plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (07/25/85)
>Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay >through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide >is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage >people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the >premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth). An interesting idea ... except that it would tend to cause stupid people to use seat belts ... and you know what that does to the world population's average intelligence. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/25/85)
> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay > through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide > is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage > people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the > premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth). > > Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? Actually, I doubt the insurance companies would go for this. It only solves half of the issue (if it even does that). Suppose, that I (with my seatbelt discount) go out driving with me belt on and run into (my fault) someone else who is not wearing their seatbelt. My policy is still obliged to pay. -Ron
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/26/85)
An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws:
Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented
by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay
through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide
is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage
people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the
premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth).
Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this?
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (07/26/85)
In article <316@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > >Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >by wearing a seatbelt...... . . . >Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? No offense intended, but this is just the kind of thing that makes lawyers have unassisted orgasms, makes judges commit suicide, makes insurance company execs give smug little I'll-get-that-extra-Mercedes-this-year- after-all smiles, and makes your average Joe's wallet look like an Ethiopian famine victim. Who is to decide that an accident could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt? If the insurance company doesn't want to pay the injured all they have to do is start too long, too expensive court battle to wear the injured, the courts, and the rest of us down. This area is far too subjective and nebulous to be put into an arena where it can cause so much grief. My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! By the way, the You in "You're going to tell me...." above is not directed at Peter, just at legislators in general. They let people hang-glide and water-ski without helmets, don't they? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (07/27/85)
> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > > Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. > > Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? > -- > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) > UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter When Texas was considering its recently enacted seat-belt law, this very thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. Obviously this argument has a few holes, but nobody ever lost money betting on the lack of intellectual quality of Texas legislators..(-: :-) -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) (07/27/85)
In article <783@burl.UUCP>, rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' > laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't > take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that > I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last bed, so the hospital has to build a new wing, and I pay for it. You croak, and use the last cheap plot in the cemetery, so now I have to buy a more expensive one. After all this, your "freedom" has still not stopped costing me ... Now your ex-employer has to employ someone else, and train them, I pay more for his product. So, please, if you want to kill yourself, do it in some way that everyone knows that's what you are doing, and make sure that you succeed, no insurance, no hospital. That still doesn't recover all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember that society has an investment in you - you owe us! Robert Elz ucbvax!kre
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (07/29/85)
In article <9389@ucbvax.ARPA> kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) writes: >While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that >they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, >and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last >bed, so the hospital has to build a new wing, and I pay for it. You >croak, and use the last cheap plot in the cemetery, so now I have to >buy a more expensive one. After all this, your "freedom" has still >not stopped costing me ... Now your ex-employer has to employ someone >else, and train them, I pay more for his product. An interesting viewpoint, and I can see your point somewhat, but: a) You live in New York City (I know you don't, but pretend); there is a higher crime rate there, and when you get mugged your insurance company pays and I pay your insurance company. I could give a lot more examples, but the basic line is that life (and ESPECIALLY insurance) ain't fair. If you're interested in such things, definitely take the time to read _The_Invisible_Bankers_ by Andrew Tobias. b) You hang glide and fly small planes, so you get injured and/or killed. I pay. Life is a bitch, ain't it? My basic message here is much more objective than that: There are insurance discounts for non-smokers for the reasons that you put forth above, and I like that because I am a non-smoker. Am I really a non-smoker? Send me to your insurance company's doctor and I guarantee you he can answer that question reliably unless I work in a coal mine or in downtown L.A. Now, do I really wear my seatbelt all the time? Who knows but me? >So, please, if you want to kill yourself, do it in some way that >everyone knows that's what you are doing, and make sure that you >succeed, no insurance, no hospital. That still doesn't recover >all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember >that society has an investment in you - you owe us! I owe you? OK, I guess you're right -- I'll do my good deed by reducing the population, not contributing to the rise in population at a later date, not consuming anymore food, energy, or space; and I'll lower the unemployment rate at the same time -- all by suicide!! Pretty effective little act, isn't it? As for your earlier point about you paying for this and that, what about the jobs that I create in the insurance, health care, and burial industries? Not to mention the work afforded to florists (assuming someone likes me enough to send flowers to either the hospital and/or the funeral), the minister who reads my eulogy, the lawyers who squabble over my estate, the coroner who does the autopsy... I could go on for days!! I think I'll go off myself right now; what a great feeling to be benefiting others!! (Snide comments on the previous statement via mail to me, please; I'll summarize the cutest ones to the net), -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/29/85)
> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > > Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay > through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. One problem with the above solution is the difficulty in determining whether or not seat-belts would have an advantageous effect or not. Also, what happens when I hit someone (my fault) and they didn't have a seat belt on? Am I less liable because they didn't wear one? The new trend of mandatory seat-belt laws is so ridiculous! My home state of North Carolina is having their law go into effect Oct. 1. I am a habitual seat-belt user but I'm almost ready to not wear them past Oct. 1. I think it's just another excuse for police to inspect vehicles. I fully support mandatory child restraint laws, however. The difference: kids can't responsibly decide whether or not to wear them and shouldn't be penalized by death for having bone-headed parents. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/30/85)
In article <145@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: >> >> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >> by wearing a seatbelt. >> >> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? >> -- >thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by >practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it >was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), >was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt has been through an accident. I wouldn't expect any legislator to understand this, however. -- There are two kinds of people, those who lump people in groups and those who don't. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (07/30/85)
>I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt >belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt >has been through an accident. > >I wouldn't expect any legislator to understand this, however. I'm not to sure about that, but wouldn't the injuries the person wearing the seatbelt be identifibly different from a person who was not wearing a seatbelt? In a high speed collision I would think a person wearing a seatbelt would have bruises across the waist and chest where the straps were. Also a person wearing a seatbelt would be unlikely to have suffered head injuries. Overall the idea of not paying off accident victim who weren't wearing seatbelts doesn't strike me as very practical. It would be nice if people who wore their seatbelts regularly could get lower rates, but I don't have a glimmer about how the insurance company could verify it.
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (07/30/85)
In article <2193@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <145@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: > >> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > >> > >> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > >> by wearing a seatbelt. > >> > >> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? > >> -- > >thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by > >practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it > >was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), > >was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. > > I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt > belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt > has been through an accident. This is true. If fact, If you are in a moderately severe accident it is recommended (at least by consumer reports) that you replace your seatbelts because they cannot absorb a second shock as well and could possibly fail. -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
bill@persci.UUCP (07/31/85)
In article <2193@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: [...] >>> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >>> by wearing a seatbelt. [...] >>> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? >>thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by >>practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it >>was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), >>was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. > >I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt >belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt >has been through an accident. > Phil Ngai From experience, I can testify that this is true. It's surprising the kind of evidence that a trained investigator can find. I had an accident where I was rear-ended by a car massing more than twice mine, traveling about 35-50 MPH upon impact. I had my left-turn signal going (and my brakes on -OUCH!-), which was verified by the particular way the remnants of the bulb's filaments deposited themselves upon the remnants of the bulb! Anyway, why couldn't the insurance company simply nullify the policy if the owner of the policy sustained injuries that wouldn't occur if he had been wearing his belt? (I know, this merely narrows the margin where it is questionable, yet it becomes pretty small.) I dislike paying higher premiums because other people don't wear their belts. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (07/31/85)
> I'm not to sure about that, but wouldn't the injuries the > person wearing the seatbelt be identifibly different from a > person who was not wearing a seatbelt? In a high speed > collision I would think a person wearing a seatbelt would have > bruises across the waist and chest where the straps were. > Also a person wearing a seatbelt would be unlikely to have > suffered head injuries. > > Overall the idea of not paying off accident victim who weren't > wearing seatbelts doesn't strike me as very practical. It > would be nice if people who wore their seatbelts regularly > could get lower rates, but I don't have a glimmer about how > the insurance company could verify it. They don't even need to *try* to verify which of their customers actually wears their seat belts. All they'd have to do is to offer two types of insurance: seat-belted and non-seatbelted. The only difference would be that seat-belted would cost less, and wouldn't pay for injuries caused by not wearing seat belts. As <someone> above points out, there should be big differences in the types of injuries which occur so that a non-belted driver using belted insurance wouldn't be able to fool anyone by putting the belt on after the accident. "Yep. We found him sitting there, his seatbelt fastened securely, and a perfect impression of his face in the windshield." -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
michael@saber.UUCP (Michael Marria) (07/31/85)
> In article <783@burl.UUCP>, rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > > My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' > > laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't > > take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that > > I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! > > While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that > they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, > and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last > all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember > that society has an investment in you - you owe us! > > Robert Elz ucbvax!kre BULLSH*T!!!
