What's new

Welcome to Japan Reference (JREF) - the community for all Things Japanese.

Join Today! It is fast, simple, and FREE!

Back seat belting.

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
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?

Okay.
how is you telling people what to do different from the government telling people what to do? Is it only because the interior of the car is your private space? Don't you think a car in motion on public highway to be different than a parked one?

I did read your quotation and noticed that the cases dealt with traveling and transportation of property. Not operating a vehicle.

Might the writer have accidentally mixed up "traveling" and "operating a vehicle". Or to just make a more provocative headline..

Driving (operating a vehicle) on public roads is a privilege, not a right.
 

KirinMan

Sempai
Joined
23 Jan 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
68
So you think it's okay to drink alcohol inside the car while you're driving? It is YOUR private space.
I was waiting for this one, just knew that someone :rolleyes: was going to try and make this a part of it.

Ok, first off, dont even attempt to put words into my mouth, I never said this nor implied it either.

Next you tell me how my not wearing a seatbelt impairs my driving like alcohol does? Or for that matter in any way shape or form that it distracts me from the task of driving a car. You can't because it doesnt, different topic.

Oh and the rest of what you wrote doesnt merit any reply or comment beyond what I wrote here.
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
* Sorry about getting your name wrong, Bob.😌


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


* I'm not interested in guessing games so spell it out.
 

KirinMan

Sempai
Joined
23 Jan 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
68
I did read your quotation and noticed that the cases dealt with traveling and transportation of property. Not operating a vehicle.

Before I respond to the rest of your reply here I would comment about this on it's own.

Isnt it obvious? They go hand in hand, what is riding in a car or any motor vehicle other than travelling from one location to another and or transportation of property.

That is inherent within the right. Think about that one a second please.
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
So you think it's okay to drink alcohol inside the car while you're driving? It is YOUR private space.

* Do you grasp the concept of personal responsibility?

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.

Not if you put it like that. But then does the government really punish all those criminals or is it selective?

* Thieves, murderers, people just doing what they want and stuff the proletariat? Sounds like government as normal.

How about ambulances? And what about dignitaries not being belted? Hmmm?
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
Okay.
how is you telling people what to do different from the government telling people what to do?

* He isn't. You misunderstood. He is saying what he would have in his own private space. - ie... not the government's space.

Is it only because the interior of the car is your private space? Don't you think a car in motion on public highway to be different than a parked one?

* Inside? Why should anyone care what's inside it?

* Of course you can't bolt javalins on the front or tow a hanglider whilst doing the weekly shop. - That's commonsense.

I did read your quotation and noticed that the cases dealt with traveling and transportation of property. Not operating a vehicle.

Might the writer have accidentally mixed up "traveling" and "operating a vehicle". Or to just make a more provocative headline..

Driving (operating a vehicle) on public roads is a privilege, not a right.
 

KirinMan

Sempai
Joined
23 Jan 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
68
Okay.
how is you telling people what to do different from the government telling people what to do? Is it only because the interior of the car is your private space? Don't you think a car in motion on public highway to be different than a parked one?
Technically it isnt any different to me, with the exception of the rules, and regulations regarding the actually operation of said vehicle.

Also there are legal ramifications of searching or entering a private vehicle by police as well, well at least in the US, I am not 100% sure about here in Japan though.

Might the writer have accidentally mixed up "traveling" and "operating a vehicle". Or to just make a more provocative headline..
I can not suppose or make an assumption about that here because I dont know.

However the cases are or at least appear to be on the surface actual legal challenges and court opinions and interpretations of the law.
 

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
Before I respond to the rest of your reply here I would comment about this on it's own.
Isnt it obvious? They go hand in hand, what is riding in a car or any motor vehicle other than travelling from one location to another and or transportation of property.
That is inherent within the right. Think about that one a second please.

I did think.

In normal speech this would be the case, but in legal texts (witch I assume these cases refer to) very specific language tends to be used. Especially in the states! Don't you agree?

I don't think this quotation alone brings anything to this discussion when the context is considered.

Anyway. As you said. We aren't in the states. Many things are considered differently in different places and even if thought as right in some court in the states, my rant about "it is my RIGHT" sums up my feelings about why taking it as an outright right is a bad thing.
 
Last edited:

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
Technically it isnt any different to me, with the exception of the rules, and regulations regarding the actually operation of said vehicle.

Well.. The rule to buckle up is a regulation concerning a vehicle in motion..
I think it's just the same as signaling, or using headlights.


By the way. It just hit me that I don't know if using seat belts is mandatory in the states? How about using headlights?
Is using headlights, while the car is in motion, mandatory in Japan?

