hgp@houem.UUCP (Howard Page) (06/05/84)
<.> New subject: mandatory seatbelt law In line with all the tough talk about drunk driving, I would like to propose an idea that might save additional lives, a mandatory seatbelt law. As best memory serves me, I believe about 10% of Americans wear their seatbelt. There is a mandatory seatbelt law in the Federal Republic of Germany and the percentage of seatbelt use there is about 80% (however, is this due to the mandatory seatbelt law ???). A variation of this idea could possibly be to have a law which says, while driving in a car, one must "use every available resource to protect oneself from injury." So, if one is not wearing his/her seatbelt, and is involved in an accident in which another party is at fault, the other party's liability for the first party's injury would be limited. The reduction of injuries due to car accidents is a goal our society should work toward both for the general public welfare and to reduce our outlay for health care. I, however, have my own selfish motivation for a mandatory seatbelt law. I wear my seatbelt. I pay $900/year for insurance in NJ (with a clean record). I do not wish to purchase a car with airbags. I believe those who take the initiative to protect themselves should not support the rest. But, this country has too many laws already. I also believe our problem solving ability leaves something to be desired when we simply make a law when there appears to be a problem. So, I think that any additional laws such as the ones I suggested must be thought through very carefully before enacted. The question is, "Will it work?" Howard G. Page ..!ihnp4!houem!hgp
drr@ihopa.UUCP (D. R. Rueckheim) (06/05/84)
I am not shure, but I remember reading in the Chicago Sun
times that the state of Il. either has approved or was about
to approve a seat belt law. I think they stated that there
would be a $25 fine for not using them. I also think that
there are to many laws already, but this one could end up
saving everyone money on their car insurance. Personally
I don't use seat belts, and probably never will. But then
I also spend most of the summer on my cycle.
--
D. R. Rueckheim
..!ihnp4!ihopa!drr
AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, Il.dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (06/06/84)
A compromise suggestion: require all cars to have *some* sort of effective passenger protection, either requiring effort on the part of the passengers or not, and require all passengers to *use* whatever protection is available in that car. This way, if you hate seatbelts, you can order your car with airbags; you then don't have to wear belts and are still protected somewhat, but you have to pay for the bags. I, who like seatbelts, can get them instead - I'm required to wear them, but then I don't have to pay for the airbags nor cope with the side effects of them inflating. This is still annoying if you ride in the car of someone who doesn't agree with your choice of protection, but it does allow you a choice in your own car. Comments?
mth@drutx.UUCP (Hamilton) (06/07/84)
A manditory seatbelt law probably would not work. How could it be enforced? Nobody is enforcing the use of unleaded gas or catalytic converters, are they? Not that I have seen. The idea of releasing liability for injuries might provoke some people to wear seatbelts. But insurance rates would probably go up. I can see it now: My insurance company would release themselves from liability, also. So even if a drunk ran me over, their insurance wouldn't pay, mine wouldn't pay, and I'd be half dead selling everything I own. Your gripe about paying insurance struck home with me. The way the companies figure the rates is beyond me. They add any little factor in the formula they can to screw as many people as possible. That formula is what should be changed. I have two basic complaints: (a) Why is the more capable car (a sports car) charged more? I know they go faster, but they also give you a better chance to survive. I can blend in, blend out, and generally avoid most traffic far easier than most cars, and probably all trucks. I forget the number of accidents I have avoided since I've owned my car (4 years). If only there was a way to prove you avoided a crash. The insurance company should be grateful. (b) I own two vehicles. I pay liability and collision on both. No one else is covered for driving them. Why do I have to pay these premiums twice? I can't drive them both at the same time. Maybe the insurance company is protecting me in case I crack up my car into my truck when I come home to park. Aren't they considerate? Mark Hamilton
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (06/07/84)
Though I always use seatbelts when driving, I just dont think the government should be dictating what I have to do to protect myself. I agree with all legislation that protects other people from me (i.e. drunk driving), but what I do with me seems to me to be my responsibility. Having some sort of protection required in all cars is good. Requiring me to use them is not. Other people are protected by having the choice not to ride unprotected. On a similar note, people unable to have that responsibility (i.e. children) become the drivers responsibility and the law should cover that. (I dont believe in laws against suicide either). Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym
gt@hplvla.UUCP (06/07/84)
>> But, this country has too many laws already. I also >> believe our problem solving ability leaves something >> to be desired when we simply make a law when >> there appears to be a problem. So, I think that any >> additional laws such as the ones I suggested must >> be thought through very carefully before enacted. >> The question is, "Will it work?" WRONG!!! The question is NOT "will it work?" Cuba and the USSR are good examples of the "will it work" ideology. While I am certainly left of center on most issues, I can't abide the loss of individual freedom of choice. If somebody wants to leave their brains splattered all over their windshield, that's their business. Granted there are side effects and costs we all have to endure but that is inevitable when 230 million people are trying to coexist in mutual freedom. Personally, I'm more than willing to pay extra for the right to choose. George Tatge HP Loveland Instrument Div. ihnp4!hpfcla!hplvla!gt p.s. I always wear my seat belt; and I wear full face helmet and full leathers when motorcycle roadracing, but if I did want to jump on my scoot with shorts and sandals I sure don't want somebody trying to protect me from my own stupidity. I really VALUE the right to be stupid if I want to.