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/01/85)
Discussion of having insurance not pay for accidents where driver was not wearing a seat belt. My reply that this was considered by Texas Legislature, but dismissed based on the theory that a driver could quickly buckle up. A followup pointing out that seat belts stretch. A confirmation that they do indeed stretch and... > If fact, If you are in a moderately severe accident it is > recommended (at least by consumer reports) that you replace your seatbelts > because they cannot absorb a second shock as well and could possibly fail. Points are well taken. Being basically a libertarian by nature, I had thought of the insurance non-payment plan as an alternative to the intrusive nature of a seat belt law, but couldn't come up with a counter to the "buckling up" after the fact argument. However, it does seem that from a legislative point of view, a variation on the original argrument could be used. Might not litigants argue that they really did have their seat belts on, but the accident wasn't severe enough to stretch them? This is all promising, but I think we need more information, and possibly a body of case law, to convince legislators... -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
hosking@convexs.UUCP (08/02/85)
> Also a person wearing a seatbelt would be unlikely to have > suffered head injuries. Guess again. It might seem that way, but you'd be surprised what sort of head injuries can occur, even when you're wearing your seat belt. If you're at all tall, your head can easily get smashed against the roof. Suffice it to say that there are some nasty surprises lurking above the padding of many car roofs. My mother got hit by a drunk a few years ago while she was stopped at a stop sign on a nice "quiet" residential street. Despite the fact that she was wearing full belts, I don't think you'd want to see the pictures of the resulting head injuries. Seat belts usually help to REDUCE THE EXTENT of head injuries, but they by no means PREVENT them. Doug Hosking Convex Computer Corp. Richardson, TX {allegra, ihnp4, uiucdcs}!convex!hosking
dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) (08/03/85)
What follows is an annotated re-posting of an article I posted to
net.autos and net.politics in April. I thought I had also posted it to
net.legal, but the absence of replies here and the current discussion
make me suspicious about whether it ever actually got posted to
net.legal.
Most of the discussion recently on net.legal has to do with one half of
the proposal that follows, which I call "Insurance reform". The other
half of my proposal is, I think, also important because it deals with
liability, negligence, and lawsuit. Here is the posting:
I would willingly support seatbelt laws, but I am not optimistic about
getting them passed. I would like to share a couple of arguments, and
advocate an alternate proposal.
CON seatbelt laws: the "Slippery Slide" (Thanks to Bob Edge for the name)
The point is this: some restrictions on personal freedom, while not
overly intrusive in themselves, establish a "slippery slide" toward
more intrusive restrictions on freedom. The classic example is
antipornography laws which have a tendency to "slide" into
restrictions on free speech which are unacceptable to those who place
a high value on civil liberties.
I'm not sure how applicable this argument is here. I don't hear
anyone clamoring to have the freedom to choose to refuse seat belts
on commercial airline flights. I'm not personally overly concerned
about slippery slides from seat belt laws into other intrusions on my
personal freedom, but I appreciate the concern of others, and I am
wary of those who try to "protect me" from various and sundry evils.
PRO seatbelt laws: Freedom implies responsibility.
If you want to be "free" to choose not to wear a seatbelt, you should
accept the responsibility for the consequences of your actions.
