dmmartindale (08/16/82)
I'm curious about what people think of the following proposal: 1) All newly-manufactured cars must have SOME acceptable sort of passenger protection, whether it be ordinary "active" seatbelts that you have to put on yourself, "passive" belts that you don't have to expend any effort in putting on, airbags, or any other device that is effective enough. The type of protection could be specified by the purchaser, and more than one type could be installed if he wished. 2) The driver and passengers would be required by law to USE whatever form of protection a particular car had (in the case of multiple forms being installed, one would do). Failure to do so would prevent you from collecting in full for medical expenses in any accident. Now, if you're someone who hates seatbelts for whatever reason, you're free to go out and order airbags on your next car, and that's all you have to do. On the other hand, this still leaves me free to get plain old "active" seatbelts in my car, because I happen to prefer them to anything else, since I always wear them. There is the problem that if you ride in someone else's car you have to use whatever he bought, but I don't think this is that important. I get very upset at the idea of paying hundreds of dollars for airbags when they don't provide as good crash protection as plain old seatbelts (not to mention things like being better able to control a car in an emergency if you're belted in). Airbags are a good solution only if the driver and passengers of that particular car are too lazy or stupid (or whatever) to use anything else. Passive belts (at least the two-point kind) also seem inferior to ordinary three-point belts. And I don't think that people have a "right" to not use any sort of protection at all, at least not when I'm paying their medical bills. (Ontario has compulsory medicare.) Anyway, has anyone heard of such a proposal before? What do you think of it? Dave Martindale decvax!watmath!dmmartindale
laura (08/16/82)
I think that it is a good idea. Id go buy the airbags and spend the extra money because *I hate seatbelts*. I wear them, since I am not fond of dying either, but I keep thinking things like -- what if they cant get me out of the car -- and various other claustrophobic variations on the same theme. I do know someone who was horribly burned when they were unable to cut her out of her horribly munched pinto car a few years ago; she survived the accident though. My problem with the airbags is -- how do they tell when to inflate the bags? If I jam on the breaks to avoid a squirrel, cat or small child am I going to be up to my neck in plastic? Actually, in Ontario what will happen (according to Murphy's Law) is that Dave Martindale's scheme will finally get implemented but then the turkeys at Queen's Park will dither and dither and it will be years before they repeal the compulsory seatbelt law which exists in Ontario... laura creighton decvax!utzoo!laura
wagner (08/16/82)
Dave Martindale says that people should not have the option of refusing to put on seat belts because of socialized medicine. I agree that people should be made to put on seat belts, but not for that reason. If people are willing to risk their own death because they dont feel like buckling up, the question of who pays the bill is pretty irrelevant. The best arguement I have seen for compulsary use of seatbelts are so called second-hand accidents. These are accidents caused by projectiles flying out of accident-involved cars. People make good projectiles when not strapped in. Around serious accidents there used to be secondary accidents that never touched the primary accident cars. The secondary accidents were caused by people trying to avoid the projectiles. It sounds silly at first, but imagine how you would feel if you saw a person coming through the air near you. Even if it werent headed towards you, you would probably make a bad instinctive decision to avoid it just in case, swerve, and cause a secondary accident. In arguements during the time that seat belts became compulsory, this was one of the bigger positions against the obvious free will arguements - you are implicitly endangering others. Then, of course, if you drive much with seat belts in bench seat cars, you know that your ability to control the car in an emergency situation is much improved. I even find it helps in bucket seats. The biggest arguement against seat belts (other than free will) is that they sometimes trap people. The old ones used to. I know. I have a friend who was trapped, unconscious, in a car after an accident. I couldnt free her, because the release was on the door side. Guess where we were hit. Every car I have been in recently has the releasetowards the centre of the car, where it is less likely to be fouled in an accident. And I dont know about the rest of you, but I always carry a pocket knife wherever I go. Technology is wonderful, but a knife and a small screwdriver go a long way towards coping with little failures like loose screws and mechanisms that jam or tangle. I dont know how long it would take for me to cut a seat belt - probably a while, since they are fairly thick and strong, but, provided the car wasnt actively on fire, I could probably do it within the time constraints. I guess a flame cigarette lighter would be faster, since that stuff does melt in direct flame. What a morbid turn this has taken. Sorry, I will stop now. Michael Wagner, UTCS