carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (04/14/85)
Some pinhead from NJ posted the following misinformed and potentially dangerous comments: >The state of New Jersey released findings from the first month of >the new mandatory seat belt law. No surprise to me that the death >rate went up significantly. This is meaningless unless correlated with a change in the rate of belt usage. Do you have any data on this? Other jurisdictions (e.g. Britain, Australia, Sweden) in which seat-belt laws went into effect have reported that as the rate of belt usage went up, the rate of serious and fatal injuries went down, sometimes sharply. The people who conscientiously obey the laws and buckle up are the people least likely to have an accident in the first place, otherwise the effect would be greater. >I was in a bad accident in which I was seriously injured and my friend >(the passenger) was killed. I was not wearing a seat belt and my friend >was. I'm not preaching what to do, but what would you do if you were >me. I survived because I was not pinned in the car and my friend was. If I were you I would ask someone to explain the term "anecdotal evidence," and then spend some time with a quadriplegic or paraplegic, most of whom received their injuries in an auto accident -- and few if any of whom had been wearing seat belts. Such accidents as you describe are quite rare. Here are some stats on RISK REDUCTIONS with use of safety belts in two common types of accidents (source: Univ. of Michigan Transportation Research Institute): FRONTAL CRASHES Fatalities: Serious injuries: head 82% head 71% neck 100% neck 100% chest 53% chest 26% abdomen 29% abdomen 61% arms & legs 81% ROLLOVER CRASHES Fatalities: Serious injuries: head 84% head 100% neck 100% neck 100% chest 67% chest 71% abdomen 48% abdomen 67% arms 70% legs 74% Note the high rates of risk reduction for head and neck injuries, and hence for brain and spinal cord injuries. In a 30 mph crash with a solid object, an unbelted occupant hits the windshield or other interior surface of the vehicle with the same impact as a fall from a three-story building. If the occupant were an adult of average weight holding a child in his/her lap, the child would be crushed to death. The impact of a 10 mph crash is about the same as a fall from 7 feet or so. Safety belts help occupants "ride down" the force of the crash by holding them in place and preventing contact with either the interior of the vehicle or other occupants. Belts also keep occupants inside the vehicle. Studies reveal that ejection is a major factor in fatalities and severe injuries. Being thrown out of a vehicle is 25-40 times more lethal. That is why motorcycle accidents are so dangerous -- the riders are nearly always thrown from their cycles. Belts can prevent you from being crushed by your own car or scraped along the pavement. According to a study covering 28,000 traffic accidents in Sweden, no fatalities involving safety belt users were found at crash speeds of under 60 mph. But speeds as low as 12 mph resulted in deaths among unbelted occupants. Some more facts that may surprise some of you: 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling less than 40 mph. Less than 0.5% of all injury-producing collisions involve fire or submersion. But even in these cases, wearing a belt can save a life by keeping the occupant conscious and alert, able to get out and to help other occupants. If you haven't worn a belt in years, you may find that the newer ones are quite comfortable and help to you maintain a comfortable posture. Late model cars are equipped with a one-piece lap-shoulder belt that is designed to allow freedom of movement. In case of a sudden stop, an inertial device locks the belt in place. Injuries due to belts have been reported, but in these rare situations the belt either was either inappropriately worn or the crash was so severe that the occupant would have been more seriously injured if not belted. Safety belts can reduce the severity of an accident by keeping the driver in control of the car after the impact. Pregnant women: The American Medical Association reports that pregnant women should wear seat belts. The primary cause of fetal death in auto accidents is the death of the mother. If you are an average driver you face a 1 in 6 chance of being involved in a crash in a given year and about a 1 in 100 chance of suffering a serious injury during a given year. RESEARCHERS IN THE FIELD OF TRAFFIC SAFETY DO NOT DISPUTE THE APPROXIMATE CORRECTNESS OF THE FOLLOWING FIGURES: -- Safety belts cut the number of serious injuries received by roughly one-half. -- Safety belts cut fatalities by 40-60%. IN OTHER WORDS, NOT WEARING A BELT ROUGHLY DOUBLES YOUR CHANCES OF BEING SERIOUSLY HURT OR KILLED IN A CRASH. If you think you're a good driver and won't have an accident, remember that you can't control the drunken moron in the car coming at you, or the poor road conditions that you were not aware of. So those of you who don't wear seat belts, please start to make it a habit now. Make your kids buckle up whenever they ride. And if there are any macho men out there who think real men don't worry about safety and don't wear seat belts, remember that real men care about the people who care about and depend on them. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/15/85)
> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > less than 40 mph. Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed in an automobile accident? What if I lie to my car and tell it it's far from home when it really isn't? (I know it's not nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment)
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/15/85)
> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > less than 40 mph. The real question is how much driving is done within 25 miles of home. (If it is 90%...) How much is less that 40 mph? -- Nyssa of Traken, now employed at Terminus Hospital, Inc. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa The cameras are still on, let the show begin! I want to hear them scream, until I'm deaf with pleasure! I want to see their limbs twist in excruciating pain! Ultimately, their blood must gush and flow through all the gutters of Varos!
garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (04/17/85)
> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > > less than 40 mph. > Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than > 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed > in an automobile accident? What if I lie to my car and tell > it it's far from home when it really isn't? (I know it's not > nice to lie to cars -- this is just a thought experiment) Be serious. Clearly, most vehicle related deaths occur within 25 miles from home because most driving occurs within 25 miles from home. The point is that some people reason that since they are only going a short distance, they don't need to buckle up. The fact that most such deaths occur close to home refutes that reasoning. What *was* your point, anyway? Gary Samuelson
esf00@amdahl.UUCP (Elliott S Frank) (04/17/85)
> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur ... > > What if I lie to my car and ... This particular discussion was summarised in the _Journal_of_Irreproducible_ Results_ several years ago. I vote we continue the discussion in net.forgotten.sources. Elliott S Frank ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's] inanalternateuniversethismessagewouldshowupasundeliverableandprobablynotbesent -- Elliott S Frank ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!esf00 (408) 746-6384 [the above opinions are strictly mine, if anyone's] inanalternateuniversethismessagewouldshowupasundeliverableandprobablynotbesent
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/18/85)
>> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from >> home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling >> less than 40 mph. >The real question is how much driving is done within 25 miles of >home. (If it is 90%...) How much is less that 40 mph? >Nyssa of Traken The point of the above is that accidents *do* occur on short trips at low speeds, so it is very important to buckle up even for short trips. However, you are quite correct, the figure by itself means nothing. It is only there as a reminder that accidents happen on short trips as well. Tom West Another test to flame, Another prof to blame, And nail that problem set to the wall. -The Poslfit Blues
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) (04/18/85)
I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a
seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering
anyone but myself.
The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws
*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for
your own good"? Can we next expect legislation requiring us to
take vitamins, as well? [sarcasm]
Where do we draw the line?
Gail Bayley Hanrahan
Calma Company, San Diego
{ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gaillspirkov@udenva.UUCP (Goldilocks) (04/19/85)
> 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > less than 40 mph. Maybe i could use that as an excuse the next time i get stopped for going 60 in a 40 mile zone. "you see, officer, 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur ..." Nah, i just have to buy a wallet & do what some man did (this was posted on net.singles a while back): pulled out his wallet real fast & said "quick, scotty, beam me up." Goldi
donn@neurad.UUCP (Donn S. Fishbein) (04/19/85)
> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > > less than 40 mph. > > Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than > 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed > in an automobile accident?... A more reasonable explanation would be that something close to 75% of driving is done with 25 miles of one's home. -- Donn S. Fishbein, MD (N3DNT) ..!harpo!seismo!nbs-amrf!neurad!donn (301)496-6801
mcburnet@topaz.ARPA (Roe McBurnett mcburnet@topaz.uucp) (04/19/85)
In article <335@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: > ...But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering >anyone but myself. > >The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws >*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for >your own good"? >Where do we draw the line? >Gail Bayley Hanrahan The *REAL* issue is should governments be making laws that benifit the governed. wearing seatbelts will lower medical/insurance costs and reduce the pain and suffering of those you might leave behind. A seatbelt law benifits everyone so it's not "for your own good" Roe McBurnett -- Roe McBurnett {ut-sally,astrovax}!topaz!mcburnet or Hill 521 x4273 \-> !ru-green!mcburnett
dana@gitpyr.UUCP (Dana Eckart) (04/19/85)
In article <335@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: >The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws >*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for >your own good"? > >Where do we draw the line? Suppose (for the sake of arguement) that Mr. B wasn't wearing his seat belt when he was involved in a rather unfortunate car accident. Further, suppose that he wasn't killed, but just severely injured (although not essential to my point, possibly a quadrapalegic thus requiring extensive care for the remainder of his life). This of course would require a great deal of medical assistance which generally costs lots of money. Either Mr. B has medical and/or auto insurance to cover these expenses which would be reflected in higher rates for the rest of us (since as far as I am aware no insurance company utilizes the fact of whether or not a person was wearing a seat belt) or he doesn't have enough money to pay for his treatment and must rely on public facilities (thus costing those of us who pay taxes). Although this may seem heartless (and seeming to hold money in higher regards than health) I do it only to make a point. It seems to me that not wearing seat belts is something which affects everybody! I would agree with Gail on one point however, IF there was NO affect on anyone else (e.g. Mr. B chooses to forego any medical treatment which he cannot afford, and any laws which may prevent his refusal are voided) then I say let him do whatever he wants (although I think that he could possibly benefit from their use). I hope that this point (which seems simple to me) is not too far off base. Does this seem reasonable to other people? Dana Eckart
lrd@drusd.UUCP (L. R. DuBroff) (04/19/85)
> But if I don't wear a seat belt, > I'm not endangering anyone but myself. Gail Bayley Hanrahan HORSE MANURE! There are circumstances under which a driver is not able to control his/her car unless s/he is held firmly in the driver's seat. In these situatations, an unbelted driver is endangering anyone who is unfortunate enough to be in the immediate vicinity. If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. Drivers who demonstrate a lack of responsibility should lose the privilege of driving on public roads.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> -- > Nyssa of Traken, now employed at Terminus Hospital, Inc. > ihnp4!abnji!nyssa > > The cameras are still on, let the show begin! > I want to hear them scream, until I'm deaf with pleasure! I want to see their > limbs twist in excruciating pain! Ultimately, their blood must gush and > flow through all the gutters of Varos! That must be quite some hospital! :-) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (04/19/85)
