ralph (08/16/82)
A brief note on the seatbelt, etc. debate. One of the reasons I bought the car I now drive was its excellent seat belts. I like seat belts. I would not drive a car that did not have good seat belts. I do not like the idea of mandatory passive restrain (I have not seen good passive belts). I would have such equipment removed from any car I bought. Of course the use of belts may mean getting caught in a burning car, BUT any one driving a Pinto deserves it. Good frame design, tank design and fire supression should solve this problem. I am for belts, and against air bags (for me). I am for some from of enforced restrain (ie., void insurance, ...).
laura (08/18/82)
The only way that airbags can be improved, is if there are a lot of them being made. The first seatbelts to come out were not nearly as effective as the ones we have now. I say give them a chance. Another thing to consider if you get involved in the 'everyone has the right to not wear setbelts' debate is the effect of KILLING someone has on another person. A few years ago I was sitting on the passenger side of a car travelling at a relatively low speed (15mph?) on a city street when a drunken 65 year old woman fell out from behind a tall hedge and into the car. We hir her, of course. She suffered a broken leg and 'mental anguish' to the tune of $20,000 in a fine which was half paid by us and half paid by the hedge owner -- who also had to remove his hedge. Whether this was a fair ruling is not the point -- the point is that for about 3 months every time I was in the car I was as tense as anything and kept expecting to see people fall out on top of me from the street. Dreaming at that time was not very pleasant either -- and all I did was watch while we broke a woman's leg -- i am sure that if we had killed her (say if she had died of a hert attack, or if the hospital workers hadnt noticed her inebreated condition and pumped her stomach before filling her with medicine that does not agree with alcohol) it would have been much worse. i wonder how many people out there get to cope with guilt about killing souls whose death could have been prevented if they chose to wear seatbelts... Laura Creighton decvax!utzo!laura
dmmartindale (08/19/82)
I very much doubt if airbags will ever be close to seatbelts in effectiveness. Seatbelts (lap+shoulder) do a good job of preventing you from going forward or up, and a fair job of preventing side movement. Basically, they try to hold you in your seat. Airbags, on the other hand, provide something soft to crash into while you're in the process of flying out of your seat. To provide protection in as many directions of movement, you'd have to be surrounded by them. Also, they are good for exactly one impact - they deflate before they can be useful in a second impact in a multi-car collision.
jj (08/20/82)
The recent comment that seatbelts keep the driver in the drivers seat is a very good point. It is (undenyably) true, from a simple physical viewpoint, and is also backed by a number of statistical studies. As far as I can see, that makes is a good arguement against both automatic seatbelts (which do not fit as tightly) and airbags, which hold you down AFTER you blow it. Regarding the right to make mistakes: The making of mistakes is an essential part of learning behavior. (Ask any psychologist) The government is trying to remove as much of the incentive, and method, of learning to aid one's self and defend one's self as they can.(I KNOW it's not deliberate, so DON'T mail me!) Examples are: 1). Mandatory seat belts. 2). Mandatory air bags. 3). Lawn mower regulations<which prevent you from assuming a risk that may be reasonable, even if you try.> I could name a few more, but the point is made. I hope that this discussion will center for a while on ways to EDUCATE people into taking reasonable actions, instead of forcing "reasonable" actions upon them. I would also like to <Heaven Help ME!> raise the question of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. AS far as I can see, the goal of many regulations is to release the consumer from responsibility for their own actions, regardless of how reasonable or stupid. I would support legislation that encourages people to make decisions that will aid their own health, safety, and happiness. Forcing someone to use a product does none of these, however, forcing responsibility on those who CHOOSE to assume risks only affects those who make that choice, and leaves the reasonable citizen free to take whatever action he/she wishes. An integral part of such legislation, which I must mention to preclude arguement, is that part of the legislation that penalizes IN THE EXTREME those who fail in contracted obligations for reasons under their control(thus precluding fraud, for example.) rabbit!jj P.S. I apoligize for the disconnected prose, I am not completely awake today.