A little off-topic. Sorry! ^^;
 

KirinMan

Sempai
Joined
23 Jan 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
68
I did think.

In normal speech this would be the case, but in legal texts (witch I assume these cases refer to) very specific language tends to be used. Especially in the states! Don't you agree?

I don't think this article brings anything to this discussion when the context is considered.

Depending upon where one is from though it should put to rest, hopefully, the idea brought forth that driving is a priviledge when it is a right.

I agree that legal jargon is very technical, however the purpose of driving is the same, movement from one location to another for whatever the reason may be, so driving is one's right, not a priviledge and from that point of view the government should not be involved in my opinion in creating laws that infringe upon a persons rights, when those infrigements are only with the expectation that "something" could happen.

There is no guaruntee that an acccident will occur, only an expectation of such, and the law was created to prevent, hopefully, any injury or death from said expectation of an accident.

If a person is deemed capable enough to enjoy the right of driving, then there should also be the expectation of responsibility with the right, and if a person so chooses not to act responsibly in protecting themselves what right does the government have in forcing that.

Because wearing seatbelts while a no-brainer in my opinion, does nothing to hinder my actions while driving, it doesnt improve my driving nor anyone elses either, it is just a device meant when used properly to enhance a safety feature of a vehicle, nothing more nothing less.

Well.. The rule to buckle up is a regulation concerning a vehicle in motion..
I think it's just the same as signaling, or using headlights.
Fair enough for you, however a seatbelt is not connected to the operation of the vehicle, maybe it should be from some peoples opinions here. Doesnt affect the operation or affect other drivers in normal driving conditions.

By the way. It just hit me that I don't know if using seat belts is mandatory in the states? How about using headlights?
Is using headlights, while the car is in motion, mandatory in Japan?
A little off-topic. Sorry! ^^;
Seatbelts are mandatory in the states as far as I know, and use of headlights when driving in some states, I am not sure if it is all though.

Also here in Japan there is no requirement to have your headlights on at all times.
 
Last edited:

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
alantin said:
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.

* I'm not interested in guessing games so spell it out.

Spell what out?
I already gave a straight answer to your straight question.
 

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
Depending upon where one is from though it should put to rest, hopefully, the idea brought forth that driving is a priviledge when it is a right.

Source criticism should hopefully put into rest the idea brought forth that driving is a right when it is a priviledge. At least if it is based on this article. 😊

I suppose you disagree with the seat belt laws in the states too then?
Is using the seat belts mandatory in the back as well as in the front in the states?

Anyway.
I think this and you think that.
We are starting to go in circles again! :p
 
Last edited:

JimmySeal

Tubthumper
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
78
I was waiting for this one, just knew that someone :rolleyes: was going to try and make this a part of it.

Ok, first off, dont even attempt to put words into my mouth, I never said this nor implied it either.

No, what you said was,

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 if the government can't tell you how to act inside your "private space" how can they tell you not to chug on a whiskey bottle in your "private space" while you're on the highway?
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
No, what you said was,



So if the government can't tell you how to act inside your "private space" how can they tell you not to chug on a whiskey bottle in your "private space" while you're on the highway?

Because whilst drunk you can injure others. Rather straightforward.

Spell what out?
I already gave a straight answer to your straight question.
Good for you.
Now to increase the length of this post to over 20 characters.
 
Last edited:

KirinMan

Sempai
Joined
23 Jan 2007
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
68
No, what you said was,



So if the government can't tell you how to act inside your "private space" how can they tell you not to chug on a whiskey bottle in your "private space" while you're on the highway?

Read the rest of my replies and you will be enlightened.

Source criticism should hopefully put into rest the idea brought forth that driving is a right when it is a priviledge. At least if it is based on this article. 😊

I suppose you disagree with the seat belt laws in the states too then?
Is using the seat belts mandatory in the back as well as in the back in the states?

Anyway.
I think this and you think that.
We are starting to go in circles again! :p
Yes I disagree with the laws in the states as well. Along with plenty of other laws too that infringe upon my right to freedom of choice.

Oh I have yet to see anything from anyone supporting their view that it is priviledge, other than their own educated opinion.
 
Last edited:
Joined
19 May 2007
Messages
1,648
Reaction score
111
Because whilst drunk you can injure others. Rather straightforward.
And like it has already been put to you with data, the person in the back seat can seriously injure the person in the front seat by not buckling up. Don't you see the conection?
 

JimmySeal

Tubthumper
Joined
5 Mar 2006
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
78
Read the rest of my replies and you will be enlightened.

