Seatbelt wearing

MrPudding

I like this. From the New Hampshire Road safety agency: http://www.state.nh.us/hsafety/hsseatb.html

MrP

PBC_1966

Like all of the government seat-belt propaganda, that's very one-sided.

What's notable, however, is that this is from New Hampshire -- Now the only remaining U.S. state which has no compulsory seatbelt law (at least not for adults).

unkel

PBC_1966 wrote:

New Hampshire -- Now the only remaining U.S. state which has no compulsory seatbelt law

Not everybody might be aware that American cars have full size airbags designed to protect the driver and front seat passenger that are not wearing a seatbelt

PBC_1966

Actually, I think you'll find that almost all of the auto manufacturers state that the air-bag is intended to be used in conjunction with a seatbelt, not in place of it, although it's true that the U.S. airbags are larger than those now being fitted to European cars.

The airbag issue is another very contentious one, and has attracted considerable concern in the States. The Federal Govt. has mandated airbags on all new cars, yet there have been many cases of airbags causing serious injuries. In one case, a 3-year-old boy was killed when the passenger airbag deployed in a car which did nothing more than bump a curb in a parking lot at a very low speed.

PBC_1966

One other difference that people on this side of the Atlantic may not be aware of is that when many U.S. states introduced seatbelt laws they were only able to pass through the state legislature by being given a secondary enforcement status.

That means a traffic cop cannot pull somebody over and give him a ticket solely for not being buckled up. He has to stop you for some other infraction first, so if you got stopped for speeding or running a red light, then you could be given a seatbelt citation as well.

In more recent years, however, quite a number of states have converted to primary enforcement, in which you can be pulled over and ticketed just for no seatbelt, as is the case in Ireland and the U.K.

John R

PBC_1966 wrote:

I am defending my right to decide for myself what precautions I will take for my own safety.

Driving a car in the first place is not a right, it is a privilege. We accept certain restrictions on the types of people who are allowed (Licences) and the manner in which we drive (speed limits, etc) wearing a seatbelt is one of those restrictions. If you do not agree with it then do not drive or campaign to get the law changed.

PBC_1966 wrote:

In some cases. In others they can cause injuries.

In a VAST MAJORITY of cases they are beneficial.

PBC_1966 wrote:

While we're on the subject of money, this has surely to be the main motivation for enforcing this sort of police-state, "You will do what we tell you to do or else" mentality. Make up a never-ending stream of petty rules and regulations, then rake in millions in fines when people don't comply with them.

How difficult is it to put the damn thing on? If your concern is avoiding being fined then the solution is really very simple; wear your seatbelt. Another dastardly government money thieving scheme foiled.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Speak to most people (at least in England, maybe it's different in Ireland?) and you'll find they want less government interference in their lives, not more. Most of us are fed up with the ever-tightening grip of petty laws that seek to regulate every minute detail of our lives.

Speak to most people anywhere and they will want lots of contradictory things. Less regulation & less road deaths, lower taxes & better public services, less rainfall & more drinking water, the list is endless.

Capt'n Midnight

Kev wrote:

Should motorcycle be banned because they are too risky ?

For those who wouldn't ride in a car without a seatbelt, would you ride in a bus without a seatbelt ?

Long distance coaches could do with belts.
Motorcycles and Bikes are intrinsencly safe, the vast majority of fatal accidents involved collision with something with at least four wheels (wasn't it something like 80% of the motorists who were found to be at fault by a judicary / jury who are mostly motorists rather than bikers.) on that basis private motor cars should be banned. one of the leading preventable causes of death in the 15-40 year old group.

Also while people may have a right to travel this does not imply a right to use any particular form of travel.

While people can argue about being trapped by a seat belt - chances are that without the belt you could have been knocked unconcious or stunned so would not have been able to escape anyway. And too many people have been squished by thier car / other car etc after being ejected. You hear stories about the person who had the lucky escape but not too many from those who don't make it.

As for peoples right to not wear belts - as long as they understand that our underfunded health system can't subsidise them. Simply divide the total number of accidents (not casulties - since we assume that seat belts may change the number of casulties) by the funds available to give the amount per person. Give the % of funds according to the % of people wearing belts to the those with belts and those without. So if seat belts are safer then less casulties will share a greater pool while those who take greater risks will have a lower per capita spent on thier treatment and rehabilitation because there are more of them needing it. Of course I could be wrong, fatalities don't need expensive care.

