What's new

Back seat belting.

* I hope you have learned from the experience.
* Your memory serves you correctly.
* Also correct.
* Indeed.


Thank you for your insightfull post.. >.<
I can really see your debating skills..
You either honestly don't see the point or do not want to see it and make an effort to mock other writers.
I return to my initial impression. What's the point in this "debate"..

That sarcasm of yours is rubbing off on me.
 
Do I sense the fact that mael can't answer my post? Instead again a bunch of sarcastic answers that avoid the the main point of questioning. But don't fear, you already have proven that you are not really concerned with this debate at all, instead you are a troll who is baiting.

* 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.
*.
Avoiding the question I see . Would your purposely put your kids in danger?
 
Last edited:
I can understand both sides of the argument as one should have the RIGHT to do as one pleases if it doesn't endanger the lives of others. However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.

If it was a god-given right then the law could be condemned and fought. However, since a license is granted to the individual than I believe one must abide by the laws handed down from the state and, if one does not agree with them then they should refuse to drive in protest if they disagree with the law. If that means wearing a seatbelt or helmet, then so be it.

I drive for a living and we have to sign a statement that if we die in an accident and it is proved that we were not wearing our seatbelt, than our family would not receive the two years of salary, granted at no cost to the employee, by the company.

However, I wear mine even when I am in my personal vehicle as, having assisted on autopsies in the past, I do not want my face torn to shreds by a windshield and my brain matter spread over the hood,or be responsible for killing the front seat passenger or driver by being propelled into them at 60+ mph. It has become so natural to me that I could not imagine not wearing one (whether driving or a passenger) if I care for my own life and that of my own family should I be so foolish as to die not wearing one because then they have to suffer because of it.

I believe if one chooses to not wear a seatbelt then that should be their choice, but they should also be required to sign waivers to the insurance companies that, should they be in an accident and not wearing their seatbelts, then they will receive no compensation from said insurance companies including medical costs. Then, I believe, their own insurance premiums would be way cheaper and both parties would be happy.
 
Thank you for your insightfull post.. >.<
I can really see your debating skills..
You either honestly don't see the point or do not want to see it and make an effort to mock other writers.
I return to my initial impression. What's the point in this "debate"..

That sarcasm of yours is rubbing off on me.

Well that's hardly fair, is it!

The only point you made was that in a side collision at low speed the experience is uncomfortable. Now this is hardly big news, is it?

And the rest of your comments were other experiences you've had and your observations. I essentially agreed with you.
 
@mael
I migh say you are quite an interesting character too though at times your style might get a bit provocative.

* My cat loves me anyway. If she didn't I wouldn't feed her.

It just made me wonder, what you were after. Discussion or just wordfight and senseless debate..

* The former. But I expected the latter.

(this thread really hasn't filled the standards for a dialog in o' so many ways..)

* Yes it has. This is normal fare for a debate on boards where incumbant egos are nervous.

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

* 'good debate?' That's up to the beholder. I think this has and is going very well under the circumstances.

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

* No problem.

* You are admirable in that you can be introspective and learn.

What have you learned?

* I have learned that sheep are normally docile and timid creatures which prefer the security of being with the herd.

* And that though it is difficult to get them to to shift their focus from the sheep in front, it is not at all impossible.

* In fact I have witnessed here that some people may feel suffocated with the belligerent ones advocating unquestioning compliance with whatever 'law' is thrust in their faces.

* I have also proved to myself that these laws may be perfectly reasonable and acceptable to 'normal' people, but these laws rigidly applied to those in exceptional circumstances are inconvenienced in ways which can be dangerous, and some people are (in my mind) certainly less safe than they were before the law was contrived and duly enacted.

And please, give an answer to this one without any sarcasm!

* I hope you were not disappointed with my response.

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.

* Yeah! Buses, planes, ships, trains ... TRAINS! How about the number of passengers is limited to the number of seats available? And no standing? I mean seriously! I put my belt on with extra vigilance whenever someone else is driving and I'll often grip the seat as well! - Especially when my wife is driving. But there are some I'd let drive with me stretched-out in the front with my feet on the dash. I've got the belt on as well of course.

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

* This is a point I have made.

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.

* Me too! Some of these loonies scare the willies out of me! But I'd put my money on my wife if she was pitted against them.

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!

The doctors!!! Ack! Some of them think they have the right of way by virtue of their being doctors driving Mercedes Benz's. They get the evil eye from me and are made to wait while I have the right of way. - The young racers are usually highly skilled and don't give any problems unless you start it, which I normally don't. - On this point it is a shame that these skilled young drivers are taken off the road and those careless half-blind old ladies are allowed to continue inconveniencing everyone by following the law to a 't.'

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..

* Could be.

* I want a fast car! I gave them up a few years back because of increasing costs. So I'm a latent a**hole. - Just waiting for a Porshe. (Laughing smileys are conspicuously absent because I don't like the selection here and I'd forget what I was writing about if I went and tried to find ones I like).

Now does that sound pessimistic? 😊

* No. It's not an absolute rule, but you, as I, have learned that drivers of arbitrarily expensive motors tend to be unpredictable. Defensive driving is high on the list of things which are sensible.

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

* Stay tough!🙂
 
Do I sense the fact that mael can't answer my post?

* Your diminishing sorority is responding in unison that the answer is whatever you say boss!

Instead again a bunch of sarcastic answers that avoid the the main point of questioning. But don't fear, you already have proven that you are not really concerned with this debate at all, instead you are a troll who is baiting.

*ツ I accept your capitulation. However I will mention that you were not very gracious about conceding.

ie- still slinging the insults in a personal way.

* My ""bait"" is something which is off the menu to you. You prefer the pre-chewed stuff.

Avoiding the question I see . Would your purposely put your kids in danger?

* Put it into a meaningful context and I'll give you my considered opinion. K?
 
* Your diminishing sorority is responding in unison that the answer is whatever you say boss!
* I accept your capitulation. However I will mention that you were not very gracious about conceding.
On the contrary ,I have neither conceded or given up , I have come to the conclusion that you are not serious in this discussion at all. You talk about common sense and that you enforce the wearing of seat belts, but yet you failed to do so and consiqently was pulled over by the police. You struggle to grasp the concept that by not wearing a seat belt can have an effect on others besides the wearer which brings us to the point that you have no right to decide whether that person should be put in unecessary danger or not. You have failed to acknowledge this fact due to what you call biased data ,but you can't ignore the laws of physics and momentum. Common sense also says if you are in a crash and not straped in you keep going but the car does not.
ie- still slinging the insults in a personal way.
* My ""bait"" is something which is off the menu to you. You prefer the pre-chewed stuff.
See ,all your comments make a mockery of just about every valid point given to you by many different posters and its b/c you have no basis at all to disput or rebutt it. And that is why I did not and still don't take you seriously ,it is a simply as that.
* Put it into a meaningful context and I'll give you my considered opinion. K?
Fine , would you deliberately put your childs life in danger? It is a simple question anyone can answer it if asked to them, yes or no will do fine.

I can understand both sides of the argument as one should have the RIGHT to do as one pleases if it doesn't endanger the lives of others. However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
I think Pachipro has just summed up the entire thread with one simple statement which holds true, can't deny this.
 
Last edited:
I can understand both sides of the argument as one should have the RIGHT to do as one pleases if it doesn't endanger the lives of others. However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
If it was a god-given right then the law could be condemned and fought. However, since a license is granted to the individual than I believe one must abide by the laws handed down from the state and, if one does not agree with them then they should refuse to drive in protest if they disagree with the law. If that means wearing a seatbelt or helmet, then so be it.

I couldn't have said this better myself!

As I wrote in the past. People tend to call out for their right's but like to dismiss their oblications. Abiding by the rules is a responsibility that comes with the privilege.

I think others haven't addressed this side of it very much though. I'm not sure though.. Maybe it just hasn't been said clearly enough before.

My main problem with this kind of "it is my RIGHT" -attitude is that I feel it provokes irresponsible behaviour.

First you don't want to wear seatbelts, soon you don't need to signal anymore, then you start ignoring the stopsigns, etc, etc.
Soon you know better than anyone else because you have been driving for so-and-so many years, and just can't see that you have only become a menace on the road.

With great power, comes great responsibility.
 
mael,
You said KirinMan dealt adequately with the fact that other people are in danger from unbelted passengers. No he has not, and neither have you. Get off this. You and he are wrong.

You really don't seem to be making sense, either of you. You both seem to agree that the belting of everyone is important. You even admit you would require such things of your own passengers. However, you both seem to be against the law itself as a sort of infringement of human rights. Sorry, this doesn't wash.

1. You both would require people to buckle in your own cars. But that forced action infringes on other people's rights, too.