> [Gail Bayley Hanrahan] > I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a > seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering > anyone but myself. > > The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws > *requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for > your own good"? Can we next expect legislation requiring us to > take vitamins, as well? [sarcasm] > > Where do we draw the line? It's not necessarily just for your *own* good. There are also ambulance fees, potentially staggering medical fees, etc. Insurance may pay for a lot of this, but who pays for the insurance? All of us. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "Danger signs, a creeping independence" |
debbiem@rruxe.UUCP (D. McBurnett) (04/19/85)
>...But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering anyone but >myself. This is undoubtedly true. However, if you are a parent, you have to think beyond the danger to yourself and consider what would happen to your family if you were seriously disabled or killed. Is it fair for them to suffer the consequences? And what about the example you set for your children? Are you really indifferent to their deaths or injuries? In becoming a parent, these are responsibilities that must not be ignored. >The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws >*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for your own good"?...Where do we draw the line? I am unalterably opposed to laws that are for an individual's "own good". To me, however, that's not the whole issue here. If you refuse to wear your seat belt, and end up as a quadraplegic, you are probably going to receive some kind of disability pay, medical insurance, or welfare-type payments from the government. When any one of these organizations shells out for your disabilitly, my insurance and/or tax rates are affected. I don't particularly enjoy paying for your stupidity, I have other things I'd rather spend my money on, like my own family. I would much prefer the laws to be changed so that if a person does not wear his/her seat belt, he or she receives no monetary recompense for the resultant medical costs. In the absence of such laws, I can accept a law *requiring* people to wear seat belts -- not because it's for THEIR own good, but because it is in my own interests, and for the public good in general. Which is, after all, the business of governments. Debbie McBurnett Bell Communications Research, Inc. Morristown, New Jersey rruxe!debbiem
mrh@aluxz.UUCP (HUDOCK) (04/19/85)
> Drivers who demonstrate a lack of responsibility should lose the privilege > of driving on public roads. Sure lets revoke everyones' license who: 1. Speeds 2. Drives Carelessly 3. Tailgates 4. Fails to stay right 5. Forgets Driving Gloves 6. Doesn't Wear Sunglasses If people would learn to be responsible for there actions and not constantly looking to nail someone else the problem would be solved. No lets just keep feeding the LAWYERS and INSURANCE CO. with BUCKS. I'm sure I'll now get blasted by the many liberal DIP-STICKS on this net.
wjr@utcs.UUCP (William Rucklidge) (04/19/85)
> > I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a > seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering > anyone but myself. Wrong. Consider the following: Scenario #1: You are driving through an intersection when someone hits your car from the right. Since you are not wearing a seatbelt, you are thrown into the passenger seat, thus losing control of the car, which then goes out of control, riding up on the sidewalk and killing five people. Scenario #2: You are driving through an intersection when someone hits your car from the right. Since you are wearing a seatbelt, you remain in the driver's seat, keep the car under control and bring it to a safe stop. If you are a passenger in a car, you should also wear a seatbelt: in the event of an accident passengers can become *projectiles*, endangering everyone in the car. > Gail Bayley Hanrahan > Calma Company, San Diego > {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail -- William Rucklidge University of Toronto Computing Services {decvax,ihnp4,utcsrgv,{allegra,linus}!utzoo}!utcs!wjr GISO - Garbage In, Serendipity Out. This message brought to you with the aid of the Poslfit Committee.
topher@cyb-eng.UUCP (Topher Eliot) (04/20/85)
> . . . But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering > anyone but myself. > > The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws > *requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for > your own good"? . . . 1) If you are injured, your bills will be paid out of an insurance fund, driving up MY insurance bills. I admit that this is argument is a little weak, since in theory I could find myself an insurer who insures only people who wear seatbelts. 2) When you run through your insurance and run out of money, your bills will be paid from my tax dollars. I could ask if you were willing to sign a form swearing that when your own insurance and other financial resources were exhausted, you really and truly want to be left to die, but of course such a document would not be enforceable in our society. Our legal system won't let you sign away such rights -- for your own good. 3) There is considerable evidence that wearing a seatbelt improves one's ability to control one's vehicle in emergency situations, consequently protecting others (read "me") on the road. I have an article from the local rag about this; I will gladly send copies to anyone who sends me their US mail address (no, I will not type it in). 4) Even though the author of the posting to which I am responding did not mention this, I will take the occasion to state my views on driving around with children unbuckled: it's in the same class as letting infants play in the road, giving drugs to adolescents, leaving toddlers at home alone with loaded guns, etc. People who do it should go to jail. The argument that "parents have a right to handle their kids as they want to, as long as they aren't INTENDING to harm the kids" is utter crap. Society has an obligation to protect children from their parent's stupidity and laziness. Cheers, Topher Eliot Cyb Systems, Austin, TX {gatech,ihnp4,nbires,seismo,ucb-vax}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!topher
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (04/20/85)
> If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions it pleases on people who use public roads. Hmmm...does that mean that the government has the right to say that if you use a public road, you are deemed to have given them permission, say, to search your home for evidence of any illegal activity?
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (04/20/85)
isn't there somewhere (sez i to a keyboard) where if you were a driver
of a car (or any other motor vehicle) and you had an accident where
a passenger got injured and that passenger was injured, you could
be sued for negligence for not making the passenger wear their seatbelt?
New York comes to mind for some reason. anyway, people who drive and/or
ride in cars and don't wear seatbelts are just fooling themselves. the
law is there to make them doubly a fool.
Herb Chong...
I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble....
UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie
CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsusimon@psuvax1.UUCP (04/21/85)
> > I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a > seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering > anyone but myself. > > The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws > *requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for > your own good"? Can we next expect legislation requiring us to > take vitamins, as well? [sarcasm] > > Where do we draw the line? > > > Gail Bayley Hanrahan > Calma Company, San Diego > {ihnp4,decvax,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!gail I think it is also well established that not wearing a seat belt makes driving less safe for others. In an emergency, not being thrown about the car may give you the ability to stay in control. Racing drivers use seat belts because it helps their driving. We should not expect legislation requiring us to take vitamins, but we should expect (and do have) legislation that prohibits driving while one's ability is impaired by drugs, alcohol or inability to see well.
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (04/21/85)
Could this discussion be removed from net.singles? It's not exactly
relevant there!
--
Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (04/21/85)
Sure. Then I suppose we should outlaw car radios because they are distracting.
And we should outlaw comfortable car seats because you might fall asleep. And
we should surely outlaw heterosexual drivers because they account for about
ninety percent of all accidents. Better yet, since plane travel is so much
safer than car travel, why not ban cars entirely? Or at least ban night travel.
Your choice of where to make the trade-off between the rights of the individual
and the rights of everyone else is skewed too far towards everyone else. Why
doesn't the government go pick on someone its own size? (And why doesn't it
get an honest job like everyone else, instead of stealing?)
Oh yeah, this is net.FLAME, I forgot. Ummm... how about: You are the
anthropoid equivalent of rust.
[generic disclaimer] {n.f.q}david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) (04/21/85)
>If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece >of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with >other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. So, since I breath public air, the government has a right to prevent me from eating baked beans?
kpmartin@watmath.UUCP (Kevin Martin) (04/21/85)
>Being thrown out of a vehicle is >25-40 times more lethal. That is why motorcycle accidents are so >dangerous -- the riders are nearly always thrown from their cycles. >Belts can prevent you from being crushed by your own car or scraped >along the pavement. Of course, because of the 'crushed by your vehicle' problem, once you lose control of the motorcycle, you want to be as far from it as you can get. So if you really don't want to wear a seat belt while driving your car, maybe you should wear a helmet and motorcycle leathers instead. But you may then find your car sorely lacking in headroom (and you would look pretty silly too :-)). Kevin Martin, UofW Software Development Group
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/21/85)
Gail B. Hanrahan writes: >I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a >seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering >anyone but myself. Wrong. If you hit something and the car still continues moving, then the chances that you retain control and don't go swerving into the opposite lane or such-like activity are greatly reduced if you are wearing a seatbelt. As well, getting killed or worse is really expensive to the rest of us. We have to try to patch up after the person (and if you have a medi-care system, we *all* pay for the person's stupidity.) Tom West "Some men think..., and some don't" -A. Regard { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
holmes@dalcs.UUCP (Ray Holmes) (04/21/85)
gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes: >The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws >*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for >your own good"? Can we next expect legislation requiring us to >take vitamins, as well? [sarcasm] There is a difference here; the government has to pay to clean up the mess! Ray
disc@homxb.UUCP (Scott J. Berry) (04/22/85)
"We're preparing for takeoff; please fasten your barf bags."
*********************************************
Consensus:
1. People who don't wear seat belts are chumps
2. There are SOME occasions/circumstances where
not wearing your belt can harm (perhaps indirectly)
others
The real point, I feel, is not being addressed here. Regardless
of whether or not the government should be passing a law infringing
on personal rights, does it make any sense for the government
to pass questionable laws THAT MOST LIKELY WILL RESULT IN LITTLE OR
NO CHANGE? An idiot who refuses to wear a belt is not going to
start just because there's a CHANCE some day he may be stopped for
SOME OTHER OFFENSE and be fined $20.
Alcohol abuse is clearly a problem for both the individual AND society
(even completely disregarding drunk driving); did Prohibition change
anything? (Other than perhaps the QUALITY of liquor drank?)
YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY OUT OF THE POPULATION!!!
Scott J. Berry
...!homxb!disccanopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell) (04/22/85)
> From: <335@calmasd.UUCP> (G. B. Hanrahan) > I think it's pretty well established that it's smart to wear a > seat belt. But if I don't wear a seat belt, I'm not endangering > anyone but myself. Not true in every case. An unbelted rear-seat passenger in a head-on collision can seriously injure or kill the driver/front passenger. Unbelted passengers become deadly missiles bouncing around inside a vehicle much as a brick would (ever see two heads collide at 35mph? kinda like a watermelon dropped from two stories). -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....]
canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell) (04/22/85)
> > If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > > of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > > In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions > it pleases on people who use public roads. Since driving is a *privilege* granted by the government, and not a *right* granted by the constitution, I would say so. -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....]
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) (04/22/85)
In article <326@gitpyr.UUCP> dana@gitpyr.UUCP (Dana Eckart) writes: >Suppose (for the sake of arguement) that Mr. B wasn't wearing his >seat belt when he was involved in a rather unfortunate car accident. >Further, suppose that he wasn't killed, but just severely injured >(although not essential to my point, possibly a quadrapalegic thus >requiring extensive care for the remainder of his life). >This of course would require a great deal of medical assistance which >generally costs lots of money. Either Mr. B has medical and/or auto >insurance to cover these expenses which would be reflected in higher >rates for the rest of us (since as far as I am aware no insurance >company utilizes the fact of whether or not a person was wearing a >seat belt) or he doesn't have enough money to pay for his treatment >and must rely on public facilities (thus costing those of us who pay >taxes). With the use of seat belts legislated in most provinces, some judgements in Canada allocate some blame to the person who is in an accident *not* wearing a seat belt. In the situation of not the victims fault I don't know where the law lies, but I suspect it is similar to where the peretrator of the accident is inebriated, that is benefits are limited. I think it is fair, don't wear a seat belt, get an accident, get your house take away from your wife and kids... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
faunt@hplabs.UUCP (Doug Faunt) (04/23/85)
> > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > > less than 40 mph. > > Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than > 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed > in an automobile accident? What if I lie to my car and tell Yes, probably true. If you only use public transportation to travel within 25 miles of your house, most of your travel time will be accomplished by that means, which means that you'll drive less, which means that you'll be exposed less, which means your chances of dying in an automobile accident are less. QED -- ....!hplabs!faunt faunt%hplabs@csnet-relay.ARPA HP is not responsible for anything I say here. In fact, what I say here may have been generated by a noisy telephone line.
