Back seat belting.

[KirinMan]

Maybe you would be happier with issuing of licences to have kids so that only responsible parents can have them....?

You owe me a new keyboard.......I just spit my coffee all over it, next time please warn someone before you make a comment like this.

Great post btw!

I have no problems with the government here finally getting around to child safety issues. There are plenty of other things that need to be looked at as well in my opinion but at least this is a start.

And if my information is correct regarding the "new" seat belt law, warnings are going to be issued for the first year and then afterwards points and fines assessed.

 

[FrustratedDave]

You owe me a new keyboard.......I just spit my coffee all over it, next time please warn someone before you make a comment like this.
Great post btw!
I have no problems with the government here finally getting around to child safety issues. There are plenty of other things that need to be looked at as well in my opinion but at least this is a start.
And if my information is correct regarding the "new" seat belt law, warnings are going to be issued for the first year and then afterwards points and fines assessed.

LOL... Where do you live, I have a spare bluetooth keyboard that I don't need!

Seriously, I found a lot of info on injuries caused to front seat passengers from back seat passengers not wearing seatbelts in Japanese , so thanks for posting the english sites on that topic.

But in all reality, we don't need all these sites stating statistics, all you need to do is look out the window of your car on a Sunday and see the irresponsible parents who still don't strap thier kids in.

 

[JimmySeal]

Unbelted Backseat Passengers Produce Deadly Results

Yep, I posed this point nigh on a month ago and it was rebuked with a snide, sarcastic, and irrelevant comment.

If mael isn't a troll, he does an awfully good impression of one.

 

[Taiko666]

It's commonsense. You need a law for commonsense? Well I see you do!

*You* may think you possess the necessary common sense to belt up in the back.

And I'm sure you possess the necessary compassion required to forgive the person who, unlike you of course, is reckless enough NOT to belt up in the back, and then smashes your skull to pieces with his skull when the car is totalled.

Safety laws like these are there to protect everyone... those who are incapable of looking after themselves and also those whom they endanger.

 

[mael]

Yes. I missed the sarcasm.

Sorry about that. - I must have been tired (Yes I know, it's a poor excuse).

 

[mael]

LOL, I wish I was still at junior highschool, but then I don't how my kids would react.
And how incredibly naive your assuming that most people will belt up when entering a car.

* You think so? It's commonsense. Surely some people still have it?

Like I said in my earlier post we should have the right to be mangled in a car accident if we want to right?

* Absolutely.

Then we can use the government inssurance for our medical bills so all the other tax payers have to pay for my stupidity to choose not to wear a belt.

* Yes. Why not. It's there and it can be used for that purpose. Is it morally correct? Not in my book.
* Too bad you are stupid.

Unfortunately people do need a law for common sense.

* Speaking for yourself of course. Quite definitely not speaking for me. I prefer personal responsibility and taking the consequences of my actions.

And to prove that, here is something you may be interested in,
I don't know if you read Japanese but anyway. http://www.jama.or.jp/lib/jamagazine/200004/04.html
So the commonsense is to restrain your child correct? But yet the percentage of restrained babies under 12 months in age in child seats was 43.8% and under 6 years was a dismal 15.1%.

* Those baby seats don't work. Just an inconvenient rippoff.

So now it has become law to restrain you children in child seats and I believe this number has risen , but going by your way of thinking the general public did not that law b/c they were doing fine the way it was.

* No. I think it's the easy-money the cops get through these meddling laws. I doubt the reason is people's safety - but this is how it is sold.

Yeah right!.... and still as this article states , it obviously needs enforcment. Or does it? http://archive.japantoday.com/jp/comment/1063
So mael, where is that commonsense of yours now? Just b/c YOU don't need to be told, those who can't protect themselves need someone watching over them, so if the government applies a law that is obviously for our saftey why should there be a big fuss about it.

* I do not take kindly to being treated as if I needed a nanny. Though you obviously do.

It is obvious that some of us, Mr general public are not smart enough to know the difference or do know the difference but still choose to put themselves or their kids in danger.

* Yes, that's right, and it's their concern and not the government's.
* The information pertaining to the efficacy and the intrinsic safety of seatbelts should be available and it's up to people to use their commonsense.

Now who was it that seemed like the way they were thinking was in junior high school?
Maybe you would be happier with issuing of licences to have kids so that only responsible parents can have them....?

* No. But you indicate this type of tyranny is what you need. Maybe it's better for us all if you never drive.

 

[alantin]

The japanese are usually so wild for safety so can it really be true that such back seat seatbelt law is so recent thing?

Here such law has been in effect for ages and no one complains about it!
Some people really are stupid enough not to bugle up so it's just good that the law in enforced. Although, there is something called overdoing it..

 

[mael]

I don't share your optimism.
Let's cut the sarcasm here. The law is obviously made to try protecting people who don't have such common sense.

* Well they shouldn't drive.

You can bounce around the car helplessly, crash into other passengers, and cause serious injury to them.

* Which is precisely why there are belts fitted. Commonsense dictates their use when available.

You write as if being unrestrained in a car that has an accident affords you some measure of control (=personal liberty).

* That's your comprehension error. I did not suggest anything of the kind.

It doesn't.
Unbelted Backseat Passengers Produce Deadly Results
ScienceDaily (Dec. 22, 2006) ﾂ― Holiday travelers: Listen up and buckle up!
New research shows that unbelted backseat passengers risk injury or death to themselves and the driver seated in front of them in the event of a head-on crash.

* Well I'd never had imagined that (Sarcasm).

Automobile sled tests simulating head-on crashes between two vehicles and using crash-test dummies have demonstrated the likelihood of severe head and chest traumas for driver and passenger caused by an unbelted passenger slamming into the seat of a belted driver.

* That's why people should use belts. (Thinly smiling).

The risk of severe injury was not evident during sled tests involving driver and passenger dummies restrained by seat belts, according to the researchers. A driver's side airbag was used in all tests.

* You mean the air-bag pushed the driver back into the path of a forward-flying passenger? Who'd have thunk it? Should use that commonsense.

"The tests show clearly that unrestrained rear-seat passengers place themselves, as well as their driver, at great risk of serious injury when involved in a head-on crash,"

[/quote] * That's why people shou...cedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061222092519.htm
See also
http://www.connectwithkids.com/tipsheet/2002/57_jan30/belt.html
Library | Alexandria, Virginia Injury Lawyers The Law Offices of Jeremy Flachs
Unbelted backseat passengers produce deadly results
Don't talk to me about your freedom not affecting other people in the car. And, it doesn't matter whether you carry insurance or not. The damage may be irreparable.

* That's why people should wear seatbelts. (I'm sure I've mentioned this before somewhere).

 

[mael]

*You* may think you possess the necessary common sense to belt up in the back.
And I'm sure you possess the necessary compassion required to forgive the person who, unlike you of course, is reckless enough NOT to belt up in the back, and then smashes your skull to pieces with his skull when the car is totalled.
Safety laws like these are there to protect everyone... those who are incapable of looking after themselves and also those whom they endanger.

Safety laws should be there to protect potential victims from the actions of people without commonsense. If it is my car then I will decide whether belts must be worn.

But you need protecting from yourself.

 

[mael]

Yep, I posed this point nigh on a month ago and it was rebuked with a snide, sarcastic, and irrelevant comment.

If mael isn't a troll, he does an awfully good impression of one.

* Most unfortunate about the 'sarcastic' and 'snide' rebuke you received. I certainly didn't see your post.

* A troll? This is a place for debate, isn't it? What am I doing? I'm debating. I'm stating my opinion and what I believe to be the truth.

Maybe you are not able to converse with the adults? You seem to be good at getting sarcastic rebukes so maybe your style (lack of) encourages it?

 

[fun2knytz]

Sometimes I think a cage would be better for the kids in the back ... .

and xtra large mouth plugs!

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Wow, you guys sure had a lot to work out! I hope this has been therapuetic for all of you.

This is a warning that I will delete all of the flaming posts later today when I get the time. After that point, I will watch this thread more carefully and dole out infractions should anyone wish to continue the flaming.

As used to be said quite a bit around here, debate the issue, not the person.

EDIT: 20 posts have been deleting due to flaming.

 

[JimmySeal]

As the worlds' leaders conspire to complete their homogenization and enslavement of the suffering peons, even previously tough Japan must bend before the NWO behemoth.

Maybe Japan, especially with its declining birth rate and population, would like to stop needlessly losing citizens to something as silly as unbelted seatbelts, even if these people (some of them still in their infancy) lack the "common sense" to buckle their seatbelts without being told.
Additionally, Japan's government partially bears the responsibility for its residents' medical costs (and the people of Japan expect them to do this), so the government has the prerogative to put rules in place that reduce the money wasted on people who don't buckle up.