People "choose" to not wear seatbelts, and then expect others to pay
for their decisions via higher insurance rates and expensive personal
damage claims.
Cynical observation: Most folks don't object to compulsory
child-restraint laws to protect children. They don't squalk about
motorcycle helmet laws (these folks who don't own motorcycles), but
when a restrictions threatens to affect THEM, oh my! The screams
and clamor!
My proposal: Tough "Contributory Negligence" laws, with attendant
insurance law reform.
Under my proposal, states would recognize by law that failure to wear
seatbelts constitutes contributory negligence. This applies when an
injury can be reasonably be attributed to the choice to refuse
effective, proven safety devices. Existing insurance policies would be
exempted from having to cover losses due to the consequences of such
choices.
An illustration:
Suppose you are driving without your seatbelt and I, in another car,
make a mistake which causes us to have an accident. Under this proposal
you couldn't force me to pay for the permanent disability and/or pain &
suffering which wouldn't have happened if you had been taking reasonable
precaution (wearing your seatbelt). Yes, my negligence caused the
accident, but YOUR negligence caused it to be a lot worse than it would
have been. I still pay for the damage to your car, and your trip to the
emergency room, but not your six weeks out of work, or your burial
expenses, the loss to your family, as the case may be.
Under this system, you would have choices:
1 Wear your seat belt.
2 Don't wear your belt, and accept responsibility for the consequences
of your decision. If you are severly injured when you needn't have
been, you may end up declaring bankruptcy, losing your house, etc.
- but that's your choice.
3 Don't wear your seat belt and pay extra premiums to purchase
supplemental insurance to protect you against the consequences of
not wearing your belt. We can assume that with such laws, many
folks would still refuse to wear their belts, and after a few lives
have been ruined, there would be a demand for such insurance.
We could to force insurance companies to offer these riders, or
perhaps the forces of a free market would come into play.
Under this proposal, no adult would be forced to wear a seat belt.
Those who do choose to wear seat belts would have lower insurance rates,
because they wouldn't be have to insure themselves against risks they
don't take. Even those who don't wear belts would have lower liability
rates, because they wouldn't have to pay to insure against damage to
others who don't buckle up. Perhaps we could even convince the Federal
Government that these laws eliminate the need for mandatory airbags.
And for those of you who own antique cars: you may have the choice of
adding non-stock safety features to your car (like turn signals and
brake lights), or perhaps pay somewhat higher insurance rates.
As for me, I buckle up!
Dave Straayer
Tektronix, Inc.
POBOX 1000, MS 63-166
Wilsonville, OR 97070phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/04/85)
In article <150@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >on the original argrument could be used. Might not litigants argue that >they really did have their seat belts on, but the accident wasn't severe >enough to stretch them? This is all promising, but I think we need >more information, and possibly a body of case law, to convince legislators... If the accident wasn't severe enough to stretch the seat belts, then the medical damages ought to be very low. If litigant's face is broken from hitting the windshield, even a jury is unlikely to believe the seat belt was actually used. (where seat belt means combination lap/shoulder belt) -- My sister told me "I filled up my shoe tree so I knew it was time to stop buying shoes. Then our parents gave me some shoes so I had to buy another shoe tree. And then..." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (08/05/85)
>CON seatbelt laws: the "Slippery Slide" (Thanks to Bob Edge for the name) > The point is this: some restrictions on personal freedom, while not > overly intrusive in themselves, establish a "slippery slide" toward > more intrusive restrictions on freedom. The classic example is > antipornography laws which have a tendency to "slide" into > restrictions on free speech which are unacceptable to those who place > a high value on civil liberties. Hear, hear!! >Suppose you are driving without your seatbelt and I, in another car, >make a mistake which causes us to have an accident. Under this proposal >you couldn't force me to pay for the permanent disability and/or pain & >suffering which wouldn't have happened if you had been taking reasonable >precaution (wearing your seatbelt). Yes, my negligence caused the >accident, but YOUR negligence caused it to be a lot worse than it would >have been. I still pay for the damage to your car, and your trip to the >emergency room, but not your six weeks out of work, or your burial >expenses, the loss to your family, as the case may be. Suppose you are riding a motorcycle and I, in a (much safer) car, make a mistake which causes us to have an accident. Under this proposal (it sounds like) you couldn't force me to pay for the permanent disability and/or pain & suffering which wouldn't have happened if you had been taking reasonable precaution (not riding a motorcycle which has no enveloping superstructure to protect you). Get my drift? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/05/85)
I saw an assertion somewhere (not on USENET) that 1) air bags are better
than seat belts in protecting against the kind of accidents that seat belts
are good for and 2) air bags are good in some accidents which seat belts
can't handle at all.
