education?
The National Police Agency has statistics compiled related to seat belts. Deaths attributed to people not wearing seat belts is always higher than for cases where people DID wear them. This data is true for every year in the last ten years. Aren't you getting tired of being so wrong?

 

[orochi]

I can decide what's right for myself and my family, hopefully you can as well.

No, you can't. You've proven that in this thread. Aside from what Glenski said, what if you flew out your windshield due an unfastened belt and hit somebody? Killed them? How would you explain that?

 

[KirinMan]

FYI to both orochi and Glenski....I am not passing on your posts that you made in reply to me, all I am doing here is in all fairness letting you know that I have had a few beers 2night and it wouldnt be "right" for me to reply as such.

2morrow is another day and I will respond after the hangover has run it's course,.

Gnight

 

[alantin]

Well.. I really can't see this your way.

Wouldn't a law that didin't concern everybody be an infringe on peoples rights?
And I would think that a law - stating that people under, say, 18 of age are required to use seat belts but people older than that, aren't - would only be a red flag for a teenager that just dares him not to use them. It is therefore common sense to just state that 'everyone has to buckle up', period.

There are bigger things here to be considered than some individual people that might be annoyed about having to buckle up after someone else says they need to buckle up. Even if it is something that they would normally do!

I don't want to offend anyone but.. How should I put this.. In this kind of reasoning, I do see a certain correlation to behavior that one migh expect from a teenager in his worst age.

I very much see it as contract like thing. If you drive, you accept the terms.
And if someone says, "well.. they are changing the terms", should we then just go back to the legislation in the form it was when cars first were introdused to consumers?

Buckling up is common sense and good laws usually are based on common sense. It just needs to be called a law so that even the simpliest people would understand it and if one feels that he/she is smarter than that, why not just think that "that's common sense but some people seem to need it to be a law".

The laws that don't seem to be based on common sense are the ones one should be worried about!

 

[mael]

Well.. Perhaps.

Although I am flattered to get such a through answer to my post, Mael, you do seem to ignore the fact that an unbelted person in a car with other people is endangering others too and not just him/her -self, despite all the evidence countrary to your impression.

* Perhaps you remembered my writing that if I were the driver It'd be my responsibility to ensure the safety of those in my car.

You can be the safest driver on the road, but others are driving too and unfortunately there are.. well.. not as well informed people too.

* But I am informed and I know what driving conditions can be like. I can make myself and my passengers safer than they would be than were I to simply follow the 'law' to the minimum. - And I do!

* I am not responsible for careless or idiotic drivers, but I know they are about, and I know the unexpected can occur at any time. However I do not sit at home in a soft box and shield myself from all the possible things which might harm me. Life is a calculated risk. While you are a kid your parents make the decisions. But once you've grown up it's up to you. NOT the government.

By the way, the law for wearing seatbelts in public transportation (busses) is the next thing to come.

* Yeah! I know! [sarc]Great isn't it.[/sarc]

That's the law here already and actually it feels like they started to make the belts available in busses only when the law was in effect. No law, no belts. Even if someone had liked to use them..

* They do a lot of planning and scheming on the quiet, don't they!

* The UK had a law that people in the back seat must be belted if there were belts available. - I imagine it'd be the same here! Well it must be, as if there are no belts in some old car then are they going to ban mum taking the kids out somewhere?

* My current car (the wife's) has three-point belts in the back, but only two. I've got four kids, so there's an unbelted one and it isn't my fault! Maybe I should leave one kid behind on a rotational basis? See! It won't work! And my three and five year olds look rather silly with the belt fastened as the upper belt will be on their faces or over their heads! That's safe?

I sure believe it to feel bad to find it out that such law exists in such a matter but I wouldn't question the whole law for that!

* That was not the reason I am against this. I am surprised you thought it was. I mentioned it so you could grasp the lack of awareness of this law amongst the peons.

I would give feedback through the appropriate channels.

* I am.

What I meant with "what's the point" was about writing of it this enthusiasticly on a forum like this.

* ???

* This is a debating forum and lots of people from Japan frequent here. I am debating it with people who are in the same boat as me so to speak.

* Can you explain why you think this is pointless?

The people responsible for the law and the one who gave you the ticket are unlikely to read it and considering you seem to be quite alone in your views, there really doesn't seem to be much to gain.

* Hmmm! Quite the pessimist, aren't you!

* I did not write this for the police officers' benefit. I am writing this so I can enjoy a discussion with my peers and hopefully learn and teach while we put forth our views.

* I am no stranger to being alone. I am capable of surviving very well by doing things differently, and prefer this anyhow.

* What is there for me to gain? Information. And I'll meet some interesting characters (like you) along the way.