This law is one more way to prevent "lack of 'common sense'" from being fatal.

Does this law make those affected "enslaved, suffering peons?" Hardly.

 

[FrustratedDave]

When the debate is lost, then the abuse is thrown.
You are childishly atempting to save face.
And I am enjoying the spectacle.
Please continue and escalate your personal abuse. It makes you look as stupid as you previously claimed to be.
As for me, I'll be happy when there are intelligent posts to respond to.
How about you stick to the topic at hand. ie- it isn't childishly insulting mael.

I don't know why I am even replying to your post, when noone could take you seriously. But I will.

The argument was put forward and you brushed all the points with sarcasm and unfactual porrly rebutted responses. Data was shown to you that child seats reduce serious injury with backed up data and their was also data on many other that were all conclusive that wearing seatbelts not only saves lives it also reduces injury to the party in the back seat ,but also saves injury to the front seat passenger.

So where is your data to say that all these statistics are wrong? Instead of a simple reply that you think is right. I believe this was two of them "* Those baby seats don't work. Just an inconvenient rippoff." and "* Well I'd never had imagined that (Sarcasm)."

So you call it a debate, but you are doing nothing of the sort by those empty responses, so why should anyone entertain your ridiculus answers and lack sincerity?

 

[JimmySeal]

* Most unfortunate about the 'sarcastic' and 'snide' rebuke you received. I certainly didn't see your post.

If you didn't see my post, how did you respond to it?☝

Safety laws should be there to protect potential victims from the actions of people without commonsense. If it is my car then I will decide whether belts must be worn.

Seatbelt laws do protect victims from the actions of others. You are not the only person who drives with people in the back seat.

 

[mael]

I don't know why I am even replying to your post, when noone could take you seriously. But I will.
The argument was put forward and you brushed all the points with sarcasm and unfactual porrly rebutted responses. Data was shown to you that child seats reduce serious injury with backed up data and their was also data on many other that were all conclusive that wearing seatbelts not only saves lives it also reduces injury to the party in the back seat ,but also saves injury to the front seat passenger.
So where is your data to say that all these statistics are wrong? Instead of a simple reply that you think is right. I believe this was two of them "* Those baby seats don't work. Just an inconvenient rippoff." and "* Well I'd never had imagined that (Sarcasm)."
So you call it a debate, but you are doing nothing of the sort by those empty responses, so why should anyone entertain your ridiculus answers and lack sincerity?

I have mentioned on innumerable occasions during this debate that seat belts are commonsense.

I have also stated I believe it is up to individuals to practice commonsense.

I have also stated I wear a seat belt (and I wear a lid when I'm riding).

And I have found that you have nothing to say, and say it very loudly.

You are assuming my responses without any good reason to feel confident you know my reactions, and you insinuate and accuse me of writing things I have not written.

Thank you for the entertainment.

* Note to mod:- I am disappointed personal insults have been hurled against me. But of course I am unfazed as the instigators of such an attack are obviously lost from the debate.

But the short post by FD simply stating that I am an idiot canot be justified, and as such I hope you can make arrangemnents so that a person predisposed to such flagrant rule-breaking is denied the opportunity to continue breaking clearly laid-out rules.

 

[alantin]

Exactly what is the point in this anyway?
What do you wish to achieve with this?

If you agree to that using the seat belts is common sense, how can you have any problem with such legislation concerning them? As long as there are people that are too self centerd to think about anything else than their own convenience and thus keep ignoring the safety of other people because "they know better", such laws are necessary.

If you don't like the laws concerning driving, why would you have a car?
If you have a licence and a car, you accept to abide by the rules too. If you brake the rules, then the police gives you a ticket, and you are a subject to those rules as long as you drive. As simple as that.

Or if it's such a big deal anyway, why not move somewhere else where the legislation suits you better? I suppose, there are still countries where they have no rules and anyone can do whatever they please!

 

[FrustratedDave]

But the short post by FD simply stating that I am an idiot canot be justified, and as such I hope you can make arrangemnents so that a person predisposed to such flagrant rule-breaking is denied the opportunity to continue breaking clearly laid-out rules.

People in glass houses.....

 

[Glenski]

I have mentioned on innumerable occasions during this debate that seat belts are commonsense.

Yes, and I for one have pointed out that despite this, many people don't use them. Because such activity endangers others in the car, and is proven so, there are laws to wear them. Why do you disagree with such a thing? That is what I read into your posts, anyway.

