jrm1@pyuxh.UUCP (J McKeel) (04/10/85)
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. I feel seat belts should be an individual choice. If a person wishes not to wear a seat belt, he/she is not endangering anyone but themselves (if any). 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. In my opinion NJ Seat belt law was a mistake and should be reconsidered. People have the right to choose what is best for them. We don't need some politician making up our minds, the Moral Majority tries to do that enough. Please, no nasty-grams in my mbox, I have made up my mind. If you don't agree, that is your choice. John McKeel
canopus@amdahl.UUCP (Frank Dibbell) (04/17/85)
> 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. Can somebody post the statistics showing that the death rate went up? > 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. I don't know all the details of this particular tragedy. It is quite possible that your friend would have been killed whether s/he had a belt on or not. It is also possible that your own injuries may have been less had you been wearing a belt. Like I said, I don't know all the particulars. I do know that (statistically) in 2% of accidents the occupant/driver would have been better off not wearing a belt. Perhaps your unfortunate accident was one of those. However, for each case like yours one can find 49 others where the driver/passenger who didn't wear a belt *might* be alive or avoided serious injury had they worn the belt. While I am not normally a betting person, I find myself compelled to go with the odds, so I wear a seatbelt. > Please, no nasty-grams in my mbox, I have made up my mind. If you don't > agree, that is your choice. > John McKeel You think begging is going to save you from nasty grams? [(-:] Since you have made up your mind, I guess I won't confuse you with any more facts. Drive Carefully -- Frank Dibbell (408-746-6493) {whatever}!amdahl!canopus [R.A. 6h 22m 30s Dec. -52d 36m] [Generic disclaimer.....]
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/30/85)
Someone asked about cost-benefit studies of seat-belt legislation. The 1976 annual report of the US Dept. of Transportation contains findings which indicate that $37.50 would be saved for every $1.00 invested in the enactment and enforcement of such legislation. For further information see: *1975 Societal Costs of Motor Vehicle Accidents*, NHTSA (DOT-HT-802-119), 1976 *National Indirect Costs of Motor Vehicle Accidents*, Vol. I, H.G. Wuerdemann, H.C. Joksch, Fed. H'way Admin., (DOT-FH-11-7773), 1973 *Financial Consequences of Serious Injury*, J.C. March et al., Univ. of Michigan H'way Safety Research Inst., (UMHRSI-77-27), 1977 [this research institute is an excellent source for traffic safety information] Here is a summary of these research findings (because of inflation, these figures would be higher in 1985): AVERAGE STATE COSTS PER HIGHWAY FATALITY AND INJURY Fatality $12,340 (based on loss of 10 years' income) Permanent and total disability 6,810 (based on loss of 4 years' income) Partial disability 2,325 (based on loss of 10 months' income) No permanent disability 825 (based on loss of 45 days' income) These are the costs borne by state taxpayers; they include: lost state taxes (by far the largest cost in the case of fatalities and permanent disabilities), police agencies, legal and court costs, probation offices, coroners/medical examiners, motor vehicle departments, hospital/medical costs, public welfare overhead, and rehabilitation. It is not disputed by any traffic safety experts anywhere that wearing a seat belt roughly cuts in half your chances both of being killed and of being seriously injured in a crash. It follows that, given our present mode of paying the costs of fatalities and injuries, seat-belt non-users impose large monetary costs on the rest of us. In fact, the total cost of seat-belt non-use in the US has been estimated at $15 billion annually (my source is the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. in Detroit). I would like the opponents of mandatory seat-belt laws to explain how this $15 billion (the annual marginal social cost of seat-belt non-use) is to be billed *only* to seat-belt non-users, so that they alone will pay the cost of their foolishness. Make sure that you include *all* costs: the costs of accidents in which non-use contributes to *causing* the accident, police, cleaning up the accident site, ambulance, emergency room, funeral, hospital and medical costs, rehabilitation, lost work productivity (owing to death and disability), various kinds of administrative overhead, employer costs such as rescheduling and temporary replacement, and others I may have overlooked. (But beware of double counting -- cost/benefit analysis is a tricky business.) Of course, this does not include the non-monetary cost of the distress, often severe, imposed on the family and friends of victims. To be consistent, you must not allow anyone else to pay the costs incurred by a poor person -- that would violate the principle of Individual Responsibility. So if a poor individual wasn't using his seat belt and is involved in an accident and can't pay for emergency room or hospital or rehabilitation services, or can't support his family because he is disabled or dead, and doesn't have insurance to cover all these costs, that is his (and their) tough luck, because of course it is all his fault (and theirs). I admire the compassion displayed by the more dogmatic opponents of seat-belt legislation, toward themselves. Individual Responsibility means I am relieved of responsibility toward anyone except myself -- what a relief. Am I my brother's keeper? Perhaps freedom, then, as defended by the proponents of Individual Responsibility, includes the right to impose severe costs on other people -- in which case it all right to pollute, steal, play my stereo as loud as I want, etc. But if not, it looks like <sigh> the only alternative is to turn the US into a police state like all the other countries that have had seat-belt laws for some time: the UK, Canada (most provinces), Australia, Japan, France, Denmark, Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany, New Zealand, Iceland, Israel, The Netherlands, Ireland, Spain, etc. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
ales@hpfcla.UUCP (12/31/85)
Yes, but have you considered all the savings that the death of a person brings? :-). Consider: - Lower unemployment - Savings of social security benefits, unemployment benefits, etc.