Ps. I think having to wear a helmet when riding a bike is in the law also here. Is it not in Japan?

Yes, it is, and has been for decades.

You'll see lots of people riding (especially) small bikes with 'helmets' which are really hard-hats usually used on building sites. Others have a helmet perched on their crowns, and most people who actually have a proper helmet won't fasten it correctly, and I know from past research that it only takes about 5 kg to pull a full-face helmet off when it isn't fastened. A crash on two wheels at running speed would supply enough inertia for the helmet to fly off.

But the police won't bother you if you have one of those hard hats, or if the 'helmet' is just perched on top, or if the helmet isn't fastened. The law is clearly inadequate. - If you have a seat belt which for some reason is extremely sloppy then you are still following the law. This commonsense part is the most important. If the authorities mandate helmets must be used then surely they must be of an approved type, and correctly attached to your head.

If seatbelts are law then they should be adequate for the job, which they clearly are not unless you are an adult of normal build and stature.

* I make things as safe and convenient as possible under whatever circumstances I find myself.

 

[alantin]

No, you can't. You've proven that in this thread. Aside from what Glenski said, what if you flew out your windshield due an unfastened belt and hit somebody? Killed them? How would you explain that?

Quite unlikely though..
What about one's family?
Do they not suffer if one gets killed just for not wanting to buckle up?
People are quick to call for their rights. How about oblication!
Isn't it your moral oblication to ensure the safety of everybody you can affect while driving? (Including yourself!)
And how can a law that was made for this specific reason be criticised so boldly?
How that law is applied in some cases is a whole another matter.

 

[mael]

WRONG! You are not reading the information I've linked, therefore this thread should be locked!

* KirinMan has taken care of this quite adequately.

And JimmySeal, go play somewhere else if you don't like this sandpit. There are plenty of issues being discussed which are less unsuitable for your cognitive process.

 

[mael]

I would be all for these ideas because these too cause danger, to not only the person using them but, to other people.

* That's unrealistic. It depends on the circumstances.

Just imagine! No drunk drivers, no passive smoking...

* Well then they'll ban coffee drinkers because it makes them prone to 'road-rage' instead to get their coffers filled.

* Maybe they'll make wearing bright clothes illegal on the pretext that it causes other drivers to lose concentration?

Is it freedom to endanger other people's health and lives?

* The more sensible approach to this conundrum is where is the line in the sand? Clearly driving is fraught with dangers and any number of laws will never make driving completely safe.

* One must study for the driving test, one receives practical instructions on how to perate a vehicle, and one must attend safety and technical lectures to ensure you have the basic amount of knowledge and technique from which to get out on the road and become a safe road user. This is surely adequate.

I'm sorry.. I was just held awake till 2am by my drunk neighbour's yelling and shouting. It was nice to get up at 4am and leave for work..

* Nail their tongues to the shed door and see if this helps.

Btw. hasn't anyone here considered the pain caused to the family of a simpleton who dies in a car accident just because "he doesn't need to wear a seat belt while in alone in his own car"..?

* I think you must have been kept awake by drunken neighbours until 02:00 last night judging from this remark.

By supposedly endangering only himself, is he the only one to suffer?

* They're going to make suicide an imprisonable offense I suppose.

 

[orochi]

mael, why are you so angry?

 

[alantin]

@mael
I migh say you are quite an interesting character too though at times your style might get a bit provocative. It just made me wonder, what you were after. Discussion or just wordfight and senseless debate.. (this thread really hasn't filled the standards for a dialog in o' so many ways..)

There can be opposing points of view, but sarcasm really isn't a part of a true dialog and good debate..

I am sorry if I have misinterpreted you but.. Well. Your remarks..


What have you learned? And please, give an answer to this one without any sarcasm!


Good laws do give some push for things to get better. Like with the seatbelts finally getting installed in the busses here. I didn't see many seatbelts in busses in Japan during my time there so maybe it is time to make a law for it.

Anyway, sometimes even good laws get twisted in a manner that they don't really fulfill their purpore. Like the meaningless helmet law!

Ps. I usually am a quite optimistic guy but I also do drive much and see everyday the kind of attitude on the road that makes me very pessimistic sometimes. Some people just take driving too damn personally and think that they are entitled to the right to pick which rules they like to follow! For some reason the rudest ones aren't the teenagers with their first cars, but the ones with the big expensive cars. the more expensive car you get, the dummer you get on the road, I might say..
Now does that sound pessimistic?

Now I'm tired and wanna go to sleep..

 

[mael]

Hold on a second, you say that you have the commonsense to use them but you were pulled over not using them?

* Yes.

I am confused , does that commonse sense come in and out a you see fit.

* Yes, you are confused.