This sounds amazing (unbelieveable) to me but I'd be willing to listen to
explanations on how this could be so.
--
I like vegetables that start with "a". Artichokes, avocadoes, etc.
Some of the "b"s are ok, like broccoli, but brussels sprouts are out.
As for cabbage, forget it!
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAbwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (08/05/85)
It is unfortunate that it is an issue. There should ALWAYS be freedom of choice, even if you choose to commit suicide. Think of it as evolution in action. B -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/06/85)
In article <255@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >Also, what happens when I hit someone (my fault) and they didn't have >a seat belt on? Am I less liable because they didn't wear one? In some states you are. California used to be one, but I'm not sure if it still is. The concept involved is "contributory negligence". If they weren't wearing a seatbelt then their injuries are at least partly their own fault. Just passin' thru ... -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
agj@pucc-i (Mike Proicou) (08/06/85)
In article <2364@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >I saw an assertion somewhere (not on USENET) that 1) air bags are better >than seat belts in protecting against the kind of accidents that seat belts >are good for and 2) air bags are good in some accidents which seat belts >can't handle at all. > >This sounds amazing (unbelieveable) to me but I'd be willing to listen to >explanations on how this could be so. Everything that I have heard about air bags says that they are only good in a head-on collision. Seat belts also hold you in place if you get hit from the side or rear and to some extent ( I don't know how much) in a rollover type mess. I suspect that if air bags were so great, auto racers would use them instead of being strapped into place five or six different ways. The only thing air bags have to their advantage is that they are passive restraints, the driver doesn't have to do anything to activate them. -- mike proicou {cbosgd,ihnp4,ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-i!agj <-- boring PUCC login {decwrl,hplabs,psuvax1,siemens}!purdue!pucc-i!agj
dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) (08/06/85)
In an earlier article I suggested that the concept of contributory negligence should be applied when injuries in an accident can be reasonably attributed to not wearing seat belts. In article <795@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > >Suppose you are riding a motorcycle and I, in a (much safer) car, >make a mistake which causes us to have an accident. Under this >proposal (it sounds like) you couldn't force me to pay for the >permanent disability and/or pain & suffering which wouldn't have >happened if you had been taking reasonable precaution (not riding >a motorcycle which has no enveloping superstructure to protect >you). > Of course, my proposal was to apply the concept of contribtory negligence to seat belt usage, not motorcycle driving. I think that your comment bears examination. Trying to draw a parallel between refusing to wear seat belts and choosing a motorcycle over an automobile is stretched. I would accept refusing to wear a helmet as parallel to refusing to wear a seat belt. What you are asking me to do is to generalize or abstract the concept of contributory negligence. OK, here goes: If a safety measure is formally recognized as prudent because of its cost, availability, effectivness, etc., then refusal to use the safety measure causes the person refusing the safety measure to assume responsibility for damages which could reasonably be attributed to the failure to use the safety measure, even though the damage was triggered by another party. This requires that legal recognition must be given to the safety measure. This does not generally absolve other parties from responsibility for the damages that they cause, they are absolved only of those damages which would not have occured if all parties had been taking reasonable precautions. Much of this controversy has involved people trying very hard to defend their right to do dangerous things. They see seat belt laws as a threat to this right, and I share their concern. Simply saying "I have a right to do dangerous things" doesn't cut the mustard. What we have to say is "I want to preserve my right to do dangerous things, and I am prepared to accept responsibility for my actions." Perhaps some day an overly safety-paranoid society will decide that riding motorcycles is "dangerous" in the same sense as not wearing seat belts (I hope not). If so, better that you should be able to accept the risk (this may involve no more than paying higher insurance premiums) and continue to ride motorcycles. David H. Straayer