 

[mael]

Exactly what is the point in this anyway?
What do you wish to achieve with this?

* The point is the difference between personal responsibility and infringing personal liberties is a line which is not so fine which is being breached by draconian one-size-fits-all system of laws of dubious merit, that are often used as platforms and wedges with which to attempt to launch even more laws which will further encroach personal liberties and obscure the memories of formerly accepted limits of 'authority.'
(That's it in a nutshell, but I could elaborate, as you can imagine).

If you agree to that using the seat belts is common sense, how can you have any problem with such legislation concerning them?

* For the simple reason which you have stated which is that they are a safety feature which is recently being incorporated on more vehicles which is a sensible idea. Their use in private vehicles is a matter of commonsense. Ergo I do not need, want or desire a law dictating a matter of comonsense.
* Now make them mandatory on public transport then I won't complain. That'd be transport I do not personally own and I accept I would have to follow the rules of the owners if I choose to travel on such.

As long as there are people that are too self centerd to think about anything else than their own convenience and thus keep ignoring the safety of other people because "they know better", such laws are necessary.

* 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. And the driver of the vehicle is naturally the one to ensure seatbelts are worn. - Thus how are you contemplating the notion that wearing a seatbelt or otherwise is affecting the safety of others when the situation does not exist anywhere outside of your imagination?
* And yes! It's all down to 'convenience' and other things we are able to change to make our individual lives occupied with things that actually matter.
* Self-centred? You bet! But I am human and posess a functioning conscience so I abide by it.

If you don't like the laws concerning driving, why would you have a car?

* Oh brother! If you like riding a bicycle and one day they say you must get a licence, insurance, wear reflectors on your clothing, a bright helmet, elbow and knee pads, strap indicators and a brake light to your Azz, and make the speed limit 15 kph then why would you want to continue riding a bicycle?
Get the point? 'they're' arbitrarily changing the rules and their method isn't carrot-'n-stick, it's under pain and duress.
* And I'll tell you another thing! I didn't know it was a law until I was nabbed! They aren't imposing financial penalties for failure to belt-up in the back for a while, but even so, it was a very rude way to find out about it.

If you have a licence and a car, you accept to abide by the rules too. If you brake the rules, then the police gives you a ticket, and you are a subject to those rules as long as you drive. As simple as that.

* I gave you an analogy about how things which were perfectly legal and accepted can and have become stressful due to modifying the conditions of their use. I hope you can see the point.

Or if it's such a big deal anyway, why not move somewhere else where the legislation suits you better? I suppose, there are still countries where they have no rules and anyone can do whatever they please!

* What a shallow-minded thing to say. I am quite happy where I am for the moment and I have no problem following set laws. I also seem to posess an alarming amount of commonsense and unlike the majority here I am able to assume responsibility for my actions and do not require laws to tell me what I am fully aware I ought to do.
* I think there are many countries where the law is even more selectively applied than it is here. For example some South American countries, where a 'stop' sign is a dangerous place because thugs can smash the window of a stopped-car and rob those inside, and so it is accepted that one needn't stop. Neither do they pay much heed to traffic lights for the same reason. Would I like to live and drive there? No! Why not? Because I don't want to live with creatures who see people as items for exploitation. I prefer to live amongst and near people who are more as I am. But I do not like my personal liberties being encroached and challenged.

 

[mael]

Maybe Japan, especially with its declining birth rate and population, would like to stop needlessly losing citizens to something as silly as unbelted seatbelts, even if these people (some of them still in their infancy) lack the "common sense" to buckle their seatbelts without being told.
Additionally, Japan's government partially bears the responsibility for its residents' medical costs (and the people of Japan expect them to do this), so the government has the prerogative to put rules in place that reduce the money wasted on people who don't buckle up.
This law is one more way to prevent "lack of 'common sense'" from being fatal.
Does this law make those affected "enslaved, suffering peons?" Hardly.

It means you have less freedom. Freedom for which you apparently have no grasp of.

 

[mael]

I don't know why I am even replying to your post, when noone could take you seriously. But I will.

* Good.

The argument was put forward and you brushed all the points with sarcasm and unfactual porrly rebutted responses.

* Not quite. I addressed the points and indicated their flaws.

Data was shown to you that child seats reduce serious injury with backed up data and their was also data on many other that were all conclusive that wearing seatbelts not only saves lives it also reduces injury to the party in the back seat ,but also saves injury to the front seat passenger.

