jhc@hou5a.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) (06/20/84)
It has long been my belief that the way to encourage people to wear seatbelts is not by legislation, but by using 'contributory negligence' to reduce insurance payouts of medical bills, damages and so on. The theory here is that a car is a highly dangerous machine, and that if you don't take *some* precautions to avoid injury in the case of an accident then you should get hit where it hurts - in the pocketbook. Of course, people who didn't want to wear seatbelts could then buy extra insurance to cover all medical bills and so on, but the cost would (probably) be considerable. You could probably extend the idea to DWI. BTW, when are we going to get sensible and properly enforce the manslaughter and assault laws for drivers who kill and injure other people? Also, does anyone have any accurate, up-to-date statistics for the per-mile accident and fatality/injury rates for different road types in different countries? I have heard it alleged that (for example) 'autobahns are safer than freeways', 'freeways are safer than autobahns', 'crossing the street in NY is safer than jumping off the Empire State Building, but not by much' and so on. Having driven many thousands of miles in Europe and the US, I would *prefer* to drive in Europe and it seems to me to be safer, but I have no figures to back this up. Would anyone care to come up with some hard figures? Please?
davidk@dartvax.UUCP (06/21/84)
It is interesting to note that, in private planes at least,
seatbelts are REQUIRED by law. In many of the small plane
accidents I've heard about, the belts did not make much difference,
the people died anyhow. This is NOT a fault of the belts, it's
just due to the fact that the plane fliped, cartwheeled, or did
some other odd maneuver that totalled the plane. It would seem
to make more sense that belts be required by law in cars where they
have a better chance of protecting the passengers due to lower
speeds, one less dimension, etc.
--
David C. Kovar
USNET: {linus|decvax|cornell|astrovax}!dartvax!davidk
ARPA: davidk%dartmouth@csnet-relay
CSNET: davidk@dartmouth
"The difficult we did yesterday, the impossible we are doing now."howard@cca.UUCP (Howard Bernstein) (06/22/84)
I have heard it said that in private planes the lap belt is to help the NTSB find your body, and the shoulder harness is to save your life.
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/25/84)
Actually, the Supreme Court did not throw out illegal search and siezure. They did allow some leeway in its application in that if someone says the murder weapon is in the trunk of my car, they can look for it without a search warrent at that time. It would be reasonably assumed that the searcher would be going to get a search warrent anyway. However, what do you have against a National Drinking Age? IF IT SAVES LIVES, why not? Here in Jersey, the death rate for teenaged drivers has dropped by 20% for those involved with alcohol. Since most of the pressure to stop the raising of the drinking age is coming from liquor lobbyists, why shouldn't pressure to save lives come from the rest of us - parents, other drivers, etc.? Perhaps New York will finally see the light and pass the 21 drinking age bill. They seem to have had enough enlightenment to require seat belt use. Until New York passes the 21 law, I would advise anyone to not drive in the Lake Greenwood or Staten Island areas after 1:00am on a weekend when all of the New Jersey teenyboopers are weaving back from a night of drinking. T. C. Wheeler