Talk:1996 Padilla car crash

Accuracy

I question the accuracy of much of this article. The vast majority of the claims seem to have only one source. I know I was stationed on Okinawa in the 1980's, and insurance was required even then. Mushrom (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Then how was Padilla allowed to drive without insurance? -- Esemono (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I was stationed in Okinawa from 2005 to 2008 and we were required to have car insurance. The guards at the gates do random checks. As for the author of the source that is cited, do you believe everything you read? Bunns USMC (talk)

I was on Okinawa since 1992 and the requirement for US servicemembers to carry additional auto liability insurance goes back at least that far. Let me explain: Japanese law requires a very small portion of liability insurance to be purchased in conjunction with inspection. This is called JCI (Japanese compulsory insurance). This is all that is required by Japanese law. Many Okinawans do not carry more than this. The US Military has policy that requires servicemembers in Japan to carry an additional policy on top of this. This goes back to at least 1992 that I know of, but I suspect much further. Most refer to this as "American insurance". Around the time of the Padilla incident (1996) and the Eskridge incident (1998) the military doubled the coverage requirements for this insurance to help pay the ever increasing demands from Okinawan victims. FGR01 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was in Okinawa as well (from 2005 to 2008) and all US service members were REQUIRED to have insurance. Some commands even check their junior enlisted to make sure they have insurance. However, that doesn't mean there aren't cases where the individual let their insurance lapse and weren't caught. Which is probably the answer to the question "why was she allowed to drive without insurance?". Just like the police can't catch everyone to drives without insurance in the states, the same can be said for military members stationed overseas, and even Japanese nationals are guilty of the same thing.SquallyZ06 (talk) 03:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Blood Money

Why is the term "blood money" invoked? Sounds like an NPOV issue here, the writer suggesting, inadvertently or otherwise, that the litigation had an onerous or vindictive quality. Otherwise, if a specific newspaper article referred to the litigation as "seeking blood money", then this should be noted in the main text of the article. versen (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The source used the term "solatium" but since its a little used legal term, blood money was included. In Japanese culture there is a tradition of offering Blood money to the victims family. -- Esemono (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The Japanese word is isyaryou and is often called "gomen money"SquallyZ06 (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP1E

This article is a classic case of WP:BLP1E so I'm moving the article to a new title about the event. For now I'm using 1996 Padilla car accident. Other suggestions for a better name are welcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Y car

Note: American "Military-owned" vehicles do have license plates which start with the letter "Y" that sets them apart from the Japanese owned cars. These plates can be traced to the owners through the military police where they must be registered.

When did this start? -- Esemono (talk) 09:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was on Okinawa in 1992 and the requirement for Y plates on US Servicemember owned vehicles goes back at least that far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.27.1.18 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

License Plates and Insurance.