2. You both feel you have the sense to do this important thing, but you admit that others do not. You admit this because your own relatives don't do it, or simply because you say that you would require it, which in itself implies that others don't have the sense.

So, since you both feel buckling is important enough to require it in your own vehicles, and that there are people who would otherwise not do it, it just makes sense to have a law out there to reinforce your own beliefs. It is not infringing on anyone's rights that you wouldn't have infringed upon anyway. Slam dunk.

Your sarcasm against hidden police officers is pathetic. If they want to catch offenders, they will not stand out in the open, now will they? That's the nature of things. Stop poking fun at the law when you were the one at fault. (You didn't start to buckle your belt until the car was in motion. Never mind how slow/fast it was going. Buckling is like fumbling for a cell phone in that it causes distractions, which could lead to accidents. YOU should have buckled before moving the car!)

You talk about power going out (hence a loss of traffic signals) or about overweight passengers (people who are not "normal" size), but these are all exceptions to normal conditions. Laws cannot be made to protect all situations, even though they try. If you stop trying to word things so cutely, you will not look so juvenile.

Commonsense advises little reason for wearing a seat belt when they would provide no additional safety.
But your own mother-in-law doesn't have that common sense, and if the very first post of this thread is correct, then she has endangered your own children. The law was there to protect them from her lack of common sense. Besides, you have not shown why they provide no additional safety, whereas I have shown that they do.
 
1. You both would require people to buckle in your own cars. But that forced action infringes on other people's rights, too.

2. You both feel you have the sense to do this important thing, but you admit that others do not. You admit this because your own relatives don't do it, or simply because you say that you would require it, which in itself implies that others don't have the sense.

So, since you both feel buckling is important enough to require it in your own vehicles, and that there are people who would otherwise not do it, it just makes sense to have a law out there to reinforce your own beliefs. It is not infringing on anyone's rights that you wouldn't have infringed upon anyway. Slam dunk.
Slam dunk? I think not Glenski, what I choose to do or have people do within the confines of MY car is my choice.

You keep missing that little point Glenski and you keep avoiding responding to it as well with your version of smoke and mirrors.

What "right" does any government anywhere have to tell me what I can and can not do within the confines of my own property? This isnt North Korea, this is supposedly a democratic country.

Since you agree with this law as it is a safety issue, then you will have no problems with the government coming into your life and telling you how you should live it.

However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.

However the government through it's representation of the citizens have decided that upon turning a certain age one is granted the right to attempt to take an exam that will allow the individual the right to drive on roads here.

I disagree that it is a priviledge, it is the same as voting, it is a right granted upon an individual with the passage of set requirements. Everyone has a right to be a Doctor, yet not everyone has the capabilities nor knowledge to pass the required tests to become one.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


Side topic here on this issue.................

How would you like to be a taxi driver in Japan now? By law all passengers must buckle their seat belts right. That includes taxis and if a customer refuses to do so of course the driver of the taxi has the right to kick the person out of their car, but now we are talking about people's livelyhoods being possibly threatened because of this law. Think about that a bit, I could add more to it but I think that people here are smart enough to figure out the ramifications of this one.

Also on this topic, when is the last time anyone saw the Prince of Japan and his family riding in their motorcade? Windows rolled down, daughter sitting in between them, waving and smiling to the crowds.....NO SEAT BELTS.

How about heads of state, diplomats, etc etc etc....?

Think where this is going and you might get a better idea of where I stand regarding the law. IF the law is good enough for us "peons" then it had better be good enough for those that consider themselves the "rulers".
 
I couldn't have said this better myself!

As I wrote in the past. People tend to call out for their right's but like to dismiss their oblications. Abiding by the rules is a responsibility that comes with the privilege.

I think others haven't addressed this side of it very much though. I'm not sure though.. Maybe it just hasn't been said clearly enough before.

My main problem with this kind of "it is my RIGHT" -attitude is that I feel it provokes irresponsible behaviour.

First you don't want to wear seatbelts, soon you don't need to signal anymore, then you start ignoring the stopsigns, etc, etc.
Soon you know better than anyone else because you have been driving for so-and-so many years, and just can't see that you have only become a menace on the road.

With great power, comes great responsibility.
Let me state for the record here.........

I have never advocated not wearing seatbelts, front, back, anywhere within a vehicle. Again I repeat, it's a common sense thing to me. You ride in my car you wear your seatbelt. Dont want to, then walk, I dont care.

