daver@hp-pcd.UUCP (01/19/84)
What we need in place of a mandatory seat belt law is a law which limits the amount a victim in an accident can collect if that person was not wearing a seatbelt. This is a major way in which a person's choice to not wear a seat belt can impact others. Dave Rabinowitz hplabs!hp-pcd!daver
kirkg@uw-june (Kirk Glerum) (01/20/84)
If think that both mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are
terrible ideas. In a free country, like this one, I should be able to go out
and risk my life by doing such incredibly stupid things like driving my car
without using my seat belt, or riding my motorcycle without my helmet. If I
succeed in killing myself, so be it. It is none of your business to try to
protect me from my own stupidity. It is a different matter regarding child
restraint device laws; should society tell parents how to protect their
children? It is also a different matter regarding legislation on, say,
requiring hood ornaments to bounce back from the hood of the car, since it's
somebody besides the owner of the car who would be skewered by the thing.
It is not the proper function of government to protect individuals from their
own stupidity. I think that it is *against the law* to climb a step ladder
above the second step from the top.
Kirk Glerum
...decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!uw-june!kirkgstern@bnl.UUCP (Eric Stern) (01/22/84)
>> If think that both mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are >>terrible ideas. In a free country, like this one, I should be able to go out >>and risk my life by doing such incredibly stupid things like driving my car >>without using my seat belt, or riding my motorcycle without my helmet. If I >>succeed in killing myself, so be it. It is none of your business to try to >>protect me from my own stupidity. This might very well be the case if you have no responsibilities. Most people though, have responsibilities that they would be ignoring if they killed themselves, or allowed themselves to die through negligence. Alcoholism is an example of a situation where society takes an interest in what an individual is doing to him/herself. The alcoholic might say, "Let me kill myself if I want to" , but typically alcoholics have families, jobs and other things that they should be responsible for. By trying to cure and prevent alcoholism, society is trying to save itself money from lost production, insurance and medical costs, aid to families of victims, aid to victims of alcoholic driving accidents, with untold other costs, and also emotional trauma of the people invovled with the alcoholic. Do you think that people who don't wear seat belts or motorcycle helmets are thinking of what would happen to their families if they were killed or seriously incapacitated in an accident?
padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell [Admin]) (01/22/84)
Sorry, but up here in Canada, we are required to pay for your support in case you do manage to cream yourself. In which case, I advocate seat belts. Secondly, I favour the horrible things due to the amazing number of accidents I have seen, and the results of autopsies. I think that if cars were invented and marketed today, they would not pass basic safty tests and legilative requirements. Any increase in the very low saftey margin is better than none. Lastly, YOU might hit ME, due to going out of control by a minor collision. The seat belt restraint tends to keep the driver in place, and in control of the wheel. I do not buy the argument that you have a fundamental right to drive the way you do. When you put my life at risk, I reject the claim. Patrick Powell System Dictator Par Excellence Pro Tem
spoo@utcsrgv.UUCP (Suk Lee) (01/23/84)
True, *I* don't care if you go ahead
and bash your head in on the windshield
by not driving around with a seatbelt.
However, there is no such thing as a
"free" society: society always
infringes on the freedom of the
individual to protect him/others from
his stupidity.
Aside from this, there is a good
*MONETARY* reason for seatbelt/helmet
laws. When you get your head bashed
in, it costs *MONEY* to have it fixed.
In Canada, with socialized medicine,
that means literally millions of
dollars a year spent on operations that
may have been prevented or at least
lessened in seriousness.
Multiply each person who thinks like
you by a couple of million and you get
a hefty bill.