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (08/07/85)
> I saw an assertion somewhere (not on USENET) that 1) air bags are better > than seat belts in protecting against the kind of accidents that seat belts > are good for and 2) air bags are good in some accidents which seat belts > can't handle at all. > > This sounds amazing (unbelieveable) to me but I'd be willing to listen to > explanations on how this could be so. I have read (consumer reports, again) that air bags are NOT a substitute for seatbelts. They are simply an enhancement to the existing safety systems. If you do not wear a seatbelt, you may still get thrown from the car or beaten when the car rolls or you are hit from the side. Air bags lessen injury during frontal impacts. I would like to see what kind of accident that seatbelts cannot handle very well (or even hinder survival). A good 3 point safety belt prevents forward motion and helps suppress motion side to side. It also holds you down if you decide to roll. What can't they do that might happen in some types of accidents? -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
stern@steinmetz.UUCP (Harold A. Stern) (08/07/85)
> I saw an assertion somewhere (not on USENET) that 1) air bags are better > than seat belts in protecting against the kind of accidents that seat belts > are good for and 2) air bags are good in some accidents which seat belts > can't handle at all. > > Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 Actually, it was my understanding that airbags are of little if any use in accidents where someone hits you from the side.
bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (08/08/85)
In article <795@burl.UUCP> rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: >CON seatbelt laws: the "Slippery Slide" (Thanks to Bob Edge for the name) > The point is this: some restrictions on personal freedom, while not > overly intrusive in themselves, establish a "slippery slide" toward > more intrusive restrictions on freedom. The classic example is > antipornography laws which have a tendency to "slide" into > restrictions on free speech which are unacceptable to those who place > a high value on civil liberties. The solution is simple. Not wearing seatbelts is tantamount to voluntary suicide. It isn't illegal, but if you get hurt, you can't collect a dime in MEDICAL damages (damages to your car are another story...). -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (08/08/85)
In article <771@gatech.CSNET> jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) writes: >I would like to see what kind of accident that seatbelts cannot handle very >well (or even hinder survival). A good 3 point safety belt prevents forward >motion and helps suppress motion side to side. It also holds you down if you >decide to roll. What can't they do that might happen in some types of >accidents? >-- Alright, an aquaintance of mine was once involved in a head-on collision when he had about a hundreds of pounds of bricks(or some similar type of thing) in his back seat. After the accident the bricks were in the former location of the front seat. If he had still been in the car he would have been crushed flat. In *that* accident he was actually better off being thrown from the car! So seatbelts, which would have kept him in the car, would actually have killed him. Of course this is a very unusual accident, since *usually* being thrown from the car makes injuries worse. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (08/09/85)
> From: jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) > Subject: Re: Seat Belts > Article-I.D.: gatech.771 > > I would like to see what kind of accident that seatbelts cannot handle very > well (or even hinder survival). A good 3 point safety belt prevents forward > motion and helps suppress motion side to side. It also holds you down if you > decide to roll. What can't they do that might happen in some types of > accidents? When my car flipped and went off a bridge into a pond, I was trapped under ice. I think if I had had a seat belt, I would have panicked and/or the water rushing in would have killed me. All that happened was that I got cold. -- --steve kramer {allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!smk (UUCP) linus!axiom!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)
craparotta@nymgr.DEC (08/22/85)
Tom, I couldn't agree with u more about seatbelt use. Having played bumper cars with some guardrails hereI am a strong supporter of them. My young son (4 yrs) won't even let me move the car till EVERYONE has them on!! He will loudlyVOICE his opinion. Which at the time is fine with me. The car (company) that I wiped out had the rear tie trying to catch the front one and the front seat thought it was supposed to be in the back.... Regards,, JoeCraparotta