However, my point is and has been all along that there doesnt need to be a law outlining this in my opinion.

It is just one more law that infringes upon my right to freedom of choice, which is supposed to be a mainstay of any democratic society. The more laws that are created that infringe upon my right of choice as a member of said democratic society, I think are wrong.
 
What "right" does any government anywhere have to tell me what I can and can not do within the confines of my own property? This isnt North Korea, this is supposedly a democratic country.
I fail to see the connection between democracy and unbounded personal freedoms. Are you sure you know what the word "democracy" means?

KirinMan said:
Glenski said:
However, what I have not read (or maybe I missed it) is that driving is a privilege granted by the state to the individual and NOT AN OUTRIGHT RIGHT of the individual in Japan or anywhere.
Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.

What on earth are you talking about? You somehow reached the conclusion "If driving is a privilege then it would not have an age limit" and you expect us to take you seriously? ☝

However the government through it's representation of the citizens have decided that upon turning a certain age one is granted the right to attempt to take an exam that will allow the individual the right to drive on roads here.

Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. It can be granted and it can be taken away. Residents have the right to attempt to gain that privilege, and can gain it and keep it if they abide by the rules.
And the government has every prerogative to deem that someone who has so little regard for their own safety as to not wear a seatbelt and to allow their children to go unbelted cannot be trusted to practice other safe driving behaviors, and take action as appropriate.
 
Really? If that's the case then there should be no laws pertaining to age when it comes to allowing someone the priviledge to drive. Wrong of course.

I would like to hear the reasoning behind this too..


If you have the right to use authority within the confinds of your car, how come the democratically elected government should not have the right to use same kind of authority in the same kind of questions within the confinds of the country?
 
Last edited:
I would like to hear the reasoning behind this too..

Did you and Jimmy happen to read the last three words of the sentence you are quoting?


If you have the right to use authority within the confinds of your car, how come the democratically elected government should not have the right to use same kind of authority in the same kind of questions within the confinds of the country?
If I am understanding you correctly here, and correct me if I am wrong please, are you saying then that the government has the "right" to enact any laws as it deems fit for the supposed protection and safety of it's citizens?
 
Driving is not a right. It is a privilege. It can be granted and it can be taken away. Residents have the right to attempt to gain that privilege, and can gain it and keep it if they abide by the rules.
And the government has every prerogative to deem that someone who has so little regard for their own safety as to not wear a seatbelt and to allow their children to go unbelted cannot be trusted to practice other safe driving behaviors, and take action as appropriate.

I disagree that it is a priviledge. It is one of the rights extended along with freedom of movement within a country. Citizens often have their rights taken away that's nothing new, and I am generally speaking here.

On the point of whether it is a priviledge or a right we will have to agree to disagree on this.

My position on the rest of your comment here about children has been posted before so I am not going to reply to that portion of your reply here.
 
Did you and Jimmy happen to read the last three words of the sentence you are quoting?

Yes. I did. And I still would like to hear the reasoning as to why driving being a right granted to an individual who meets certain qualities (sufficient age being one of them) would result in that there should not be laws concerning the age in which one can get the drivers license.


Btw. I found the dictionary definition for the word "license" interesting:

Official or legal permission to do or own a specified thing.

Is a legal permission a right?



If I am understanding you correctly here, and correct me if I am wrong please, are you saying then that the government has the "right" to enact any laws as it deems fit for the supposed protection and safety of it's citizens?


You are not. Please, read my message again.
I would really like to have your answer to my question.
 
Yes. I did. And I still would like to hear the reasoning as to why driving being a right granted to an individual who meets certain qualities (sufficient age being one of them) would result in that there should not be laws concerning the age in which one can get the drivers license.
Btw. I found the dictionary definition for the word "license" interesting:
Is a legal permission a right?

It is a right based upon a citizens right to movement and travel within a specified country. Edited to add... If we are to believe that All Men are created equal .....who has the right to be priviledged?

Here is a link to an article discussing this issue from the US perspective, I realize this is Japan. Food for thought.

Driving a Right, Not a Priviledge.
SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN
U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.
For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license".

Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

You are not. Please, read my message again.
I would really like to have your answer to my question
I realize you underlined the word any.

So what is it you are saying?
 
On the contrary ,I have neither conceded or given up , I have come to the conclusion that you are not serious in this discussion at all.