From the pooped paws of:'
Suk Lee
..!{decvax,linus,allegra,inhp4}!utcsrgv!spooagk@ihuxq.UUCP (01/23/84)
Your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt is not simply your business. A driver belted into place is more likely to regain control of a car than one who is bouncing about the passenger compartment or a driver who is thrown clear of the car. A driver who can regain control of a car is less likely to hit, injure, or kill me. Therefore, I want every driver to wear a seatbelt to protect me. I also want other bodies in the car to be kept out of the driver's way, so perhaps others in the car should be required to ride in the trunk or wear seatbelts. Airbags are something that I tried to buy for my new car, but I would not require you to buy them. Like helmets for motorcyclists, they should be optional as they protect you, not me. Continuing that thought, I believe that hospitals should be allowed to deny services to those who do not protect themselves, and insurance companies should be allowed to deny coverage (at any cost). Why should a nurse or doctor be required to scrape that hash off the street and put it back in your skull? Why should I have to pay for your stupidity through my insurance pool? (I fully expect huge amounts of flaming as a result of this. If I had any sense, I would stop this right now.) -andy kegel
cwa@ihuxm.UUCP (01/23/84)
Alcoholism is not a good analogy to driving without a seatbelt. Just because someone drives without buckling up, does not mean that person is going to hurt themselves (or others). It also does not mean that person has ever experienced the impact of not wearing the seatbelt. I understand your point, but I think the comparison is just a bit EXTREME. From a person who ALWAYS buckles up, Carl W. Amport
kmw@iheds.UUCP (01/23/84)
I agree that it is not the government's business to protect the individual against stupidity that only injures the self. However, as the system now is structured, X's failure to wear seatbelts results in an increase in my medical insurance premiums. To be fair, insurance rates should be correlated with all known voluntarily assumed risk factors (smoking for life insurance, drinking for accident insurance, etc.). Verifying this sort of thing gets very tricky, though. It would be impossible (or at least unaccptable!) for insurance inspectors to go around spying on whether a customer paying seatbelt-wearer rates does indeed buckle up on the way to work in the morning.... The only acceptable method, from a privacy point of view, is to invalidate the insurance if the insured lied (committed fraud): if a driver goes through the windshield and was paying seatbelt-wearer rates, the insurance company owes nothing. -- K. M. Wilber iheds!kmw or mvuxt!kw
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (01/24/84)
> In a free country, like this one, I should be able to go out
and risk my life by doing such incredibly stupid things like driving my car
without using my seat belt, or riding my motorcycle without my helmet. If I
succeed in killing myself, so be it. It is none of your business to try to
protect me from my own stupidity.
Kirk Glerum
...decvax!microsoft!uw-beaver!uw-june!kirkg
---------------------------
Well, that would be fine, if one could let your body rot by the side of the
road, or if you could be allowed to die without treatment if you were injured.
Apparently you have never worked for a rescue unit, fire department, or
hospital emergency room. Also apparently, you haven't thought of the fact
that we, the taxpayers, pay for the cleanup of many of the acts of stupidity
which you describe. Given the choice between paying for some idiot's medical
care (or body and wreck removal) and having a mandatory seatbelt law (as
silly as that seems), I'll take the latter any day.
Jeff Winslowrogerc@orca.UUCP (Roger M. Christal) (01/24/84)
>> I think that both mandatory seat belt and motorcycle helmet laws are >> terrible ideas. In a free country, like this one, I should be able to go out >> and risk my life by doing such incredibly stupid things like driving my car >> without using my seat belt, or riding my motorcycle without my helmet. If I >> succeed in killing myself, so be it. It is none of your business to try to >> protect me from my own stupidity. I don't really care if you kill yourself while riding your motorcycle without a helmet or riding in a car without a seatbelt; I *really* don't care. What I *really* care about is, that because of your own stupidity, you *won't* kill yourself! Rather, you will injure yourself just enough to become a vegetable in some state or county hospital for years and years, and *guess* who will be paying for your stupidity? (Should people be terminated if they are not *financially* responsible for their stupidity?) >> It is not the proper function of government to protect individuals from >> their own stupidity. True, but this whole thing is not really about stupidity. It is about "rights". Do you have the "right" to kill yourself? How about your son or daughter; do they have the same "right"? After reading this reply, I think it should have gone to net.flame. Sorry. Mugs Away, Mate! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - \\\\\\ _________ Doctor Dart - - - - - - - - - - >>>>>>----==(_________)----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ////// ..!decvax!tektronix!orca!rogerc
dale@sequent.UUCP (01/24/84)
While I fully understand your desire to have the opportunity to
kill yourself unencumbered by a motorcycle helmet or seat belts,
realize that we all pay higher insurance rates due to this attitude.