It's a little like the MMR fuss, you are safer not taking a vaccine if everyone else takes it, since no one can infect you. If you are likley to meet one infectious person during your life then you are much safer off taking the vaccine. In the same way driving a SUV etc. is really selfish since you are asking other people to accept a higher risk so you can feel protected. In the Lockerbie bombing two people were killed by a falling body... And in the case of SUV's you aren't safer than when in a car of equlivent price...

I blame the entertainment industry for a lot of this - to many films of people walking away from crashes with being belted up. Look at how many films you see ejector seats in - in real life using an ejector seat without slowing the plane down first usually means time in hospital - they are really only to be used in a life/death situation.

John R

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

Long distance coaches could do with belts.

They are fitted as standard now for passengers. AFAIK all coaches built since 2001 have to have them fitted by law. Using them is not compulsory though and because of the space restrictions they are only 2 point lap belts.

Seatbelts are still not usually fitted for drivers.

Victor

Boggle wrote:

And I could fall out my bed tonight and die.

400 people a year don't die from falling out of bed.

Kev wrote:

For those who wouldn't ride in a car without a seatbelt, would you ride in a bus without a seatbelt ?

The dynamics of a 10+ tonne bus are fundamentally different to a 500-1000kg car. In the last 6-7 years, approximately 15 people have been killed by busses (10 in two specific incidents, 5 passengers, 5 pedestrians), whereas about 2,000 have been killed by cars.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Yes there are. A law is not valid if it is in violation of fundamental rights as set out by various documents: The Constitution in the U.S.A., Magna Carta & The Bill of Rights in the U.K., etc.

Which don't apply in Ireland.

Are you saying that every law ever passed is just and morally right?

No, but on balance, the body of law serves society.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Many of you are quoting statistics. Well, statistically, you are less likely to be injured in an airplane than in a car. So why doesn't the government ban cars altogther and force everybody to fly instead?

Flights are safer over distance, not number of journeys. Being in the air is relatively safe. It's take off and landing that are dangerous.

mike65

:rolleyes: Sighs...this is NOT an academic discussion, its the law and penatly points!

Wear your belt.

Mike.

The Muppet

But for seatbelts I would probably be just another statistic so the first thing I do when I sit into a car is put the belt on and I would strongly advise everyone else to do likewise.

Victor

PBC_1966 wrote:

I was always led to believe that head-on crashes were actually less common than rear-ends, glancing blows, side-swipes, etc.

Head-on crashes appear to be the most common, two vehicle accident and are the most severe.

Figure 7 page 5

http://www.nra.ie/PublicationsResources/DownloadableDocumentation/RoadSafety/d993.PDF

PBC_1966 wrote:

According to the government's own statistics, vastly more people die each year as a result of smoking-related diseases than in auto wrecks. So why don't they leave cars alone for a while and ban tobacco entirely?

PBC_1966 wrote:

That doesn't mean that the government should ban rock-climbing and force these people to take up stamp collecting instead.

No, but rockclimbers wear safety gear, rely on training and teamwork, tend not to hurtle along at 60mph (and if they do, they tend to splat in a predetermined location), etc. In particular places, some governments do ban mountain climbing.

PBC_1966 wrote:

In some cases. In others they can cause injuries.

The seat belt doesn't cause the injury, the accident causes the injury.

PBC_1966 wrote:

It would be interesting to know exactly how they come to that figure.

There are different models, however it is largely down to the cost society is willing to pay to prevent an accident.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Financial considerations should not impinge upon basic freedoms, but if we are to analyze it in these terms, then don't forget that with the pack of thieves running most governments, they stand to gain from death duties, inheritance tax, fees for property title transfers after somebody's death, and so on.

Government and more correctly, society gains form those taxes, not the individual members of government (other than their salaries & expenses - thats a different argument).

While we're on the subject of money, this has surely to be the main motivation for enforcing this sort of police-state, "You will do what we tell you to do or else" mentality. Make up a never-ending stream of petty rules and regulations, then rake in millions in fines when people don't comply with them.

Traffic policing doesn't make money (certainly not in this country).

Speak to most people (at least in England, maybe it's different in Ireland?) and you'll find they want less government interference in their lives, not more.

Peopel also want less dead people on our roads and consequently are willing to find a balance.

PBC_1966 wrote:

In one case, a 3-year-old boy was killed when the passenger airbag deployed in a car which did nothing more than bump a curb in a parking lot at a very low speed.

Typically the problem has been children in front seats, where they shouldn't be. The airbag "aims" for an adult's chest, which corresponds with a child's head.

John R

The Muppet wrote:

But for seatbelts I would probably be just another statistic so the first thing I do when I sit into a car is put the belt on and I would strongly advise everyone else to do likewise.

I couldn't agree more.

There are some areas that governments really are taking too many liberties with personal freedoms but this is just not one of them.

I would also be dead or as good as dead if it weren't for wearing a seatbelt.

A few years ago I was in a head on crash at probably no more than 30-35 mph.

Apart from a bit of stiffness in my back and some sleepless nights I was uninjured. The glasses that I was wearing in the car on the other hand were broken and twisted almost beyond recognition, I am very happy that my face was not subjected to the same impact that they were.

PBC_1966

jOHNr wrote:

We accept certain restrictions on the types of people who are allowed (Licences) and the manner in which we drive (speed limits, etc) wearing a seatbelt is one of those restrictions.

Yes, we accept certain restrictions for the common good. Licensing is there to ensure that drivers are reasonably competent at handling a vehicle and will not endanger other road users by their actions (whether the licensing system in our respective countries actually achieves that aim is another matter entirely).

We accept speed limits as being reasonable to safeguard the safety of other road users. If you drive at 75 mph through a village or blast through a red light you're at serious risk of injuring somebody in a collision. Seatbelts are another matter. When I drive down the road, obeying speed limits, stop signs, lights, etc. but just don't happen to be buckled up, am I at risk of causing an accident? No.

How difficult is it to put the damn thing on?

Not very. But that's totally irrelevant.

Capt'n Midnight wrote:

As for peoples right to not wear belts - as long as they understand that our underfunded health system can't subsidise them

So when are our health systems going to start charging smokers the full cost of the medical care they receive for smoking-related diseases then? The ill-effects of smoking have been known for decades. Why should non-smokers have to subsidize those who choose to ill-treat their bodies by deliberately inhaling toxic substances?

In the same way driving a SUV etc. is really selfish since you are asking other people to accept a higher risk so you can feel protected

So am I selfish for choosing to drive something substantial like an old Pontiac instead of buying the latest super-compact Fiat?

If somebody wants to drive a flimsy little car which offers little protection in an accident and folds up like a sheet of kitchen foil, that's his choice. The only way you could give everybody an equal chance in this respect is to force everyone to drive the same type of vehicle, which is clearly ridiculous.

mike65 wrote:

this is NOT an academic discussion, its the law and penatly points!

If everybody just accepted "It's the law," then what's the point of having a dicussion? My argument is that it should not be the law.

Victor wrote:

Typically the problem has been children in front seats, where they shouldn't be. The airbag "aims" for an adult's chest, which corresponds with a child's head.

Children have ridden around in the front seats of cars for decades and still do. Why is this suddenly supposed to be wrong?

Sorry, but the argument you're using here seems to be akin to somebody shooting a gun in a random direction, then when somebody gets hit saying that if he hadn't been standing there he wouldn't have been shot.

The seat belt doesn't cause the injury, the accident causes the injury.

Well, something we can agree on to an extent, and maybe I could have phrased that better. Perhaps I should have said "In some cases a seatbelt will result in an accident causing greater injuries."

However, this same point applies to those saying that somebody is injured because he wasn't buckled up. Nope -- He was injured because of the accident.

Seth Brundle

PBC_1966 wrote:

Children have ridden around in the front seats of cars for decades and still do. Why is this suddenly supposed to be wrong?

I was never aware of it not being wrong. However, there is more emphasis on getting gob****e parents to protect their children instead of allowing them to stand in the launch position

mike65

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike65
this is NOT an academic discussion, its the law and penatly points!

PBC_1966 wrote:

If everybody just accepted "It's the law," then what's the point of having a dicussion? My argument is that it should not be the law.

I prefere to deal with reality.

Mike.

