carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/07/85)
>They are just one more step down "The Road to Serfdom." More directly, >they disgust me. They are a lot less of an inconvenience than many >regulations, but what is most disturbing is that they seem to me >symbolic of the gov't. 'strapping you in.' This is something of a kneejerk response. But the writer is honest enough to note that he is in part reacting to the symbolic element of being strapped down, a situation that arouses one's fear of being rendered helpless (as we were when we were infants). I suspect that this psychological aspect has something to do with the rather emotional reactions people have against seat-belt laws, just as I am certain that psychological considerations too obvious to mention account for some of the highly emotional opposition to gun control laws. (Maybe this is cocktail-party Freud, but it's worth thinking about.) Here are some arguments in favor of seat-belt laws: 1. Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. 2. Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving bodies in a collision. 3. If we could internalize the costs of medical bills then the opponents of the laws would have a stronger case. As it is, I have to pay through my taxes and insurance rates part of the cost of accident-related injuries. 4. Related to the previous point, any injury or death has a social cost. It includes the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation, the cost of time lost from work, the disruption suffered by organizations when a functioning member (say, a schoolteacher) is suddenly missing, the grief of friends and loved ones, and perhaps others I haven't thought of. I don't see the internalization of these cost as a realistic possibility. I have many friends, loved ones, and co-workers who drive or ride in cars. If seat-belt laws will significantly reduce the incidence of death and injuries in this group, then that is a reason for me to support them. And apparently seat-belt laws can be effective, such as the one in effect in Victoria, Australia since 1972. In the first two years after the law was passed there was an 80% reduction in eye injuries, a 50% reduction in spinal cord injuries, and a 51% drop in drivers admitted to hospitals. Fatalities have continued to decline in relation to the number of vehicles registered. I believe Australians cherish their freedom as much as Americans, yet as far as I know they are not pressing for repeal of the law. 5. Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle Up" ad campaign. People tend to pay more attention when something is made illegal. But I don't think this alone is sufficient reason for the laws, and I doubt that Prohibition taught people very much about the evils of strong drink. (Then again, they'd heard it all before, but many people apparently still do not realize how much safer they are when wearing a seat-belt). 6. Dry up about the road to serfdom. The Bill of Rights has not been repealed -- yet. If the laws are unpopular enough, they will be repealed. If you're concerned about freedom, worry about the real threats, such as the New Right types who want to legislate a God-fearing, "Christian" America. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal) (04/08/85)
> Here are some arguments in favor of seat-belt laws: > > 1. Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their > vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. > > 2. Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving > bodies in a collision. Do you have any evidence of significant effects of this nature? All the seat-belt data I've heard of concerns safety of the wearer, not others. I find it hard to believe the above effects are very large, compared, say, to the dangers posed by drivers who use one hand to hold a coffee cup (should that be outlawed?). > 3. If we could internalize the costs of medical bills then the > opponents of the laws would have a stronger case. As it is, I have > to pay through my taxes and insurance rates part of the cost of > accident-related injuries. > > 4. Related to the previous point, any injury or death has a social > cost. It includes the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation, > the cost of time lost from work, the disruption suffered by > organizations when a functioning member (say, a schoolteacher) is > suddenly missing, the grief of friends and loved ones, and perhaps > others I haven't thought of. I don't see the internalization of these > cost as a realistic possibility. I have many friends, loved ones, > and co-workers who drive or ride in cars. If seat-belt laws will > significantly reduce the incidence of death and injuries in this > group, then that is a reason for me to support them. If any of my friends think they have a right to force me to wear seat-belts on pain of death so they can avoid having to deal with grief if I die, they can cease being my friends any time. I'm not exaggerating about the "on pain of death" part. Trace through the consequences of persistent refusal to pay a ticket. All state power rests on violence, and ultimately the power to kill. The casual way some people are willing to invoke this power is frightening. As for the costs of medical care, this is not a problem for the opponents of seat-belt laws, but rather for the proponents of public medical care. Anyone who is willing to sell their freedom for security in the way implied by this argument should work for repeal of laws against slavery so they can find their true place in society. > 5. Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle > Up" ad campaign. People tend to pay more attention when something is > made illegal. But I don't think this alone is sufficient reason for > the laws, and I doubt that Prohibition taught people very much about > the evils of strong drink. (Then again, they'd heard it all before, > but many people apparently still do not realize how much safer they > are when wearing a seat-belt). The educational effect would mainly be to desensitise people to the erosion of freedom. > 6. Dry up about the road to serfdom. The Bill of Rights has not > been repealed -- yet. If the laws are unpopular enough, they will be > repealed. If you're concerned about freedom, worry about the real > threats, such as the New Right types who want to legislate a > God-fearing, "Christian" America. The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect MINORITIES against the tyrrany of the majority (or their representatives). It is useful precisely as a counter to your apparent blind faith in democracy. > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Radford Neal The University of Calgary
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (04/08/85)