A quote from you earlier from you. "* I can only repeat what I have mentioned many times before which is that I think they are a sensible idea and that I use them and enforce their use when I'm driving." So were you not using that common sense when you were pulled over?

* The lonely little streets here were suddenly filled with police officers. These were not regular traffic police, but police who normally sit at desks at the police station.

I was exiting a supermarket car park and reaching for the belt. I may had been travelling at 10 kph. The police had not up to that point ever targeted shoppers exiting the carpark, and though my chances of serious injury as a result of not having that belt fastened at that point were less than my seeing a tyranosaurus rex plodding down the street, I am now wise to this, and always try to see behind low walls and behind lampposts whenever I'm going home from a shopping trip. Shame it takes some of my concentration away from the task of driving.

Now that is why there should be a law like this.

* And clearly you are in need of it.

If like you say everyone had the commonsense to apply the neccesary steps to avoid injury to yourself and others there would be no need for the law would it?

* Commonsense advises little reason for wearing a seat belt when they would provide no additional safety.

Or any other laws regarding seat belts, I would love to see your take on the law requiring the front seat passengers to wear belts or is that law an invasion of liberty too?

* I have written about this on this thread.

* I will repeat what I said, which is that the safety of the occupants of a car is the driver's responsibility. And yes, I feel that on a matter of safety it is up to the driver to exercise his commonsense and do what is necessary to ensure safety.

Going by your way of thinking there should not be speed limits either, no laws requiring you to stop at traffic lights, no laws to stop at stop signs and so on and so forth.

* Which is at variance with what I have actually written. Why should I repeat everything I have written for you?

B/c as you say everyone should have the commonsense to do the right thing, right? I couldn't even begin to imagine the carnage...

* Well seeing as you like to go off at a tangent, I'd like to ask you what happens when there's a power cut and the signals don't work? That's right! Unlike you, there are a whole lot of people who are responsible and intelligent enough to travel and negotiate the roads without Big Brother watching their every move.

* Actually the nubmer of accidents goes down when the speeding laws are waived.

Do want them in other langauges too, or is the majority of developed countries wrong in their research and data and you are right with your beliefs?

* Ha ha ha! You betray your own frustration again. Are you bragging about the number of languages you are fluent in? You like taking chances don't you! Well I suppose there's no other option unless you concede the point, and that's obviously unlike you.

* I take 'government research' with a big pinch of salt.

But wait , you aggreed that it was in fact the safe thing to do , so why then do you say the artcles are biased? quote "* I can only repeat what I have mentioned many times before which is that I think they are a sensible idea and that I use them and enforce their use when I'm driving."

* Count to ten and try again. That was all over the place!

Half cocked schemes.... Hmmm, I would love to hear the basis behind this statement. Please share your thoughts.

* I gave them to you.

* I said that the laws relating to airbags was a compromise, and that the whole idea and concept had become half-cocked - ie - a compromise. And further changes will no doubt ensue.

Fine if you think that way and you really think it is safe, hypothetically would you drive at 20km at a parked car without straping in your child in to prove the point that it was not dangerous and would in fact not cause any kind of serious injury or death?

* Are you serious?

* Well I usually buy a car once a week so I can crash it into not only parked cars, but also groups of pedestrians and also brick walls to test my theories. So far I have survived ploughing into thirty elderly people at a bus stop at 40 ks. Seventeen oldies went feet-up, and I didn't fly through the windscreen.

Do you forget that humans are soft bodied animals and even a soft blow to the head can have serious consequences ?

* I hope you can recover.

And don't dodge the question and say it is ridiculous, b/c it is hypothetical I want to hear if you would deliberately put your child in that situation.

* Er??? Hello??? Are you feeling OK?

I paid full attention to your snide remark, any way you put it you said I was stupid b/c I did not suggest that I was stupid in my example ,instead I said "IF" I was stupid, there is a difference and you took it one step further by calling me stupid. Like I said, tit for tat...

* No. What you wrote could be read that way. And you didn't write 'if.'

* Get over it!

MPH or km/h ?

I wonder.. Have you ever been in a car crash?
I have. In low speed. Another car crashed my side (30 - 40 km/h).
It isn't very soft. Even at a low speed!

* I hope you have learned from the experience.

If I remember correctly, when speed is doubled, force increases four-fold. If there is nothing to keep the passenger in the seat, he turns into dead weight.

* Your memory serves you correctly.

Even a pen on the back shelf thingy behind the back seat (whatever it is called) can turn into a deadly projectile in crash!

* Also correct.

I have also gotten hit by a flying purse when a car suddenly stopped on a slippery road training site. First sliding on wet cement, next stopping abruptly on dry cement. Thank God there wasn't anything sharp in it!

* Indeed.