John R

PBC_1966 wrote:

So when are our health systems going to start charging smokers the full cost of the medical care they receive for smoking-related diseases then? The ill-effects of smoking have been known for decades. Why should non-smokers have to subsidize those who choose to ill-treat their bodies by deliberately inhaling toxic substances?

I wasn't aware that not wearing seatbelts is an addiction.
How are those Seatbelt Dodgers Anonymous meetings going by the way?

PBC_1966 wrote:

Children have ridden around in the front seats of cars for decades and still do. Why is this suddenly supposed to be wrong?

Because it is unsafe and will lead to many needless deaths and injuries. Or are you looking for a better reason? How about It will leave a head-shaped dent on the dashboard and an impossible to remove bloodstain.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Sorry, but the argument you're using here seems to be akin to somebody shooting a gun in a random direction, then when somebody gets hit saying that if he hadn't been standing there he wouldn't have been shot.

No it is akin to saying here is a gun pointing exactly where your child's head is, if there is a crash the gun WILL go off and WILL kill your child, putting a notice right beside the location and people still putting their child in the path of danger.

PBC_1966 wrote:

Well, something we can agree on to an extent, and maybe I could have phrased that better. Perhaps I should have said "In some cases a seatbelt will result in an accident causing greater injuries.".

You could have also said "I am talking sh1te, quoting unsupported quasai-science and freak occurrences to justify a ridiculous argument that boils down to: No mummy I don't want to wear a coat and hat, I want to run around in the snow and ice in a t-shirt and shorts you're being mean and nasty making me wear proper clothes, boo hoo hoo." Your point would still have been understood.

PBC_1966 wrote:

However, this same point applies to those saying that somebody is injured because he wasn't buckled up. Nope -- He was injured because of the accident.

That isn't a point it is a word shuffling exercise, it doesn't change the fact that most likely the wearing of the belt would have prevented the injury.



It is obvious that you are flailing around landing on more and more ridiculous justifications for your point of view. If it wasn't for the fact that you are basically arguing to be let put yourself in unnecessary danger of death or serious injury it would be funny.

As for why it bothers me, it's very simple. It is always a possibility when driving that despite taking all reasonable precautions I could cause an accident at some time in the x number of years I will drive for. If I hit a person wearing a seatbelt I would most likely spend the next few hours sorting out the decimation of my insurance record with an uninjured but pissed off motorist and the next few years paying through the nose for premiums. If I hit an idiot such as yourself, even at relatively low speeds I would be spending the next few hours trying to explain to an unsympathetic Guardai why I caused an accident that had some bloke taken off in an ambulance or a morgue van, and if unlucky spending the next few years in a bloody prison cell.

PBC_1966

John R wrote:

I wasn't aware that not wearing seatbelts is an addiction.

What's that supposed to mean?

Because it is unsafe and will lead to many needless deaths and injuries.

Why should it be unsafe for children to ride in the front seat of a car? Why would they be any safer in the back? Yes, there is a possibility of a collision which severely injures or kills somebody in the front but allows someone in the back to escape unhurt or with only minor injuries. But the converse could also be true.

Or are you looking for a better reason? How about It will leave a head-shaped dent on the dashboard and an impossible to remove bloodstain.

Haven't you just gotten through telling me that this won't happen if the occupant of the front seat is buckled up?

As you're so convinced that a seatbelt will save you and that not wearing one is dangerous, and also that children should not ride up front, then it would be interesting to know where you think a child should sit in a car which has front belts but no rear ones.

No it is akin to saying here is a gun pointing exactly where your child's head is, if there is a crash the gun WILL go off and WILL kill your child, putting a notice right beside the location and people still putting their child in the path of danger.

In that scenario, the sensible course of action would be to remove the gun. And that's exactly what people have started demanding, wanting manufacturers to at least fit a disabling switch so that the airbags can be turned off if not wanted. It's not for nothing that they've started to be referred to as "the bomb in your dashboard."

If it wasn't for the fact that you are basically arguing to be let put yourself in unnecessary danger of death or serious injury it would be funny

Well, I don't agree with your rant there, of course, but let's suppose that this last part of your statement were accepted as true. You seem to be saying that a person doesn't have the right to decide to what extent he will put himself in danger. Almost every human endeavor involves some element of risk or danger. It is not for you, nor the government, to say whether somebody may take a risk or not. If we are to live in a free society, people must be able to decide for themselves what level of risk is acceptable. Dictating "You will be safe because we tell you to be" is a hallmark of tyranny, not freedom.