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (04/23/85)
I remember we went through this whole discussion a few months ago, so for
my contribution I'm just going to post the comment I posted then:
Some years ago I was working for a trapeze act (Del Graham's Circus
Productions, The Flying Viennas). During my time with them, I chanced to
be present at the following interview:
Reporter: What ever became of that trapeze act that used to work without
a net?
Mr. Graham: Oh, them! They're all dead.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombebeth@gymble.UUCP (Beth Katz) (04/23/85)
Two months ago, my father was in an auto accident. The car was totaled
(the other car ran into the driver's side door of my father's car), my
father's spleen was ruptured and was later removed, and all of the ribs
on his left side were fractured. However, if he had not been wearing
his seat belt, he would be dead. His insurance company (USAA) and others
provide additional benefits if you are injured in an auto accident and
were wearing your seat belt. (By the way, my father is now doing much
better, is up and about, and wears his seat belt in his new car.)
As the sign leaving our campus says, "You may need your seltbelt only
once in your life, but when will that one time be?"
Beth Katz
{seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!bethjs2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (04/23/85)
> > > 75% of motor vehicle related deaths occur less than 25 miles from > > > home; 50% of serious and fatal injuries occur in vehicles traveling > > > less than 40 mph. > > > > Does this mean that if I never let my car get closer than > > 25 miles to my home it will reduce my chances of being killed > > in an automobile accident?... As I was returning from a long weekend Sunday night, having driven ~850 miles since Friday, I got within 25 miles of home and remembered this discussion and that I was entering the danger zone around my home. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "This statement is true."
ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (04/23/85)
> > "We're preparing for takeoff; please fasten your barf bags." > PLEASE NOTE the content here, and its relvance to net.singles! Doesn't this heart rendering story kind of remind you of "Gone with the Wind"? If modern authors addressed today's problems with the forthrightness and responsibilty we see here, the world would be a better place. > ********************************************* > > Consensus: > > 1. People who don't wear seat belts are chumps > 2. There are SOME occasions/circumstances where > not wearing your belt can harm (perhaps indirectly) > others > > The real point, I feel, is not being addressed here. Regardless > of whether or not the government should be passing a law infringing > on personal rights, does it make any sense for the government > to pass questionable laws THAT MOST LIKELY WILL RESULT IN LITTLE OR > NO CHANGE? An idiot who refuses to wear a belt is not going to > start just because there's a CHANCE some day he may be stopped for > SOME OTHER OFFENSE and be fined $20. > > Alcohol abuse is clearly a problem for both the individual AND society > (even completely disregarding drunk driving); did Prohibition change > anything? (Other than perhaps the QUALITY of liquor drank?) > Prohibition delta'd the way we treated a problem-from non-recognition to simple treatment of the problem's symptoms. Finally we see that in order to change a social norm, one must address the incentive that drives that norm-namely the need for someone to drink. Our society still hasn't addressed that incentive in a robust fashion, Sure we have AA, but you have to be an alcoholic first in order to derive much personal meaning from observation there. Certainly the man off the streets who has kids wont take them to an AA meeting and say "look at these people-do you want to wind up like them?" When in fact the people would look quite ordinary to the kids, and besides, dad pours a stiff one after work once and awhile.............................. My point is perhaps a reiteration of Andrew Young's comment after leaving the UN "nothing ever changes in this country unless it's from the grass roots up". > > YOU CANNOT LEGISLATE STUPIDITY OUT OF THE POPULATION!!! > > > Scott J. Berry > ...!homxb!disc *** MISPLACE THIS WINE WITH YOUR MASSAGE *** WHEN THE NETTIES GET LEGALIZED OUT OF STUPIDITY, THE WEIRD TURN PRO A. Townsend Vare ...!sdccvax!ec120bgt
faiman@orphan.DEC (Neil Faiman ~ ZKO2-3/N30 ~ 381-2065) (04/24/85)
Ok, don't you all think this topic has been just about beaten to death?
I read net.kids because I'm interested in issues about children; this
discussion abandoned the children days ago. How about just moving it
to net.flame?
(To prove that I'm sincere, I *won't* tell you my opinion on seat belt
laws!)
-Neil Faiman
USENET: ...{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-eludom!faiman
ARPA: FAIMAN%ELUDOM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA
DEC: ELUDOM::FAIMANslana@crystal.UUCP (04/24/85)
*** *** Many people have already brought up the higher insurance rates brought on by the ~85% of people on the road who feel that the discomfort/inconvenience of safety belts outweigh the risk of destroying a windshield with a face, but how 'bout other factors where their refusal for protection affects others? Consider this - I wear safety belts religiously. The government has talked about mandatory passive restraints in U.S. manufactured cars (b.t.w., I have no idea what the current status of this issue is, perhaps someone could follow up?). If airbags are eventually required, I will have to pay somewher around $600 extra on a car for a feature which is not as effective as the safety belts I already wear (the effectiveness in front end crashes can be debated, but airbags offer no protection in side or rear crashes, can go off in a glancing collision blocking the drivers view from avoiding a second collision). (I am relatively new to this newsgroup, and apologize if the airbag issue has already been discussed to death). Added comment - I am a big auto racing fan, and have seen guys survive head on collisions with walls at 180+ mph. When I see the boys at Indy/Daytona/etc. come up with a better idea than belts, maybe I'll consider it, but until then I'll be strapped in for even the 1 block drive for groceries... -Chuck generic disclaimer - these are merely the rantings of a madman who assumes all responsibility for its contents.
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/24/85)
> Sure. Then I suppose we should outlaw car radios because they are distracting They keep you awake (at least they do me) -> they have some worth. > And we should outlaw comfortable car seats because you might fall asleep. They keep your attention on the road, rather than fidgeting around trying to adjust them -> worth. > And we should surely outlaw heterosexual drivers because they account for > about ninety percent of all accidents. I won't even bother. > Better yet, since plane travel is so much safer than car travel, why not > ban cars entirely? Or at least ban night travel. No, I don't think I'll bother with that either. What is the use of NOT wearing a seatbelt? (At least a comfortable one, granted many are not.) I would think with all the arguments against seat-belt laws, you could find a few intelligent ones, but I guess that's too much to ask. marie desjardins
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/24/85)
> >If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > >of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > >other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > > So, since I breath public air, the government has a right to prevent me from > eating baked beans? Gee whiz! Is Reagan spending my tax money on AIR now? What is this country coming to? marie
plutchak@uwmacc.UUCP (Joel Plutchak) (04/24/85)
In article <104@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: >Oh yeah, this is net.FLAME, I forgot. Ummm... how about: You are the >anthropoid equivalent of rust. This is also net.singles, net.kids, and net.auto. It seems that, judging by the large volume of automobile-related postings appearing recently, we should merge these groups. Or am I wrong about what is appropriate for net.singles (or insert favorite net here)? (And here I am, guilty of the dreaded meta-discussion...)
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/25/85)
You seem to forget one important point in ranting against government. YOU are the government. Those guys who run around passing laws do so because a majority of folks asked them to do it for them. You want to change the way government works, hustle your buns and get your own guys in there. Its kinda like getting someone to sub for you on your bowling team. Your not going to get a sub with a 55 average, your going to try and get someone with a 210 average. Stop electing below par subs and get some real people in there. Remember, YOU ARE the government. T. C. Wheeler
review@drutx.UUCP (Millham) (04/25/85)
> Sure. Then I suppose we should outlaw car radios because they are > distracting. The guy in the sterio store told me that for 2 years Kenwood could not put a clock in their radio because the radio was not in the normal position that a clock is in. (He said Ralph whats-his-name started this, but only cracked down on Kenwood.) -------------------------------------------- Brian Millham AT & T Information Systems Denver, Co. ...!inhp4!drutx!review
mupmalis@watarts.UUCP (mike upmalis) (04/25/85)
In article <104@daisy.UUCP> david@daisy.UUCP (David Schachter) writes: >Sure. Then I suppose we should outlaw car radios because they are distracting. >And we should outlaw comfortable car seats because you might fall asleep. And >we should surely outlaw heterosexual drivers because they account for about >ninety percent of all accidents. Better yet, since plane travel is so much >safer than car travel, why not ban cars entirely? Or at least ban night travel. If we are talking of protecting individual rights, then lets get those drinking drivers back on the road!!! This type of argument is fuitless and banal, argue not by refering to other things that are not related to the issue at hand. Legislation in moderation is the hallmark of a working society, anything in excess (including the pevious flame) is ridiculous... -- ~~ Mike Upmalis (mupmalis@watarts)<University of Waterloo>
brad@kontron.UUCP (Brad Yearwood) (04/26/85)
> > Since driving is a *privilege* granted by the government, and not a > *right* granted by the constitution, I would say so. C'mon. Don't let yourself be brainwashed but this driver education class robo-rhetoric of driving being a *privilege*. Rather *government* is a privilege granted by the *drivers*, at least in principle.
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (04/27/85)
As regards the arguements for requiring seatbelt use because the cost to the public of a idiot killing or permanently disabling himself outweighs the idiot's right to do as choses. I would like to point out that the same reasoning would forbid any activity with greater than normal personal risk and no counter acting social benefit. Some examples: - Skydiving - Skiing - Motorcross - Smoking - Over-eating - drinking So before you recommend outlawing certain forms of half-wit behavior you should consider how long it will take them to work down to your own favorite forms of half-wit behavior. Another point to consider is that while the immediate cost of allowing such behavior is great, the consequent improvements to the gene pool of allowing fools every opportunity to kill themselves is not to be despised. The above has nothing to do with my opinion of seatbelts. I put mine on when I'm not even leaving the parking lot. THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED DO NOT REPRESENT THOSE OF MY EMPLOYER OR EVEN MINE WHEN I'M IN A BETTER MOOD Think of it as evolution in action
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (04/27/85)
> > > If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > > > of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > > > other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > > > > In other words, the government has the right to impose any restrictions > > it pleases on people who use public roads. > > Since driving is a *privilege* granted by the government, and not a > *right* granted by the constitution, I would say so. > -- > Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus > [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....] The US Constitution *limits* the powers of the US Government to those powers explicitly granted by the Constitution. All else is left to the states and to the citizens. States, in general, and the feds have not gone along with this reading, preferring, for political reasons, to tell people implicitly and explicitly, "We can do anything we want to to you, unless the Constitution specifically forbids it." It bothers me a bit to see someone refer to a specific everyday activity like driving (or smoking or eating) as a "privilege" just because the Constitution does not mention it. Regarding the subject matter above, I like to argue that the owner of the roads should be allowed to make the rules for their use, no matter how stupid those rules might be. If the owner is the people, then those rules will probably be very stupid, but that's OK, it's their property. I think things would go much better if the roads were privately owned or under state-level control. For example, many Western highways would probably raise their speed limits considerably if the feds weren't blackmailing them with loss of highway funds if they do. I think it is still Constitutionally possible to dictate whatever driving rules you want on your own property (for example, you own a racetrack or a loooong driveway.) Since the Jersey Turnpike is self-supporting via tolls, it might make a good investment for private investors. They could buy in, raise the tolls slightly to cover their capital costs, and then return the value to their customers via faster traveling times. Mike Gray
daveb@rtech.ARPA (Dave Brower) (04/27/85)
Can we please move the discussion of seatbelts out of net.singles?
--
"That way looks nice. But then again, so does that way. I guess it
depends on where your're trying to go." - Scarecrow in 'The Wizard of Oz.'
{amdahl, sun}!rtech!daveb
{ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!davebwetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (04/29/85)
I`ve got a flash for you - The Jersey Turnpike is privately owned. The Gummint pays New York Life (The real owners to use it in their highway system). The Gummint has been in the process of building a parralel highway for years. Check out US 287. T. C. Wheeler
rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.) (04/29/85)
In article <866@peora.UUCP> joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) writes: >As regards the arguements for requiring seatbelt use because the cost >to the public of a idiot killing or permanently disabling himself >outweighs the idiot's right to do as choses. I would like to point out >that the same reasoning would forbid any activity with greater than >normal personal risk and no counter acting social benefit. > >Some examples: > > - Skydiving > - Skiing > - Motorcross > - Smoking > - Over-eating > - drinking > >So before you recommend outlawing certain forms of half-wit behavior >you should consider how long it will take them to work down to your >own favorite forms of half-wit behavior. Darn Right!!!!!!!!! I ride a motorcycle, and nothing can make me go without a Snell approved helmet on my bike, or a seat belt in a car. (Just to make things clear.) Why stop at greater than "normal" personal risk? Why not try to increase the "normal" level of safety by outlawing things which have been shown to have significant accident rates associated with them? The difference between seat belt and helmet laws and the outright prohibition of a particular activity is only a matter of degree. Thou shalt not ride in a car without a seatbelt. Thou shalt not ride in a car. Both of the above carry the same advantage of increasing personal and general safety. Both can be objected to on the basis of discomfort or inconvenience. (Public transit is much safer, cheaper and more incon- venient.) A judgement is required to balance safety against perceived quality of life. I submit that where the major risk is to the individual, the individual should have the right to do something "stupid" if it pleases him. If that increases the cost of providing that individual with medical and life insurance, let him pay the cost. (As those in dangerous occupations do now for life insurance.) We can either have our lives completely legislated for the benefit of society as a whole, or we can try to maintain the freedom to mess yourself up. I'm not ready to live in a hive. Rick Sellens UUCP: watmath!watdcsu!rsellens CSNET: rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/29/85)
> You seem to forget one important point in ranting > against government. YOU are the government. Those > guys who run around passing laws do so because a majority > of folks asked them to do it for them. You want to > change the way government works, hustle your buns and > get your own guys in there. Its kinda like getting > someone to sub for you on your bowling team. Your > not going to get a sub with a 55 average, your going > to try and get someone with a 210 average. Stop > electing below par subs and get some real people > in there. Remember, YOU ARE the government. > T. C. Wheeler Yeah, but SOMEBODY always loses and those people are invariably going to rant against the government. I would like the government to change, but haven't had much luck in getting the majority of the populace to agree with me. Does this mean I have no right to complain? marie desjardins
canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell) (04/29/85)
> > > > Since driving is a *privilege* granted by the government, and not a > > *right* granted by the constitution, I would say so. > > C'mon. Don't let yourself be brainwashed but this driver education > class robo-rhetoric of driving being a *privilege*. You better go back to school. "Rights" is granted by the Constitution and its attendant Bill of Rights. They pertain to everybody. Driving is a privilege granted by the State only to certain selected people (those over 16, non-blind, etc). Each State has different requirements. > > Rather *government* is a privilege granted by the *drivers*, at least in > principle. Change *drivers* to people, and I totally agree with you! After the comments I've been reading in this newsgroup from alleged drivers (paint-filled ornaments, 20mm light-well mounted cannons, 1 million plus candle-power headlights thru the rear-view mirror, etc) I don't think I WANT drivers to have any say in government! Oh, :-). -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....]
ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (04/30/85)
> >If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > >of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > >other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > > So, since I breath public air, the government has a right to prevent me from > eating baked beans? Hey buddy, if you ask me, driver safety is a public good as well as a personal responsibility. Hence your inability to do something as simple as buckling up indeed does violate my safety. And in violating my safety you have pissed off someone who is 6'2" 235 lbs and not at all restrained in using my temper to solve my problems. Any further questions, netwit?
herbie@watdcsu.UUCP (Herb Chong [DCS]) (05/01/85)
In article <307@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >> You seem to forget one important point in ranting >> against government. YOU are the government. ... deleted lines written by T. C. Wheeler >Yeah, but SOMEBODY always loses and those people are invariably going >to rant against the government. I would like the government to change, >but haven't had much luck in getting the majority of the populace to >agree with me. Does this mean I have no right to complain? marie desjardins a few years back, the Mathematical Games column of Scientific American did a little game theory analysis of the system of plain majority votes in decisions. i forget the date, but in essence, it concluded that majority votes were fine if you were one of the majority, but poorly represented any minorities. Herb Chong... I'm user-friendly -- I don't byte, I nybble.... UUCP: {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra|clyde}!watmath!water!watdcsu!herbie CSNET: herbie%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet ARPA: herbie%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa NETNORTH, BITNET, EARN: herbie@watdcs, herbie@watdcsu
mrh@aluxz.UUCP (HUDOCK) (05/01/85)
> > >If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > a personal responsibility. Hence your inability to do something as > simple as buckling up indeed does violate my safety. And in > violating my safety you have pissed off someone who is 6'2" > 235 lbs and not at all restrained in using my temper to solve my > problems. Any further questions, netwit? There is always someone bigger.
niyogi@sunybcs.UUCP (Debashish Niyogi) (05/02/85)
> >If you want to drive without seatbelts, fine -- do it on your own piece > >of real estate. If you come out on publicly funded roads, in traffic with > >other people, it is your obligation to do so in a responsible manner. > > So, since I breath public air, the government has a right to prevent me from > eating baked beans? Why do I get the feeling that this issue has degenerated into petty bickering ? The above comment about public air and baked beans has got to be one of the most inane things I've ever heard. For your information, eating baked beans does *not* lead to killing/maiming other people, whereas driving without seatbelts *may* do so, as pointed out by so many people recently. -- --- Debashish Niyogi -------------- UUCP : {bbncca,decvax,dual,rocksanne,watmath}!sunybcs!niyogi CSNET : niyogi@buffalo ARPA : niyogi.buffalo@csnet-relay --------------
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (05/02/85)
> a few years back, the Mathematical Games column of Scientific American > did a little game theory analysis of the system of plain majority votes > in decisions. i forget the date, but in essence, it concluded that > majority votes were fine if you were one of the majority, but poorly > represented any minorities. > > Herb Chong... Majority votes poorly represent minorities! Wow! Really stunning results you can get from game theory. "Certainly we can implement the short-term solutions before the long-term ones" -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "They're ruining this war for all of us!"- M. Hoolihan
ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) (05/04/85)
This message is empty.
gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg MacKenzie) (05/04/85)
> > a few years back, the Mathematical Games column of Scientific American > > did a little game theory analysis of the system of plain majority votes > > in decisions. i forget the date, but in essence, it concluded that > > majority votes were fine if you were one of the majority, but poorly > > represented any minorities. > > > > Herb Chong... > > Majority votes poorly represent minorities! Wow! Really stunning > results you can get from game theory. > > "Certainly we can implement the short-term solutions before the long-term ones" > -- > Jeff Sonntag > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > "They're ruining this war for all of us!"- M. Hoolihan * REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
chabot@miles.DEC (05/06/85)
Okay, is it time for... net.seatbelts ??? L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (05/06/85)
Thanks go to all who responded to my topic about seat belts. The information and the arguments raised led me to believe that I had no hope of winning the debate (I was against mandatory seat belt legislation). The discussion on the net did help me with knowing what kinds of things might be brought up in the debate. I appologize to all of those that were subjected to the topic without cause, the groups net.kids and net.singles. God only knows how the discussion trickled into these groups. For those of you that took part, About 3M characters where sent on this subject. I was quite surprised at the amount of discussion and was also quite pleased. Thanks again! Robert Kenyon ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon P.S. New Mexico passed mandatory seat belt legislation a few months ago. Stupidity reigns in government! To avoid hassles with ranchers, trucks are exempt from this legislation. Probably 1/5-1/6 of all traffic in New Mexico are trucks. Prevent Stupidity! If they want to pass such a law in your state, make sure that there are no such exemptions. Remember, seat belts save lives. Legislation does nothing but create red tape. We have enough red tape, lets save some lives.
mark@digi-g.UUCP (Mark Mendel) (05/07/85)
>Rather *government* is a privilege granted by the *drivers*, at least in >principle. Give the man a cigar! At least in theory that's what a government should be. A good case can be be made, however, for goverment today being a protection racket.
goodrum@unc.UUCP (Cloyd Goodrum) (05/08/85)
In article <sdcc3.2816> ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE) writes: > Now THIS is the kind of seat belt article I don't mind seeing in net.singles!!
ron@wjvax.UUCP (Ron Christian) (05/14/85)
No no no no! Move it to net.flame! Net.auto is NOT the place.
I suggest the following change to 'Emily Post for Usenet':
Right after "Don't start a discussion on abortion in net.women",
put "Don't even mention speed limits or seat belts in net.auto."
(or net.kids)
Talk about all heat and no light. Jeeeezus!
--
__
Ron Christian (Watkins-Johnson Co. San Jose, Calif.)
{pesnta,twg,ios,qubix,turtlevax,tymix,vecpyr,certes}!wjvax!ron
"What do you mean you backed it up the wrong direction???"