- Thread starter
-
- #51
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.'
hehe..
i think this thread should be locked and trashed..☝
How and what evidence do you have to back that up?
And you have done extensive studies to rubutt all of these findings?
Thats why in the saftey instructions it specifically says not to place seat in front of air bags.
Yes and I thought you were being serious?
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?
Yes and at that time if a car pulled out in front of your wife maybe you would have one less child worry about.
Sorry but a screaming child is no reason to unbuckle and put that person at risk of death.
Fully, but your answers are based purely on you feelings and convictions towards this law and NOT I am afraid, of common sense.
And maybe you could refrain from calling someone stupid. Tit for tat...
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?
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.....
It has already been fully established here that you are not only a threat to yourself when you go unbelted. Next!KirinMan said: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?
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.KirinMan said: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?
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."KirinMan said:What right does the government have to infringe on my right to freedom of movement, within the confines of my own car?
No it hasnt because if I am alone in my car there is noone else I am going to injure besides me.It has already been fully established here that you are not only a threat to yourself when you go unbelted. Next!
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.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.
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.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
WRONG! You are not reading the information I've linked, therefore this thread should be locked!** 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.
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?
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.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.
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.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.
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?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?
Half cocked schemes.... Hmmm, I would love to hear the basis behind this statement. Please share your thoughts.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.
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.* 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!
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...* 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 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.
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.KirinMan said: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.
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.KirinMan said: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.
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.KirinMan said: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
...or if it pushes you into the oncoming path of another vehicle going much faster.mael said: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
MODERATORS, please lock this thread!
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.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.
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'm glad you aren't the one making the laws because your ability to think critically is very poor.
Great, if it is written into the contract of the individual owner of the insurance policy fine. Otherwise it shouldnt count nor matter.And, if you are not belted, some insurance claims will not be paid.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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!
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.Btw. It is likely that the kids in the car would have survived had they been wearing seat belts.
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.Why lock the thread when the discussion starts to get interesting here Glenski? Dont like the turn it has taken?
Quote me the safety aspect again. You lose me in the smoke.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.
Stay on topic, instead of bringing up a straw man defense.What is there to stop the government from intruding upon other aspects of your privacy?
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.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.
Go ahead, but you can't convince people with common sense otherwise.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.
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.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.
Support this with facts. You can't.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.
You are educated, yet you don't make the right decision.If people are educated about this subject they will make the right decisions on their own.
If it affects others, yes, you do. But you haven't become educated enough to realize that.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.
KirinMan said:I can decide what's right for myself and my family, hopefully you can as well.
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.
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.
By the way, the law for wearing seatbelts in public transportation (busses) is the next thing to come.
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..
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!
I would give feedback through the appropriate channels.
What I meant with "what's the point" was about writing of it this enthusiasticly on a forum like this.
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.
Ps. I think having to wear a helmet when riding a bike is in the law also here. Is it not in Japan?
Quite unlikely though..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?
WRONG! You are not reading the information I've linked, therefore this thread should be locked!
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?
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...
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."
Half cocked schemes.... Hmmm, I would love to hear the basis behind this statement. Please share your thoughts.
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 ridiculous, b/c it is hypothetical I want to hear if you would deliberately put your child in that situation.
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...
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!