I had already read all of your replies and I've just read them all again. You did not address this point satisfactorily. You said:

"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.'"

If the government should not tell you what to do in your "private space," it logically follows that they should not tell you not to drink tequila, play Game Boy, or read a book while driving, because if they said such things, they would be telling you how you should not act within your "private space."

If you do think that the government should be able to restrict people from sipping bourbon behind the wheel, then you must admit that in some cases the government can dictate how one behaves within their "private space," and you should retract your prior statement.
 

orochi

便利屋
Joined
1 May 2004
Messages
686
Reaction score
25
I was waiting for this one, just knew that someone :rolleyes: was going to try and make this a part of it.
Ok, first off, dont even attempt to put words into my mouth, I never said this nor implied it either.
Next you tell me how my not wearing a seatbelt impairs my driving like alcohol does? Or for that matter in any way shape or form that it distracts me from the task of driving a car. You can't because it doesnt, different topic.
Oh and the rest of what you wrote doesnt merit any reply or comment beyond what I wrote here.

Don't dodge the issue.
 

alantin

日本語を勉強する者
Joined
17 Oct 2007
Messages
259
Reaction score
10
Oh I have yet to see anything from anyone supporting their view that it is priviledge, other than their own educated opinion.

Well.. I don't remember getting any reasons as to why the license for operating a vehicle on public road should be considered a right. Other than the questionable article. (I might just have missed it though..) Only educated opinions.

You suggested that traveling and driving are pretty much the same but I don't think so.
Traveling is a right as anyone can just do it using public transportation for example (It doesn't require the himself to drive), but to operate a vehicle on a public road you must meet certain physical recuirements, be old enough and pass a test to get the license[/B]. And even then the priviledge can be taken away for violations. It clearly isn't something that just anyone may do.
I think is the defining difference.

I don't know how you get your license in the states but I had to wait long and really work for mine. (It's expensive too!)
I just keep wondering what kind of person would think of it as a right!


Of course in some places the public transportation is out of the question but that clearly isn't the case in Japan. "Public transportation" was foul word for me before I went to Japan. (Here it still is though..)


Yes I disagree with the laws in the states as well. Along with plenty of other laws too that infringe upon my right to freedom of choice.

I guess the only way to influence an average person has it through voting.
This is something to come from me! I generally dislike all politicians, partly because I don't know anything about politics and most news I read about them is the scandals they get themselves into.
Generally my interests lay elsewhere.


That just seems to be the way the cookie crumbles. :p
 

orochi

便利屋
Joined
1 May 2004
Messages
686
Reaction score
25
Where in the Bill of Rights (in the case of the USA), or any legal document in the world, does it outline the right for anybody to drive?
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
And like it has already been put to you with data, the person in the back seat can seriously injure the person in the front seat by not buckling up. Don't you see the conection?

That seems to be true.

But it is not an unsurmountable problem because I have something you haven't.

Passengers in the back killing the person in front seems to be a recent phenomena.

ie... It is something which has become true relatively recently.

The back behind the driver was always accepted as the safest place in a car in a front-end collision. Not necessarily true now.

* Now in a crash the driver gets moved forward momentarily and then is flung back at whatever is in the back unsecured as fast as a tennis ball regardless of whether the crash was at 25 or 75. Some safety improvement, eh! It was half-cocked and we, the people are being picked off while they shuffle their feet and umm and aaah.

*

Anyway.

* I have a confession to make:- I said I have four kids. Well I found out this afternoon that there's a fifth one in the works.

And this of course leads me to the problem about the number of belts in my wife's car and their size being unsatisfactory (unsafe).

What about the unsecured kid in the middle? No crime for not buckling up because there isn't one to belt up!

The car is registered to carry four adults and children are not counted as adults. Thus I can get six kids in my car legally, but there aren't enough belts to comply with the new law.

Any comments on that?
 

Glenski

Just me
Joined
20 Aug 2003
Messages
4,808
Reaction score
405
Slam dunk? I think not Glenski, what I choose to do or have people do within the confines of MY car is my choice.
No you don't. You don't have the right to endanger others, and that's exactly what people do when they choose not to fasten their belts or (as a driver) allow them to ride beltless.

You may force them to do so, as I would, but the fact remains that this is not as "common" sense as you and mael make it out to be, hence the need for such a law.

I will not get into an argument about other POTENTIAL laws that could be made. Non sequitur. This is a law with scientific backing as to its validity, and you know it.

You know it, or you wouldn't say that you'd force riders in your own car to buckle up.

Done deal. Next thread, please.
 

mael

後輩
Joined
16 Jun 2008
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
I had already read all of your replies and I've just read them all again. You did not address this point satisfactorily. You said:
"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.'"
If the government should not tell you what to do in your "private space," it logically follows that they should not tell you not to drink tequila, play Game Boy, or read a book while driving, because if they said such things, they would be telling you how you should not act within your "private space."

* No law against drinking firewater in your car providing you don't drive at the same time.

* People do play hand-held games whilst driving. I'm sure it's illegal but how the hell can you prevent it?

* Reading books? Manga or porn whilst driving? You can see these people all the time.

* The most distracting is when people have TVs or videos in the front.
The GPS systems are a similar menace if they are used whilst driving.

* Most people ignore that cellphone law, and the ones who comply just put their hazard lights on and stop at the side of the road wherever they are, or they just carry on driving one-handed.

* Professional 'drivers' of various public conveyances are trained to be especially responsible because they are - professional and it's their job.

*** One reason I must use more caution and commonsense is because of cellphone users and drivers who have their concentration interrupted by various electronic gadgets.

Until people are screened for distracting material and gadgets before they drive, and are provided with adequate means to comply with the law then a lot of people are going to suffer. ie Bus drivers will have communications systems designed so they do not interfere with the process of driving, and the seatbelts are all neatly lined-up and there are special belts available for those passengers who are not of normal adult size.

You single people wouldn't give a hoot about back-seat belting as it won't normally affect you unless you were in the back with your beau and you nudge the parking brake so you roll down the hill.

* And just how about dignitaries and other notables who do not seem to be required to wear a belt if they don't want to?

If you do think that the government should be able to restrict people from sipping bourbon behind the wheel, then you must admit that in some cases the government can dictate how one behaves within their "private space," and you should retract your prior statement.

* As different as apples and oranges. Drinking alcohol on a public road is illegal because it is deemed to make it hazardous to other road users.

* Failure to wear a seatbelt front or back is hardly in the same league, is it!

No you don't. You don't have the right to endanger others, and that's exactly what people do when they choose not to fasten their belts or (as a driver) allow them to ride beltless.
You may force them to do so, as I would, but the fact remains that this is not as "common" sense as you and mael make it out to be, hence the need for such a law.
I will not get into an argument about other POTENTIAL laws that could be made. Non sequitur. This is a law with scientific backing as to its validity, and you know it.
You know it, or you wouldn't say that you'd force riders in your own car to buckle up.
Done deal. Next thread, please.

Not so fast.

Tell me how an unbelted person in the back of my car is a danger to you if you are in another car?
 
Last edited:

orochi

便利屋
Joined
1 May 2004
Messages
686
Reaction score
25
mael, stop bringing up irrelevant points and misleading arguments.
 

Glenski

Just me
Joined
20 Aug 2003
Messages
4,808
Reaction score
405
* If it's my car it's my responsibility.
Following that logic, if it's the government's country, it's their responsibility to impose laws on you that you should obey.

* In your mind.
No, in reality.


* Fine. If you think so.
I'm glad we agree.


* 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).
Fine, in your mind, if you say so.

* You fumble for your cellphone whilst you are driving?
I don't own one, but people cause accidents doing so.

* The point is that the laws are inadequate.
Support this with facts instead of childish remarks.

* So how about those many exceptions to the law?
How about them?

You are certainly hypocritical in this matter.
Prove it. You haven't and you can't.

But do I berate you for that? No!
You berate no one here. You are incapable of that. You act like a child instead.

Re: your mother in law with no common sense
* She was just the one that got caught. The two in front of her did the same thing and got away with it.
So? My remarks were not about them. You say that people should have common sense to use seat belts but you refuse to acknowledge the fact that your own MIL lacks this.

* She didn't endanger my kids. But after that experience I am sure her concentration wasn't as good as it normally is.
There you go, blatantly ignoring the obvious. She was the responsible driver who lacked responsibility, and since evidence proves unbelted people in cars are at risk for themselves and others, your MIL endangered them.

* You are hysterical!
No, I am right.

* You speak as if seat belts in the back have always been used infallibly since cars started being used.
In your mind. I never implied that or made any direct remarks to that effect. I repeat, in your mind. Hysterical!

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

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

* 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.
Non sequitur.

* or you must have a certified rubbish bin in the front and the back?
Hysterical non sequitur.


* 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.
Where did you get your mind reading license?

* 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.
No, not surprising. I accept the fact that you believe the seat belts protect people and should be there and should be used, even in the confines of your own little "territory" called your car. I just don't accept the fact that you think a law is unnecessary. Why do I feel that way? You have not proven why.

Only in your mind.
 
Top Bottom