* And I said they were a safety feature which is commonsense. I did not comment on the data because it was neither uniform or realistic. The WOMAN driver carelessly gawking in the mirror in the video ficticiously died as a result of the airbag, and not the mass of bone sitting in the back behind her. And the young man would also have been much better off hitting the back of the driver's seat instead of the careless woman's head.

* Airbags! Heard they can decapitate infants when fastened into their child-seats on the passenger side. Now they can be turned-off! No doubt they will be further improved so as to avoid batting the driver against anything in the car behind him/her.

* Adult seatbelts for mini-people? RU serious? It's barmy! Just ban kids in cars to make some sense in all this.

* My kids have never flown through the window after I picked them up from school during the three-minute drive to my office. Must be because I tend to keep the speed reasonable. But they always wear a belt when in the front.

* I told you my wife was stopped after my eldest unbelted himself to console the screaming baby on the back seat. That wasn't flagrantly breaking the law! It was just reacting to circumstances in the most appropriate way. My wife was unable to stop or pull over at that point, and intended to do so as soon as it was safe!

* She could have stopped there and then in the stream of traffic and maybe the police would have been more understanding that she couldn't possibly console the baby unless she stopped as it would be breaking the law to remove seatbelted people in the front. Actually the boy was climbing through the front seats to get to the back and the car was doing maybe 20 kph. And this story of mine is just an example of how this is a law which goes against the grain.

So where is your data to say that all these statistics are wrong?

* Have you not been listening to what I say?

Instead of a simple reply that you think is right. I believe this was two of them "* Those baby seats don't work. Just an inconvenient rippoff." and "* Well I'd never had imagined that (Sarcasm)."
So you call it a debate, but you are doing nothing of the sort by those empty responses, so why should anyone entertain your ridiculus answers and lack sincerity?

* I typically respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Thus you get sarcasm instead of a serious response when the answer is already given.

Much better. Thank you.

 

[mael]

Yes, and I for one have pointed out that despite this, many people don't use them. Because such activity endangers others in the car, and is proven so, there are laws to wear them. Why do you disagree with such a thing? That is what I read into your posts, anyway.

* 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.

* I am not at liberty to tell you (for example) what to do with your life. If you choose not to belt up in the back then that's your funeral.

* Perhaps you need a law to belt up? Without a law you wouldn't use commonsense?

People in glass houses.....

If you adjusted your literary style you could become adept at calling people idiots without actually calling them idiots.

I would certainly advise aspiring to this.

 

[FrustratedDave]

* Good.
* Not quite. I addressed the points and indicated their flaws.

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

* And I said they were a safety feature which is commonsense. I did not comment on the data because it was neither uniform or realistic. The WOMAN driver carelessly gawking in the mirror in the video ficticiously died as a result of the airbag, and not the mass of bone sitting in the back behind her. And the young man would also have been much better off hitting the back of the driver's seat instead of the careless woman's head.

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

* Airbags! Heard they can decapitate infants when fastened into their child-seats on the passenger side.

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

Now they can be turned-off! No doubt they will be further improved so as to avoid batting the driver against anything in the car behind him/her.* Adult seatbelts for mini-people? RU serious? It's barmy! Just ban kids in cars to make some sense in all this.

Yes and I thought you were being serious?

* My kids have never flown through the window after I picked them up from school during the three-minute drive to my office. Must be because I tend to keep the speed reasonable. But they always wear a belt when in the front.

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?

* I told you my wife was stopped after my eldest unbelted himself to console the screaming baby on the back seat. That wasn't flagrantly breaking the law! It was just reacting to circumstances in the most appropriate way. My wife was unable to stop or pull over at that point, and intended to do so as soon as it was safe!
* She could have stopped there and then in the stream of traffic and maybe the police would have been more understanding that she couldn't possibly console the baby unless she stopped as it would be breaking the law to remove seatbelted people in the front. Actually the boy was climbing through the front seats to get to the back and the car was doing maybe 20 kph. And this story of mine is just an example of how this is a law which goes against the grain.

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.

* Have you not been listening to what I say?
* I typically respond in the manner to which I am addressed. Thus you get sarcasm instead of a serious response when the answer is already given.
Much better. Thank you.

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 adjusted your literary style you could become adept at calling people idiots without actually calling them idiots.
I would certainly advise aspiring to this.

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

 

[alantin]

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?