ed@mtxinu.UUCP (06/18/84)
Seat belts do only protect the wearer (aside from the "control" question of not being firmly placed in the vehicle). However, there are secondary effects that are quite significant. It costs society quite a lot, even just in terms of money, to deal with automotive injuries (I don't call them "accidents" for various reasons that maybe I'll elaborate on later). In particular, the ambulance and emergency room responses are usually tax-supported activities. If the injuries are more severe, as they usually are without belts, then the cost of this response is higher. I am a fan of mandatory seat belt laws. However, I am also acutely aware that there are some people who for various reasons *will not* wear belts no matter how "safe" they're supposed to be. While it is clear that statistically it is much safer to wear a belt, there are cases in which wearing a belt isn't so good. I know people who are alive today because they weren't wearing one. So. How does society make the requirement that people wear belts without unduely straining their individual freedoms? The idea I have, which I will admit is not fully baked, is this. If a person is injured in an automotive mishap and is found to not have been wearing a seat belt, then they would be financially liable for *all* of the medical/response-related expenses generated by their injury. This would include (at least) the cost of police, ambulance, fire, and hospital activities. Further, they would be prohibited from seeking any damages (civil or otherwise) from another party relating to those injuries (except perhaps from their own insurance company). This allows an individual the freedom to not wear belts, and at the same time allows society to allocate the responsibility for that action to the individual. Clearly, it will not always (ever?) be an easy task to determine that a victim wasn't wearing a belt. However, given that I haven't heard any other schemes for enforcing mandatory belt laws that I like, or that allow for people with strong emotional reasons to disregard the law in a reasonable way (I certainly do not advocate ignoring a law just because one has an emotional bias against it [or a rational one, for that matter]), I throw this one out for comment. -- Ed Gould ucbvax!mtxinu!ed
khw@druky.UUCP (06/20/84)
In Norway, according to my cousin who lives there, if you are involved in an accident while not wearing seat belts, any insurance benefits you might otherwise get will be reduced by 50%. I think that something similar here could work well. Karl Williamson ATT ISL Denver ..druky!khw 303-538-4583
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (06/20/84)
New York is, at this moment, debating a strong seat belt law. The first of its kind in the country. The law under consideration is that both passengers in the front seat must be wearing seat belts or pay a $50 dollar fine. It looks very good for passage and will go into effect on December 1st for a one month grace period then you start getting whacked on January 1st. There may also be provisions for reducing insurance premiums if the car has a passive restraint system. That part doesn't look like it will pass though. The law says now that the driver and any passenger in the front seat must wear a seat belt. It will be the driver's responsibility to make certain that anyone 16 and under is wearing the belt. Those over 16 will be responsible for themselves. Anyone 10 years old and under, whether in the front or back seat, must be in a safety seat. Those 4 and under are already required to be in a safety seat. Thanks to suggestions from Netters, I have turned not wearing a seat belt into a habit of wearing one. I now feel naked without the belt. Now I have to work on my wife, she just does not like it. Tell me, is this a good enough reason to smack her around |~). T. C. Wheeler
dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (06/21/84)
chomp :- byte, chew, chomp. I think that england already has the mandatory front seat belt rule. Good luck on the passive restraint systems: the only car that has them is the Toyota Cressida - VW used to but no longer. I have them in my Rabbit Diesel and they are great. They are always on and they are more comfortable than regular across the shoulder seat belts. Too bad that my diesel is getting so tiresomely noisy in its middle age. It does seem however in the NY law possibly to be that safety seats for kids up to ten is a bit much (how do you squeeze them into that tiny thing?). Its not the high speed, its the sudden stop - dep
seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert) (06/22/84)
> Thanks to suggestions from Netters, I have turned not > wearing a seat belt into a habit of wearing one. I > now feel naked without the belt. Now I have to work on > my wife, she just does not like it. Tell me, is this > a good enough reason to smack her around |~). > T. C. Wheeler 1) Congratulations! 2) No, don't smack her around, just start taking the corners real fast so she buckles up to keep from flying out the window! This is quite effective on many people. -- _____ /_____\ Ever try to autocross a Sopwith Camel? /_______\ |___| Snoopy ____|___|_____ ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert