tpkq (10/08/82)
#N:physics:14200001:000:944 physics!tpkq Aug 20 10:39:00 1982 I wonder about the people who feel that their "rights" are being violated when they are forced to pay for safety devices on cars. Do they feel the same way about regulations dealing with proper grounding of home appliances, or with the purity of food? I'm sure this kind of regulation makes the food and appliances cost more than they would without the regulations, but will anyone insist that it is his "right" to electrocute himself on his television or to eat contaminated food? Consumers have the right to be assured that the products they buy are safe, and automobiles without safety devices are not safe. If it is determined (by those authorities which society has charged with the responsibility of determining what constitutes a safe product) that cars without passive restraints are not safe, then any car manufacturer who doesn't provide them on every car is violating his customers' rights, and shouldn't be allowed to sell cars.
markm (10/12/82)
If people don't want seat belts, they won't wear 'em. They'll also find a way to screw up air bags that they don't want. I've always subscribed to the 'Stupidity is it's own reward' school. If someone prefers not to wear a seat belt, fine - as long as they don't complain after their accident about becoming part of the windsheild, and the hood, and the pavement, and the telphone pole, . . . MSMiller GR Concord, MA