If I hit a person wearing a seatbelt I would most likely spend the next few hours sorting out the decimation of my insurance record with an uninjured but pissed off motorist and the next few years paying through the nose for premiums. If I hit an idiot such as yourself, even at relatively low speeds I would be spending the next few hours trying to explain to an unsympathetic Guardai why I caused an accident that had some bloke taken off in an ambulance or a morgue van, and if unlucky spending the next few years in a bloody prison cell.

Oh I see -- So if you cause an accident it's up to the innocent party to have foreseen this and to take steps to make sure you don't suffer too much.

PBC_1966

PBC_1966 wrote:

Children have ridden around in the front seats of cars for decades and still do. Why is this suddenly supposed to be wrong?

kbannon wrote:

I was never aware of it not being wrong.

Why should it have been wrong? I know that France and maybe one or two other European countries have some law about children under a certain age not riding up front, but that's never been the case here. As a kid I rode around in the front all the time, as did all my friends. Kids still ride up front today.

I don;t see where you get the idea that this has always been "wrong."

Stark

It's simple risk/benefit or risk/drawback analysis. Cars are dangerous but it would be way too much a drawback to ban cars. On the other hand a seatbelt can reduce the risk of driving in a car signifigantly and for virtually no inconvenience.

Victor

Stark wrote:

it would be way too much a drawback to ban cars.

Well.....

Boggle

Most crashes occur when one vehicle hits another head-on because one of the vehicles was over the white line.
So, statistically you are more likely to be in a head on collision than any other. Therefore, the seatbelt will help to protect you in the most commonly occuring crash.

You keep making the argument that they don't protect you from absolutely everything so you're better off without it? That's just plain bad maths.

1. My argument is for the right to choose (based on experience) when or if to wear my seatbelt.
2. Never said you were better off without it. Was making the point that it doesn't protect you from everything so dont get too caught up in the 'God save the seatbelt' campaign.
3. So you are saying that since head-on's are the most common (not sure bout that) then why bother designing for other types of impact???!?!?!

If you actually read my posts rather than the usual brick wall approach employed by the majority of boards posters you may notice that I dont actually claim that I dont wear seatbelts when on journeys - what I say is that I often dont wear it in town as its uncomfortable and impedes my movement.

You'll be forcing me to wear a lifejacket when swimming next as it may just save my life!!!

a_ominous

I hear what you're saying about the right to choose, but wearing a seatbelt does not just potentially save your life, it can save the lives of others in your car and the one you've hit / hit you. What was that advert again using Samantha Mumba singing "Body to Body"?

I recall seeing some test crashes on a Top Gear or Fifth Gear programme. They showed what happens to loose items in an impact. Stuff in the rear footwells stayed pretty much where it was but things on the rear parcel shelf went flying to the front of the car. Now where's my umbrella? Ireland atlas, etc?

PBC_1966

Boggle wrote:

You'll be forcing me to wear a lifejacket when swimming next as it may just save my life!!!

Don't forget the padded suit and crash helmet to walk down the street to get to the swimming pool!

Part of the problem is that so many people have seen only the pro-belt propaganda put out by our various governments. OK, so maybe in some types of crash a seat-belt will save you. Fine, I accept that.

What people need to do though, is look beyond all the "Clunk-click every trip," "Buckle Up America" or whatever slogans and emotive pro-belt ads are used in your own country and examine the facts a little more closely.

Pro-belt law supporters, are you aware that following the introduction of compulsory seatbelts in the U.K. in 1983 that doctors and coroners reported a large increase in the number of fatalities brought to them with hangman's fracture? That's a dislocation of the neck similar to that found after a judicial hanging but in this case caused by the whiplash effect of the shoulder harness. In many cases the crashes were not that severe, and many of those killed in this way would likely have survived had they not had their necks broken by the seat belt.

Did you know that in many crashes a belted passenger/driver has been killed while an unbelted one in the same car has survived? (And no, of course I'm not going to claim that the converse doesn't happen, before you ask.)

How about the idea you all seem to have that being thrown out of a car is always a bad thing? Sure, there are cases where being buckled up prevents somebody from being ejected into the path of another vehicle. But there are also plenty of cases where somebody has been thrown clear of a car just before it is crushed, rolls over, etc.