Hey gents, I removed the sentences regarding license plates and insurance not being required. I am searching for a reference regarding insurance requirements. Bunns 1775 (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this link which briefly talks about insurance, nothing major but at least it's something. Bunns 1775 (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That is for the Marines and it present day. It doesn't say anything about when the accident happened. -- Esemono (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this link concerning auto insurance. It states beginning Jan 97 US Service Members would be required to have supplemental auto insurance, which common sense tells us that in order to get supplemental auto insurance, you need to already have primary auto insurance. Will this please you enough so we can remove the blatanly incorrect information on these articles? By the way the Marine commander is the senior commander on Okinawa, meaning he has authority over all services. -- Bunns 1775 (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As shown by the title of the article the accident happened in 1996 before the requirement was supposedly enforced. -- Esemono (talk) 23:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is still incorrect. There were still requirements for insurance and license plates prior to 1997. We have enough military editors that have served in Okinawa that can verify that. Once I find a written reference to that effect I will be changing this article.Bunns 1775 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I found this article stating that Japanese Compulsory Auto Insurance was adopted in 1956, and this which was signed in 1960, which states "Privately owned vehicles of members of the United States Armed Forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall carry Japanese number plates to be acquired under the same conditions as those applicable to Japanese nationals." Bunns 1775 (talk) 12:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your first article states that Japan adopted compulsory insurance, nothing about Americans being forced to take out insurance indeed if that was true why didn't Padilla have car insurance? Americans in Japan live by a separate parallel system of laws which is why Okinawans protest so much about their presence. -- Esemono (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Because not everyone obeys the law. Were you present when these incidents happen. I have given 2 seperate references that show both license plates and insurance were required before these incidents. yet you still state in the article that insurance wasn't required untill 1997. I was stationed in Okinawa. We abide by the same laws they do. We are required to get the compulsory auto insurance, in addition we are required to get supplemental insurance, and it can get expensive. I will compromise with you, I can live with the article as is if you can.Bunns 1775 (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be TRUE but Wikiepedia isn't about truth its about Verifiability. You gave me a link that said it wasn't till 1997 that American's were required to buy Insurance. This link, that you provided, directly contradicts your statement that Americans had to have insurance. Why would the Americans sign a treaty that forced their members to buy insurance if they were already forced to buy insurance since 1956? The other link is about Japanese who were forced to buy insurance. It has nothing about whether Americans troops were forced to buy insurance as Americans are covered by a different set of laws as per the SOFA. -- Esemono (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on 1996 Padilla car crash and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: The addition in question says: In 1997 US soldiers were finally required to have car insurance, even though cheap subsided insurance is provided for them.<ref name="Blowback"/><ref name="mofa.go.jp">{{cite web |ref=harv|date= December 2, 1996|year= 1996|url = http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/96saco1.html|title = The SACO Final Report|format = |publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)]]| accessdate = May 7, 2010 | last=| first= |quote=}}</ref> The Johnson book is available for inspection and search through both Amazon.com and through Google Books. Searching on "insurance," there is nothing which supports anything in this sentence. Indeed, the only thing that Johnson says about automobile insurance or license plates at all is as follows (pp. 45-46 in paperback edition): Padilla had neither savings nor insurance. ... This was, of course, only one of just over a thousand auto accidents each year in Okinawa involving U.S. service personnel (slightly under two thousand for Japan as a whole), and it was quite typical in that American drivers normally do not have insurance (or at least not enough) and have often left Japan by the time Okinawan victims catch up to them in court. Not until after the rape incident of September 1995, as part of an effort to reduce the American "footprint" in Okinawa (as Secretary of Defense Perry called it) and fifty-one years after their arrival in Okinawa did American military cars and trucks begin to carry license plates. Prior to that Okinawans usually had no way of identifying a vehicle that collided with theirs or injured them. ... There are still about fifteen thousand licensed drivers at Kadena Air Force Base and another twenty-five thousand affiliated with the marines on Okinawa, including service personnel and Department of Defense civilians, teachers, and dependents, who also pay secially reduced automobile taxes. Similarly, there is nothing in the SACO Report which supports the statement. The SACO report says only this about insurance and license plates: Markings on US forces official vehicles: Implement the agreement on measures concerning markings on US forces official vehicles. Numbered plates will be attached to all non-tactical US forces vehicles by January 1997, and to all other US forces vehicles by October 1997. Supplemental automobile insurance: Education programs for automobile insurance have been expanded. Additionally, on its own initiative, the US has further elected to have all personnel under the SOFA obtain supplemental auto insurance beginning in January 1997. None of that says anything about whether US soldiers were or were not required to have insurance before 1997 or about subsidized insurance. Indeed, the SOFA quote — by saying that supplementary insurance was to be thenceforth required — implies (though to use this implication in the article would violate WP:OR) that they were required to have some kind of insurance prior to that date. The first part of the statement at issue is unsupported by the proffered sources. Sources are only good for what they plainly assert; if it is necessary to interpret them or extrapolate from them to make a point, that's improper original research. The second part of the statement in question says: Chalmers Johnson states that it wasn't until 1997 that American-owned vehicles were required to have license plates, often making it impossible for hit-and-run victims to identify the vehicle that hit them.<ref name="Blowback"/><ref name="mofa.go.jp">{{cite web |ref=harv|date= December 2, 1996|year= 1996|url = http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/security/96saco1.html|title = The SACO Final Report|format = |publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)]]| accessdate = May 7, 2010 | last=| first= |quote=}}</ref> However an agreement approved by both America and Japan in 1960 states, "Privately owned vehicles of members of the United States Armed Forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall carry Japanese number plates to be acquired under the same conditions as those applicable to Japanese nationals."<ref name="mofa.go.jp.number.plates">{{cite web |ref=harv|date= 2010 |year= 2010|url = http://www.mofa.go.jp/mofaj/area/usa/sfa/pdfs/fulltext.pdf|title = Agreement under article VI of the treaty of Mutal cooperation and security between Japan and the United States of America, regarding facilities and areas and the status of United States Armed forces in Japan|format = |publisher = [[Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Japan)]]| accessdate = May 10, 2010 | last=| first= |quote=}}</ref> This citation to Johnson is misleading. It, especially taken in combination with the quote from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, implies that the Padilla vehicle, or at least American civilian vehicles in general, were not required to have, or commonly did not have license plates, prior to this incident. What Johnson actually says, as confirmed by the SOFA report quoted above, is that prior to 1995 American official military vehicles were not required to have license plates. That fact is wholly irrelevant to the Padilla incident since Padilla was driving a private vehicle and since no issues or allegations have been identified in the Padilla case which involve license plates one way or another. Since there is already a place for the general discussion of the issues caused by the ongoing American military presence in Okinawa, then any discussion of grievances beyond those particular to this incident in this article would seem to me to be coatracking here, so the license plate issue does not belong here. The insurance requirement issue could be appropriate since Johnson says that Padilla did not have insurance, but as of this point in time the question of whether or not she was required to have insurance is, as explained above, wholly unsourced. That does not mean however that it should be immediately deleted from the article. The best practice on unsourced information, other than unsourced or poorly sourced negative BLP information, copyright, blatant vandalism, and a few other extreme measures, is to leave the information in the article, {{fact}} tag it, and give the introducing editor a chance to source it. Let me warn both editors that what has happened here since May 7 is very close to being an edit war if it is not already one. (Remember that WP:3RR says, "Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.") The reverting needs to stop. Now.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC) Clarification added 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC) — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK)