* OK! Good. See ya around then.

You talk about common sense and that you enforce the wearing of seat belts, but yet you failed to do so and consiqently was pulled over by the police.

* ... Whilst turning out of a supermarket car park whilst pulling the belt down, by desk-police who were hiding behind a low wall. That is correct.

You struggle to grasp the concept that by not wearing a seat belt can have an effect on others besides the wearer

* No struggling here. I just don't subscribe to scripted dramatics to prove someone else's point.

which brings us to the point that you have no right to decide whether that person should be put in unecessary danger or not.

* And this has no bearing on anything other than you trying to stand on a pedestal and micturate in the wind.

You have failed to acknowledge this fact due to what you call biased data ,but you can't ignore the laws of physics and momentum.

* Oh really.

Common sense also says if you are in a crash and not straped in you keep going but the car does not.

* All is not lost for you. You do seem to posess the ability to recognise commonsense.

See ,all your comments make a mockery of just about every valid point given to you by many different posters and its b/c you have no basis at all to disput or rebutt it.

* Ahhh! I see. I think you will notice that I haven't paid much attention to your 'data.' But this isn't the same of all those who have contributed to this thread.

And that is why I did not and still don't take you seriously ,it is a simply as that.

* Good. The last thing I want or need is your approval.

Fine , would you deliberately put your childs life in danger? It is a simple question anyone can answer it if asked to them, yes or no will do fine.

* The CD is definitely scratched. Put that question in a meaningful context and I'll give you my considered opinion. K? I'll even throw some similar questions back at you along the same vein, so be careful.


I think Pachipro has just summed up the entire thread with one simple statement which holds true, can't deny this.

* If you think so then that's really great!

* So there is no need for you to further confuse this topic by saying anything else.
 
I realize you underlined the word any.
So what is it you are saying?

I am asking if - while thinking that you have right to require people in your car to buckle up because it is your car - you think that the democratically elected government should not have the right to make the same requirement within the confinds of the country witch it is elected to lead?

And if so, why is it different?

It is very specific question. No generalizations here.

This should have been clear in my previous post. I'm sorry if it wasn't.

I am asking this because the impression I get from your posts is that this is what you think and see a clear contradiction.
I just want it to be cleared out.
 
I couldn't have said this better myself!

As I wrote in the past. People tend to call out for their right's but like to dismiss their oblications. Abiding by the rules is a responsibility that comes with the privilege.

I think others haven't addressed this side of it very much though. I'm not sure though.. Maybe it just hasn't been said clearly enough before.

My main problem with this kind of "it is my RIGHT" -attitude is that I feel it provokes irresponsible behaviour.

First you don't want to wear seatbelts, soon you don't need to signal anymore, then you start ignoring the stopsigns, etc, etc.
Soon you know better than anyone else because you have been driving for so-and-so many years, and just can't see that you have only become a menace on the road.

With great power, comes great responsibility.

So Atlantin you are saying you aren't up to the task of acting responsibly?
 
So Atlantin you are saying you aren't up to the task of acting responsibly?

No. That is not what I'm saying.
Please, read the message again.
I'm saying exactly what I wrote and I'm quite strongly implying that people should act responsibly.


Btw. The nick is alantin
 
Last edited:
I am asking if - while thinking that you have right to require people in your car to buckle up because it is your car - you think that the democratically elected government should not have the right to make the same requirement within the confinds of the country witch it is elected to lead?

And if so, why is it different?

It is very specific question. No generalizations here.

This should have been clear in my previous post. I'm sorry if it wasn't.

I am asking this because the impression I get from your posts is that this is what you think and see a clear contradiction.
I just want it to be cleared out.
No I dont, I dont think the democratically elected government should be telling me or anyone how I should or should not act within the confines of my "private space" which includes the inside of my vehicle.

There is no contradiction either. I personally believe that seat belts save lives and that they should be worn. I am also personally responsible enough to realize that and act accordingly.

What I think you are missing is the point that I do not believe that the government should be dictating to me what I should or should not do.

Did you read the article about the definition of driving as a right and not a priviledge?
 
mael,
You said KirinMan dealt adequately with the fact that other people are in danger from unbelted passengers. No he has not, and neither have you. Get off this. You and he are wrong.

* I haven't? How remiss of me

You really don't seem to be making sense, either of you. You both seem to agree that the belting of everyone is important. You even admit you would require such things of your own passengers. However, you both seem to be against the law itself as a sort of infringement of human rights. Sorry, this doesn't wash.