Are you aware that there have been side impact accidents in which a belted rider has been crushed by the belt, whereas in many other side impacts somebody has survived only because he was not strapped in and was therefore free to throw himself across the seat at the last second, or at least just be pushed aside in the impact, cut and bruised maybe, but not crushed to death?

Do you know that despite what you say about such occurrences being rare compared to other acccidents, that there are plenty of documented cases of people being trapped in a car by a seatbelt with the car on fire or submerged in water? There are witnesses to such incidents who tried to help the occupants and have testified that if the people had not been buckled in they would have been able to help them out to safety.

You see, it's not so clear-cut as you want us to believe, and that's one verry good reason why people must be free to weigh the risk of belts versus the benefits and come to their own decision.

Boggle has clearly decided that for him the risk/benefit analysis comes down in favor of buckling up on the open highway but not in town. I've decided that for my part I feel the risks of belts outweigh the advantages in all situations. If the rest of you think you need to buckle up to back the car out of the garage to the driveway, then go ahead. But please stop telling rhe rest of us that the government is right by forcing safety devices upon us, especially ones which have clearly been shown to have maimed and killed in certain accidents.

ubu

Boggle wrote:

.
3. So you are saying that since head-on's are the most common (not sure bout that) then why bother designing for other types of impact???!?!?!

wtf? what kind of argument is that to make? Burglars most common point of entry is through a rear ground level window, so why bother locking or even closing the other doors & windows??

mike65

Originally Posted by Stark
it would be way too much a drawback to ban cars.

Victor wrote:

Well.....

Banned! What do think this boards about? Environment?!

Mike.

Boggle

ubu wrote:

wtf? what kind of argument is that to make? Burglars most common point of entry is through a rear ground level window, so why bother locking or even closing the other doors & windows??

Your argument stated that since head-on is the most common type of accident, that it is the one that you should design for. Basically you say that in the unlikely event of a crash you want me buckled up by law and hopefully it'll be a head-on 'cos they never bothered with adding any other kinda protection.

What if its a side on? Wouldn't it be batter to have side impact bars than a seatbelt? Think about it before you give a snap answer please and dont be so dismissive.

Reply to a_ominous
Thanks for acknowledging that its about right to choose at least - no-one else will!!

Bear with me till tomorrow ( I'm just curious to see ubu's reply first - and its home time!!) and then I'll give my thinking on your main point. Good call on the loose objects in the car though- never even considered that. Those books and cd's on the back shelf are gone!!!

ubu

Boggle wrote:

Your argument stated that since head-on is the most common type of accident, that it is the one that you should design for. Basically you say that in the unlikely event of a crash you want me buckled up by law and hopefully it'll be a head-on 'cos they never bothered with adding any other kinda protection.

What if its a side on? Wouldn't it be batter to have side impact bars than a seatbelt? Think about it before you give a snap answer please and dont be so dismissive

ok, that wansn't my argument, (although with the amount of peolpe involved in this it easy to get confused!)
if your involved in a side on crash, i accept that a seat belt can only provide minimal protection but i still think you are better off with it on than without it
its not true to say that they 'never bothered with adding any other kind of protection' as several cars now have side airbags, side curtains and various other features such as reinforced side bars in doors to protect against side impacts, i think we have volvo to thank again for developments in this area with their SIPS (side impact protection system)
as for the dismissive answer ill plead guilty to not reading you post fully, but ill blame being up for work since 5.30 this morning for that

Greenman

Two years ago my wife had a bad frontal crash. She is from a land where they don't wear belts at all. Luckily I had got her into the habit of wearing the belt and she survived. We are happy to wear out belts!!!

I always thought to make it easier for the police to see who is wearing their belts,from a certain date all new cars should have flouresent coloured seat belts.

PBC_1966

Greenman,

Glad to hear your wife survived the accident, and if the belt saved her and you believe you should buckle up, then fine. But what many people here won't accept is that in some types of accidents a belt could be an enemy rather than a friend. That's one reason why people must be free to decide for themselves.

greenman wrote:

She is from a land where they don't wear belts at all.

Where would that be? Does the government there not threaten and intimidate people over belts? Sounds like it might be a good place to visit!