In article <393@nmtvax.UUCP> robert@nmtvax.UUCP writes: > >What do you think of mandatory seatbelt laws? It's about time. >My '61 Bug didn't even have seatbelts. How could I comply? Neither did my '56 Ford or my '58 Pontiac, so I *paid money* to have them installed. I've used seat belts *every* time I've driven for at least the last 25 years, and I always use them as a rider when at all possible. I honestly don't understand the fuss people make about wearing them, and I was shocked to hear how low a percentage of people wear them. -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (04/10/85)
>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) / 9:03 pm Apr 6, 1985 */ >>They are just one more step down "The Road to Serfdom." More directly, >>they disgust me. They are a lot less of an inconvenience than many >>regulations, but what is most disturbing is that they seem to me >>symbolic of the gov't. 'strapping you in.' >This is something of a kneejerk response. But the writer is honest No, it is not a kneejerk response - don't assume that I haven't thought about this merely because I disagree with you! >Here are some arguments in favor of seat-belt laws: > >1. Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their >vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. > >2. Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving >bodies in a collision. I can't knowledgeably comment on the validity of these two claims, but I strongly doubt that these are the reasons the legislation was passed. >3. If we could internalize the costs of medical bills then the >opponents of the laws would have a stronger case. As it is, I have >to pay through my taxes and insurance rates part of the cost of >accident-related injuries. That people are required to pay thru taxes for injuries of others is wrong, and therefore cannot be used as a justification for these laws. As far as insurance rates go, your dealings with your insurer are not my concern. >4. Related to the previous point, any injury or death has a social >cost. It includes the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation, >the cost of time lost from work, the disruption suffered by >organizations when a functioning member (say, a schoolteacher) is >suddenly missing, the grief of friends and loved ones, and perhaps >others I haven't thought of. I don't see the internalization of these >cost as a realistic possibility. I have many friends, loved ones, >and co-workers who drive or ride in cars. If seat-belt laws will >significantly reduce the incidence of death and injuries in this >group, then that is a reason for me to support them. And apparently Again, the time lost at work is of concern to my employer and myself, not to the gov't. or anyone else. Do you really want the government regulating you personal relations? That is what you are advocating! As a rule, I let friends and loved ones make their own decisions. I may give them advice, but I never invite in a third party to force them to follow it. >5. Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle Education or indoctrination? >6. Dry up about the road to serfdom. The Bill of Rights has not >been repealed -- yet. If the laws are unpopular enough, they will be >repealed. If you're concerned about freedom, worry about the real >threats, such as the New Right types who want to legislate a >God-fearing, "Christian" America. As far as I know, there is no direct relation between rights and popularity, but if you have discovered one please let us know. As an atheist, these things concern me, but this doesn't preclude my worrying about those of a different ideological bent, who are intent on doing what's "best for me" - regardless of my desires. Michael Sykora
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (04/10/85)
> Here are some arguments in favor of seat-belt laws: > > 1. Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their > vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. Let's see some statistics for this one. This is your only argument that I believe could possibly merit such laws. As long as the roadways are in the governments' hands (something that if I had the power to change I wouldn't change immediately) they should be able to make restrictions that protect the innocent driver. However I doubt that the effect is statistically significant. Eye protection for motorcyclists yes, seatbelts for automobile drivers no. > 2. Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving > bodies in a collision. You could use the same reasoning to ban automobiles of weight greater than X, where X is the weight of your favorite car. Seriously, which would you prefer ran into you, a semi with a belted in truck driver, or a VW with a beltless driver? > 3. If we could internalize the costs of medical bills then the > opponents of the laws would have a stronger case. As it is, I have > to pay through my taxes and insurance rates part of the cost of > accident-related injuries. This is a great example of why tax-payer subsidized medical costs is a crock. Another obvious one is smoking ... should we ban smoking so we don't have to pay the cancer related costs? What about people who *don't* regularly fast and have enemas, there are some people that will swear that this is the key to good health (cleans out the body). Should we force everyone to fast and have enemas? > 4. Related to the previous point, any injury or death has a social > cost. It includes the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation, > the cost of time lost from work, the disruption suffered by > organizations when a functioning member (say, a schoolteacher) is > suddenly missing, the grief of friends and loved ones, and perhaps > others I haven't thought of. I don't see the internalization of these > cost as a realistic possibility. I have many friends, loved ones, > and co-workers who drive or ride in cars. If seat-belt laws will > significantly reduce the incidence of death and injuries in this > group, then that is a reason for me to support them. In the days of slavery you could use the same argument against the abolitionists. The disruption suffered by organizations when a functioning member is suddenly given free will... BTW, in many liberal circles it is considered the right of most workers to go out on strike with little notice. Are you going to deny both the right to strike *and* the right to quit one's job for reason #4? If not it seems rather pointless to use such reasoning to deny one the choice of how to run one's life. > 5. Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle > Up" ad campaign. People tend to pay more attention when something is > made illegal. But I don't think this alone is sufficient reason for > the laws, and I doubt that Prohibition taught people very much about > the evils of strong drink. (Then again, they'd heard it all before, > but many people apparently still do not realize how much safer they > are when wearing a seat-belt). I don't buy even the possibility that they serve an educational purpose. The mere existance of a seatbelt law is no more enlightening then the existance of a law prohibiting oral sex. Both laws are on the books in certain places; there is little to be learned from their presense other than the fact that some group of people thought it would be in someone's interests to pass such a law (whose interest remains unclear). Of course if you go around saying that the laws against OS were passed because OS is unhealthy then the educational portion is where you tell people that OS is unhealthy and it could be just as easily said without passing a law. > 6. Dry up about the road to serfdom. The Bill of Rights has not > been repealed -- yet. If the laws are unpopular enough, they will be > repealed. If you're concerned about freedom, worry about the real > threats, such as the New Right types who want to legislate a > God-fearing, "Christian" America. No need to repeal anything, the courts can be very misguided in their interpretations. After all, these are the same courts that at one time believed that certain minorities did not count as people. You are right, there are many pieces of legislation that will do more to restrict freedom then the seat-belt laws, however this is no reason to ignore the implications of the seat-belt laws. It would be silly if someone were to ask me whether I thought seat-belt laws were a good idea to reply: "Of course they are, because the new right are forcing planned parenthood establishments to inform parents of their children's visits." > Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes I always wear a seatbelt when driving; I always wear my helmet when on a motorcycle. I am against seatbelt and helmet laws. I don't smoke, but I feel that anyone should be allowed to smoke whetever one wants. It certainly is a crock that I wind up footing the bill for seatbeltless fools or smokers' diseased lungs, but the solution isn't to limit their free will. I read recently that seat-belt laws are being used in New York as an attempt to dissuade "Johns" from seeking prostitutes. Perhaps you could work the obvious flexibility police have for selective enforcement into a new point 7 :-) --Cliff
cjh@petsd.UUCP (Chris Henrich) (04/10/85)
[] Radford Neal writes, in response to a posting by someone else: > > 2. Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving > > bodies in a collision. > > Do you have any evidence of significant effects of this nature? All the > seat-belt data I've heard of concerns safety of the wearer, not others. > I find it hard to believe the above effects are very large, compared, say, > to the dangers posed by drivers who use one hand to hold a coffee cup > (should that be outlawed?). I have anecdotal evidence. A seatbelt that I was using may have prevented a bad accident. The circumstances are these: I was a passenger in the front seat of a car, and we were driving about 50mph on a two-lane highway in rural Ontario. A rear tire blew out, and the car swerved violently before the driver could bring it to a halt. If I had not been using the belt, I would have been thrown against his right arm at least once. The driver with a coffee cup in one hand sounds scary. (Thank God it isn't a beer can.) I hope that, in an emergency, he would drop the coffee and grab the wheel. The resulting damage might be no more than a hot-seat. What is known about the effects of such distractions? Regards, Chris -- Full-Name: Christopher J. Henrich UUCP: ..!(cornell | ariel | ukc | houxz)!vax135!petsd!cjh US Mail: MS 313; Perkin-Elmer; 106 Apple St; Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 Phone: (201) 870-5853
carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/13/85)
>>1. Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their >>vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. > >Let's see some statistics for this one. This claim is frequently made by experts in traffic safety. I do not know if studies have been done specifically to assess the magnitude of this effect in preventing serious and fatal injuries. However, the Transportation Research Institute of the University of Michigan and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration have performed or sponsored numerous studies of motor vehicle safety, and the researchers in these organizations would be able to give a better answer to this question than I can. Another source is Elaine Petrucelli of the American Association of Automotive Medicine. Her phone number (published in some literature I have) is 312-640-8440. If someone less lazy than I am would like to contact these organizations to obtain further information and report back to the net, I would be grateful. However, even without hard numbers, common sense would indicate that a driver who is alive, uninjured, and seated in front of the steering wheel can maintain better control of his car after it has been struck than a driver who is dead, unconscious, on the right side of the car, or plunging through the windshield. Serious injuries and fatalities can occur at speeds of as low as 12 mph. It is easy to imagine accidents in intersections or on freeways, for example, in which an unbelted driver would lose control of his vehicle and hit a pedestrian or another car, particularly if the driver is not very resilient physically, as in the case of many elderly people. (Lord knows there are enough drivers on the road who need all the help they can get just to stay between the white lines.) At any given moment, only about 1 out of 7 American motorists has his/her belt fastened, a remarkable statistic in light of the wide publicity given to the effectiveness of seat belts. I would be very interested to know, from those reading this who do not ordinarily use their belts, how you account for the fact that you do not. Is it simply a matter of habit? Do you believe that belts increase your risk? Do you believe the protection is not worth the trouble, like wearing a helmet to protect yourself from meteorites? Do you simply forget? Do you support mandatory belt-use laws? You can mail me a response if you prefer. Finally, someone suggested that cops would feel embarrassed about writing out tickets for non-use of belts. Let me suggest that you ask a cop or state patrolman whether he prefers writing the tickets or scraping someone off the pavement and then telling the nearest relatives that the victim is now dead or a vegetable. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes