jjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Jeff Sager x5265 CB 45910 JL) (12/24/85)
For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws save social costs, I have this response: Why don't you people take your argument to it's logical conclusion? If wearing seatbelts saves us all from certain social costs (higher insurance, costs of medics, loss of persons who can provide valuable social input, etc.), then seatbelts AND airbags would save us more, and driving tanks would save us even more... The conclusion is that not driving vehicles at all is the ONLY way to be sure you are saving those costs. The same goes for the "55 saves lives" believers: 0 mph is the ONLY speed that truly saves us from vehicle related social costs. Kinda silly isn't it?? But then, it's your argument.
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (12/25/85)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws infringe upon > your freedom, don't you think that driving on the right infringes stopping at stop signs infringes wearing clothes infringes clearing sidewalks of ice and snow infringes not appearing in public stone drunk infringes not beating children infringes mandatory education of children infringes not riding horses into public buildings infringes no hanging people that cut you off on the expressway infringes having to support your self and your family infringes not being able to use government land for public uses infringes not being able to broadcast x-rated movies at 4PM on Sunday infringes not being able to whiz on the grass in public parks infringes > Why don't you people take your argument to it's logical conclusion? Just think, if you know what I mean, if you tied babies to the bumpers of your cars, fewer people would run into you. Then you wouldn't need seat belts. > Kinda silly isn't it?? But then, it's your argument. This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices in a machine that sometime runs into trees and other machines and kills and maims more people than any war.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (12/28/85)
> **** **** > From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > > > For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws infringe upon > > your freedom, don't you think that > driving on the right infringes > stopping at stop signs infringes > wearing clothes infringes > clearing sidewalks of ice and snow infringes > not appearing in public stone drunk infringes > not beating children infringes ... long list of similar activities deleted ... > > This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend > a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that > are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices ... There is a basic difference here. Your list is activities which are banned or regulated for other than *financial* reasons. If you wish to change your argument to one that beltless folks are: 1) dangerous to us all. 2) Obscene 3) Antisocial 4) Violent 5) etc. Then you have cause. To base the argument on a general social cost rational is to loose freedoms. (BTW, I wear my belt. I have no problem with a seatbelt law if it is proposed for reasons other than financial. For instance, if it is held that the vehicle can only be properly controlled under adverse conditions if the driver is belted. i.e. the safety of others... Passengers? A body flying at 50mph could hurt someone!!) -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
smh@mhuxl.UUCP (henning) (01/05/86)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA mhuxl!smh > > This just an example of how a stupid argument is used to defend > > a stupid idea, namely that my insurance should pay for injuries that > > are caused by someone not wearing protective restraining devices > To base the argument on a general social cost rational is to loose freedoms. The freedoms are: Freedom from liability for injuries caused by wilful negligence of others. Freedom from pain and suffering caused by wilfil neglect of others.