* Fine. It makes sense to me.

1. You both would require people to buckle in your own cars. But that forced action infringes on other people's rights, too.

* If it's my car it's my responsibility.

2. You both feel you have the sense to do this important thing, but you admit that others do not. You admit this because your own relatives don't do it, or simply because you say that you would require it, which in itself implies that others don't have the sense.

* In your mind.

So, since you both feel buckling is important enough to require it in your own vehicles, and that there are people who would otherwise not do it, it just makes sense to have a law out there to reinforce your own beliefs. It is not infringing on anyone's rights that you wouldn't have infringed upon anyway. Slam dunk.

* I would not, for example think it was appropriate to wear a seat belt when I'm trying to push-start the car if it had a flat battery whilst on an otherwise deserted stretch of asphalt in the boonies. Of course you'd make it your target to be able to belt-up and hold the clutch and gearstick and steering wheel at the same time, wouldn't you.

Your sarcasm against hidden police officers is pathetic.

* Fine. If you think so.

If they want to catch offenders, they will not stand out in the open, now will they?

* No. They'd hide behind low walls outside schools. Or they could watch from a helicopter fitted with a good camera. maybe they can arrange to spy on people by using people's upstairs bedroom windows and peep through the curtains?

* THE PURPOSE OF LAWS LIKE THIS IS NOT TO MAKE THE ROADS SAFER BUT SEEMS MORE LIKE THEY ARE JUST TO CATCH PEOPLE FOR MONEY (TO PAY FOR EVEN MORE POLICE SURVEILLANCE).

That's the nature of things. Stop poking fun at the law when you were the one at fault. (You didn't start to buckle your belt until the car was in motion. Never mind how slow/fast it was going. Buckling is like fumbling for a cell phone in that it causes distractions, which could lead to accidents. YOU should have buckled before moving the car!)

* You fumble for your cellphone whilst you are driving?

You talk about power going out (hence a loss of traffic signals) or about overweight passengers (people who are not "normal" size), but these are all exceptions to normal conditions. Laws cannot be made to protect all situations, even though they try. If you stop trying to word things so cutely, you will not look so juvenile.

* The point is that the laws are inadequate.

* So how about those many exceptions to the law?

If I appear childish then you must be infantile. You are certainly hypocritical in this matter. But do I berate you for that? No! I'd like to get back to the topic of this debate and less of this character assassination and personal psychological evaluations. I need your comments on my character as a car needs a Kitty Chan doll swinging from the mirror.

But your own mother-in-law doesn't have that common sense, and if the very first post of this thread is correct, then she has endangered your own children.

* She was just the one that got caught. The two in front of her did the same thing and got away with it.

* She didn't endanger my kids. But after that experience I am sure her concentration wasn't as good as it normally is.

The law was there to protect them from her lack of common sense.

* You are hysterical!

* You speak as if seat belts in the back have always been used infallibly since cars started being used.

* And there will be new laws and maybe you won't like them.

* Ban those loud stereos, - Of course because it may be impossible to hear what's happening on the road.

* make it illegal to drive a car without a drink holder, - Imagine those selfish nutcases who get a can of coffee and just hold it as they drive! What if it was hot and it falls off the dash and burns someone? It might cause a terrible accident.

* or you must have a certified rubbish bin in the front and the back? - Maybe the wind can blow a piece of lint from your sweater into the stream of traffic! If enough lint is blown out of those idiots' vehicles which are without certified rubnbish bins then the roads will all become like Hokkaido in mid-winter in no time flat!

* I'm sure you would be the same with all of those laws and act shocked and act as if you followed them all the time.

besides, you have not shown why they provide no additional safety, whereas I have shown that they do.

* What's this got to do with what I said? I have stated they are there for people's safety. You are somehow of the opinion I think they do not contribute to safety? Very surprising.
 
Last edited:
No I dont, I dont think the democratically elected government should be telling me or anyone how I should or should not act within the confines of my "private space" which includes the inside of my vehicle.

So you think it's okay to drink alcohol inside the car while you're driving? It is YOUR private space.

What I think you are missing is the point that I do not believe that the government should be dictating to me what I should or should not do.

But where do you draw the line? Are you against the government punishing criminals? Thieves? Murderers? They are just doing what they want, after all.

Your argument holds little water.
 
Back
Top Bottom