chrisp@oliven.UUCP (Chris Prael) (06/07/84)
>A manditory seatbelt law probably would not work. How could it be enforced? >Nobody is enforcing the use of unleaded gas or catalytic converters, are >they? Not that I have seen. >Mark Hamilton What you seem to be saying is that the enforcement of a traffic law is at the whim of the police. Quite true. I doubt very strongly that the police anywhere see the fuel/converter questions as falling in their area of responsibility. Note however that Brittain, Sweden, Australia, etc. all have manditory seat belt laws, that these laws are enforced fairly strictly and that they all have a high level of compliance. This is not to be taken to mean that I favor a mandatory seat belt law. I think that it is a stupid idea. If there is anything wrong with the highway safety situation today, it is the unfortunately low number of fatalities that this country experiences. (A philosophical point which should be argued on some other net.) Nor do I think that "saving lives" is a legitimate ground for this kind of statist intrusion in any individual's life. There has been too much of this kind of "big brotherism" in the US in the last two decades! On the other hand one can (barely) justify a mandatory seat belt law FOR THE DRIVER ONLY, on the grounds of accident prevention. There is a statistically significant class of accidents in which the main collision would not have happened if the driver had not been displaced from behind the wheel by the first impact. Personally, I would prefer that natural selection be allowed to work. And note that I wear a belt always. Chris Prael
rsanderson@wateng.UUCP (Roger Sanderson P.Eng.) (06/07/84)
It was mentioned that seat belts only protect the wearer and
thus are not the same as drunk driving laws.
What about the people who go out of control because they were not
firmly "attached" to the vehicle (ie buckled in)?
I am not sure this is a common occurance but even a few times would make it a
problem. I certainly would not like to get hit by someone who fell out
from behind his steering wheel, when he in turn was hit or did some other
quick manuver.
I personally wear my seatbelt at all times and feel "funny" when I dont have
one on. (ie in an old car or the centre of the rear seat of a compact.
)
As far as enforcement I believe in Ontario ( which has a manditory law)
that the Police will charge a person if he is found not to be wearing
a seatbelt while being investigated for another offence. Also sometimes
they will pull a person over if they cannot see the shoulder belt.
Roger Sanderson
U. of Waterloo
jsf007@trsvax.UUCP (06/07/84)
#R:houem:-25600:trsvax:55200063:000:289 trsvax!jsf007 Jun 7 15:13:00 1984 Although I don't know this for a fact, the German law does not require car occupants to wear seatbelts. I does, however, bar any insurance payment of any kind to be paid if the occupant(s) are not wearing seatbelts (regardless of fault in an accident). jsf007 ..!trsvax!jsf007
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (06/08/84)
#R:houem:-25600:trsvax:55200065:000:240 trsvax!mikey Jun 7 16:28:00 1984 The Swiss law only provides fines tacked on if your caught, it doesn't restrict payments. The last I heard though, it was only heavily enforced in Lichtenstein, but that is legally a separate country from Switzerland. Mikey at trsvax
2141smh@aluxe.UUCP (henning) (06/09/84)
**** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA aluxe!2141smh <<Though I always use seatbelts when driving, I just don't think the>> <<government should be dictating what I have to do to protect myself. I agree>> <<with legislation that protects other people from me (i.e. drunk driving),>> <<but what I do with me seems to me to be my responsibility.>> <<(I don't believe in laws against suicide either).>> You hit the nail on the head. We do need laws to protect those of us who faithfully use our seatbelts from injury claims from those free spirits who get beat up and killed because they don't choose to wear seatbelts. Seatbelts do work. My wife was in a headon collision which caused $4700 dollars damage to our Volvo and escaped without a scratch because she had her seat belt/shoulder harness fastened. A local woman who was in a similar accident the same day, 6 weeks ago, is still in the hospital having her face put back together again because she didn't have her seat belt on. Seatbelts do work. The public should not be liable for injuries of those who don't use them. That is contributory negligence.
mikey@trsvax.UUCP (06/11/84)
#R:houem:-25600:trsvax:55200066:000:555 trsvax!mikey Jun 11 10:15:00 1984 Back in the early 70's, a friend of mine got a ticket for speeding in a town in the Poconos of Pennsylvania. On the ticket was a block that was checked by the officer and the caption said "Seatbelt Use" or something of that nature. When the officer put down the fine on the ticket he wrote "-$10" for the seatbelt block being checked. I don't remeber what the town was, and it definately was a local cop who nailed my friend. I thought this was an interesting way to enforce seatbelts. mikey at trsvax 55, it's not just a good idea, it S*CKS!
kitten@pertec.UUCP (06/14/84)
I have to agree not wearing a seatbelt is contributary negligence, and I am not pleased when I have to pay for other's suffering and deaths that could've been prevented. In November '82 I was in a broadside accident. If I hadn't been belted up, I would've had my head through the windshield and steering wheel in my abdomin. If it weren't for the fact that FORD low bucket seat headrests don't stay up, I would've been uninjured...as it was, I suffered from a nasty case of whiplash (yes, it happens in real life!). Just this week two Orange County residents died in separate accidents, both were thrown from the car. The first woman was thrown out when her boyfriend lost control on the freeway and it rolled. While he was trying to direct traffic, someone ran over her. She was only 18. In the second accident, a woman driving went off the road into a ditch and was thrown from the car. She died from internal injuries. It's not just money, it's human suffering. Just think of this: if someday you are in an accident, and the other guy dies because he wasn't wearing his seatbelts, is that going to make you feel any better? Think about it.
ajs@hpfcla.UUCP (06/18/84)
Another brick in the wall... Last week a friend and co-worker heard a collision near his house at about 10pm. He and his wife ran out and tried to save the life of a guy who turned left across highway traffic and got nailed. His wife, being a nurse, had a blood pressure cuff handy and basically saw him die soon after she got there and started trying to save him. My friend gave me a graphic and ugly description of the scene. The newspaper said the guy died of "massive head injuries". The two people in the other car were "treated and released". They were wearing seatbelts. The other guy wasn't. Draw your own conclusions. -- Alan Silverstein