Just for the sake of propriety and the record, please note the discussion of some of these issues which took place on my user talk page. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) (Now set out below. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC))

Copied from User_talk:TransporterMan#Third_Party_Opinion_re_1996_Padilla_car_accident_license_plates_and_insurance — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 13:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC) You have made your point. I am not going to edit the articles relating to the Okinawa car accidents again. Let me ask you this. Would inserting the sentence "In addition to the compulsory insurance, in 1997 US Servicemembers were required to obtain supplementary insurace." into the article be inappropriate? Last thing, and this is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. The entire concept of "verifiability, not truth" is entirely bullsh!t. When I hear that I think that obvious inaccurate information can be added to an article as long as there is a reference to that material. Even if it is obviously not true. For example: Someone publishes an article about the JFK assasination, references the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was a former Marine, and states that all Marines are trained to assasinate political figures. According to the "verifiability, not truth" concept, someone could write an article regarding this, cite the article, and no one could do anything even though it is obviously false information. In my opnion this does not make for a well written encyclopedia. Thanks. Bunns 1775 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I'm working on a reply. Hang in there a few minutes and I should be able to put it up here. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I am anxiously awaiting your reply. Just kidding. Bunns 1775 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC) And here it is, such as it's worth: Unless you have some reliable source which says that there was mandatory insurance prior to 1997, that fact is unsourced because the SACO report just says "supplementary;" it doesn't say supplementary to what. Based on the sources you already have, you could simply say something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance." I wouldn't be surprised, however, if with a little searching you could find a reliable source for the mandatory part. As for verifiability vs. truth, let me defend it. The key to understanding why it works is that statements have to be verified by reliable sources. If you've not carefully read the WP:SOURCES section of WP:VERIFIABILITY and the sections that follow it, along with the reliable sources guideline, you really need to do so, because there's two components to verifiability: stuff has to be sourced (and not be original research) and the sources that are provided have to be reliable. The bar for a reliable source is pretty high, with the gold standard being sources published in peer–reviewed academic publications. Because Wikipedia is entirely volunteer–edited a lot of stuff makes it in that doesn't satisfy that standard, but stays in for awhile (or even forever) because no volunteer (a) who cares about that kind of thing, (b) has come across it, and (c) has chosen to take the time to {{fact}} or {{rs}} tag it (or one of the many other similar tags with slightly different nuances), or, much less (d) chosen to take the time to actually fix it, but that's the weakness built into the wiki form of this endeavor. Admittedly, reliability has its limitations and that's the reason we have to have policies and guidelines like WP:FRINGE. When everything is boiled down, "verifiability, not truth" is actually an exaggeration to make a point about reliability and sourcing and, to a much lesser extent, about truth. A more accurate statement would be, "generally–accepted reliably-established knowledge with reliable opposing views included, not truth." (To see some battles being waged over what is and is not a reliable source, take a look at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.) The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar. The verifiability/reliability standard along with a few other policies (especially no original research, notability, and What Wikipedia is not) take the place, in effect, of the board of senior editors that paper encyclopedias have who make sure that the content that makes it into the books is suitable. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC) BTW, another exaggeration that newcomers to Wikipedia run across is this (I wrote this as a potential essay, so "you" in it doesn't mean and isn't pointed at you, Bunns, but the universal "you"): The often-quoted essay What "Ignore all rules" means says, twice, "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing," and the essay Understanding IAR says, "You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are." Both of those statements are absolutely true, so far as they go, but both are half–truths. Let me repeat them in a form which is a little more accurate: You are not required to learn the rules before contributing (but your contributions will probably not last very long if you don't). You can contribute to Wikipedia without needing to know what the rules are (but you may feel that your edits — and your self–esteem — have been fed into a woodchipper if you do). These snide–but–real additions are particularly true for newcomers whose first experience at Wikipedia is trying to write an article from scratch. I wouldn't wish that experience on my worst enemy. If you're going to try to learn–by–doing, then the only way to start is by editing existing articles and participating in one of the many other activities here. Oh, you'll still end up eventually reading the rules but the pain of being hammered into doing so (or if you are reading–the–rules–phobic, the pain of reading them) will be spread over a longer period and thus be gentler to your system. My recommendation? Before trying to do much here, set aside an half-hour or so, put on your reading glasses, and read the Article Wizard, Your First Article, Notability, Reliability, Verifiability, No original research, and What Wikipedia is not. If you are trying to write an article about yourself, your company, your product or website, your organization, or something else in which you have a vested interest, also read Conflict of interest. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of any of them, they're full of solid gold information. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC) So please explain why Chalmers Johnson is a reliable source, and Millea Holdings Inc. is not. One is a biased liberal who uses terms such as "American Imperialism", and "American Empire". The other is a Multi-National Insurance holding company. The source I provided from Millea Holdings Inc. states Japanese Compulsory Insurance began in 1956. Bunns 1775 (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I only consider Johnson to be presumably reliable. Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy .... Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. (Emphasis added.) The publishers of Johnson's book, Metropolitan Books (hard cover) and Owl Books (softcover), are both imprints of Henry Holt and Company, a major and respected publishing house. However, if you'll look back through my opinion, you'll note that I did not rely on Johnson as reliable so much as I took the position that, reliable or not, his book did not support the things he was being cited as a source for. The only time I suggested that something that he said might be used to support something was when I said that he might be used as a source for the fact that Padilla did not have insurance; that's a fairly safe citation since it could be libelous if it is false and since Holt would, therefore, be likely to do fact-checking on that kind of thing for their own protection, especially if Johnson is, as you say, a "biased liberal" and his work likely to be controversial. I'm sorry, but I don't recall how Millea Holdings Inc. fit in and I don't recall evaluating it or considering it in giving my opinion. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Just found your Millea Holdings link. I'd forgotten it when wrote earlier today, so let me look at it. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I didn't mean to imply that you used Chalmers Johnson as a reference. The articles regarding the accidents use him as a reference. It is common sense that even foriegn nationals srving in another country are subject to that countries laws (except those who are protected by diplomatic immunity, which military servicemembers and military contracters are not). If there needs to be a reference to that fact, we may be hard pressed to find that. Bunns 1775 (talk) 18:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I am not old enough yet to require reading glasses...yet. Believe me, I appreciate you taking the time to debate this issue with me. I do realize that even though I have had my WP account for a few years, I am still a rookie editor. I am very passionate about certain things, and that can come off as arrogance. For that I am truly sorry, and is something that at times get the best of me. As for an appropriate compromise on these articles we can state "Millea Holdings Inc., a multi-national insurance holding company states that compulsory insurance in Japan began in 1956, however Chalmers Johnson claims that American servicemembers were not required to have insurance until 1997." or something to that effect? We can list all appropriate references.Bunns 1775 (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Three points (you work faster than me, so these were prepared to respond to your next-to-last comment, above): If you have to use common sense or logic to synthesize facts to make a point, then it's prohibited original research. That's particularly true in this case where the treaty and Status of Forces Agreement caused Japanese law to apply in some cases and not in others. For example, one would, by your logic, conclude that all US nationals who are drivers of private cars in Japan would have to have number plates if Japanese nationals have to have them, but the SOFA goes to the trouble of specifically saying that, "Privately owned vehicles of members of the United States armed forces, the civilian component, and their dependents shall carry Japanese number plates to be acquired under the same conditions as those applicable to Japanese nationals." There are two problems with the Millea Holdings link: first, it doesn't say that US citizens subject to the Status of Forces Agreement are compelled to have the Japanese compulsory insurance, it only says that there is such a thing as compulsory insurance, and, equally deadly, it's not at all clear that jrank.org is a reliable source because it doesn't identify where it gets its information or do anything to prove that it is a "reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." (The Status of Forces Agreement, which you also cited doesn't say anything about insurance at all.) As for being hard pressed to find a reliable source, as I said above, "The flip side of the reliability coin is that some matters which are both important and true cannot be included in Wikipedia because those who want to put them in cannot meet Wikipedia's high reliability bar." Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) As far as I can find, Chalmers Johnson does not claim that American service members were not required to have insurance until 1997. See above re the Millea Holdings link. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Clarification: At least Johnson doesn't claim it in Blowback; I haven't looked at his other work. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I found a PDF about Auto insurance in Japan. here. Here is the source page. What about the US Department of State?. Bunns 1775 (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Actually nevermind the PDF. It doesn't state anything regarding SOFA personel. The State Dept websites says all vehicle owners and drivers. It doesn't specifically call out SOFA personel, but further up on the page when it addresses passports, it specifically says SOFA personel are exempt from passport requirements. Now if the State Dept. says all vehicle owners and drivers are required to carry the compulsory insurance would that not include SOFA personel? Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) By the time we are done you may want to start your first archive. Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC) First, nothing to apologize for, I've enjoyed our discussion. Second, I'm afraid that I've already seriously strained the boundaries of my personal standards as a Third Opinion Wikipedian and to go further to help you evaluate new sources would take me over the line altogether, so I'm going to have to respectfully — and truly regretfully — decline your invitation to do that and, if I know anything about Marines, it's that you'll understand an obligation of honor. You've got the tools, however, and I don't doubt for a minute that you'll do fine with them. Go forth boldly and go get 'em! Finally, I hope you don't mind, but just for the sake of propriety I'm going to put a reference to this discussion on the article's talk page, just noting that it occurred. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I understand. Can I contact you for editing advice in the future? Not about this articles but questions in general. Bunns 1775 (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Absolutely, and you honor me far beyond what I deserve by even asking. All the best, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Sorry to come in so late. I didn't see this conversation going on till now. I think the root of the misunderstanding between Bunns and myself is his false assertion that Americans in Japan (At the time of Padila and Eskridge) fall under Japanese law, which they don't. They fall under the SOFA agreement that America has with Japan. Their exclusion from Japanese law doesn't go as far as diplomatic immunity, as implied above, but they don't fall under Japanese laws. Thus American's and their insurance doesn't fall under Japanese law it falls under the SOFA agreement. One only has to look at the Padila case. When the accident occurred she was taken to the base and not tested to check if she was under the influence of alcohol. Indeed as told in the 1998 Eskridge car accident article (which will be affected by this ruling as well as the Padila article) when Eskridge hit and killed Yuki Uema with his car he was held at the US base and not arrested or turned over to the Japanese as required by Japanese law because he was protected by the SOFA agreement. SOFA personal live under a different set of laws they ARE NOT subject to that country's laws. -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) As for the article just to be clear as per your third opinion the only thing we can put in the article would be something like, "In January, 1997, the US government began requiring American citizens subject to the [[U.S.–Japan Status of Forces Agreement|Status of Forces Agreement]] to carry additional insurance."? -- Esemono (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Based only on the Johnson book and the SACO report currently cited, that is indeed my opinion, as stated above. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC) This is directed to Esemono. For the record I am done with this conversation. I was correct in my edits, I just about it the wrong way. However if you still choose to be stubborn and ignorant, thats on you. The US State Department website site states all vehicle owners and drivers are subject to the compulsory insurance in Japan. I am no longer going to argue these points. I am in the service and was stationed in Japan for 3.5 years. We were REQUIRED to have both Japanese Compulsory Insurance, and supplemental coverage on our personel vehicles, and yes we were required to have license plates. Even though we are covered by the SOFA agreement, we are still accountable to Japanese law. Just look at the 1995 Okinawan Rape Incident. US Service members serving time in JAPANESE prison, sounds like they were tried by the Japanese legal system. But how can that be? SOFA personel are not bound by Japanese law. I know more on this subject than you Esemono, so before you respond please realize I have lived in Japan as a US Service Member covered by the SOFA agreement. I owned 2 personal vehicles that were registered in Japan. I paid the annual Japanese Road Tax, and was required to obtain and maintain Japanese Compulsory Insurance and additional coverage. TransporterMan, I enjoyed our debate and thanks again for taking the time to talk. Bunns 1775 (talk) 11:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)