While I don't like being told what to do any more than then next
person, there are some good things that could come out of these laws.
--
{ pur-ee hp-pcd teklabs } !ogcvax!sequent!dale
Dale Mosby 503-626-5700
Sequent Computer Systems, Inc.
14360 NW Science Park Dr.
Portland, OR 97229koved@umcp-cs.UUCP (01/25/84)
For the non-believers: A while back, a car was driving down my street (going too fast), and lost control. After hitting a large object, it *bounced* past a couple of houses, finally smashing into the car parked in the driveway next door (otherwise it would have been in my brother's bedroom). At some point during the car's flight, the person in the *death* seat FLEW OUT of the car and went sailing into the side of my house. It sounded like a sofa being dropped from several feet in the air. To say the least, he was not in good condition. He most likely never recovered...last I heard, he was still in the hospital, unconscious. Had he been wearing a seatbelt, he may have survived with the other 3 people in the car. Fortunately this happened relatively late at night, otherwise children would have been outside playing and would have been hurt or killed. The flying person could also have seriously hurt or killed someone if they were standing in his path. It was a very sobering experience. Larry
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (01/25/84)
Well, Andy Kegel, here is one flame [as requested :-)]:
1. A letter to the editor of U.S. News & World Report a while back said
something to the effect of "I do not wish to have an explosive cartridge
aimed at my face"--referring to airbags. I entirely agree.
2. Who needs airbags anyway? Don't you trust your seatbelts? I do! I fell
asleep driving down the highway several years ago; I woke up in an
inverted car, still traveling down the highway, scattering beautiful
orange sparks from its roof. I walked away from the accident with only
a few bruises. I was wearing seat belt and shoulder strap. Belts are
enough! We don't need airbags. (Anyway, cars are already too expensive.)
-- Jeff Sargent/...pur-ee!pucc-h:aeqrichard@sequent.UUCP (01/25/84)
Although I agree with the premise (Gov should not protect people from their own *willful* stupidity) I disagree with your stance against seatbelt laws. If people who had accidents without belts on would kindly refrain from using public services - like police, fire, etc - when they smear themselves inside their windshield, I'd reconsider. And if all insurance companies had separate polices for smart and dumb people (and had some way of telling the difference) that would be nice. But as it stands, when Joe Cool in his Fiat smashes into something, it costs ME money. When all the Joe Cools out there have accidents, that money becomes significant. I ride a 400cc motorcycle, and drive an MG. Although my insurance rates aren't too bad anymore, the fact that people cruise the roads without sensible protection adds a premium to my premiums. [Non-sequitor...?] If you want to scream about government interferences in victimless "crimes," talk about the laws against prostitution, or gambling, or drug use (when not on the roads, of course.) For instance, if the good Uncle would monopolize and tax the h*ll out of pot use, we would: o Save money on persecution, and get revenue from taxes, o Have better quality control - people wouldn't die from snorting PCP when they thought is was cocaine (note that this also, will save the govt some expenses,) o Be in a better position to keep drugs away from children, o Take a huge amount of business from Organized Crime, o Use some of the money left over for *real* treatment and education programs. I think it's time our government got out of the business of determining what is or isn't a sin. For those whose religious beliefs might make them think otherwise, don't you think God's judgement and punishment (*if* He deems them sinners) is sufficient? from the confused and bleeding (and tired) fingertips of ...!sequent!richard "Who makes the rules?" 'Someone else' "What is the law?" 'No spill blood!' - Danny Elfman
tjt@kobold.UUCP (01/25/84)
Kirk Glerum (uw-june!kirkg) says:
In a free country, like this one, I should be able to go out
and risk my life by doing such incredibly stupid things like
driving my car without using my seat belt, or riding my
motorcycle without my helmet. If I succeed in killing myself,
so be it. It is none of your business to try to protect me
from my own stupidity.
The problem is people are *not* willing to bear the responsibility of
their own stupidity: If you collide with me and are injured, and were
not wearing a seatbelt or were not wearing a helmet, I may still be
liable for your injuries, regardless of whether or not your
recklessness contributed to the extent of those injuries. Having
insurance pay for the damages doesn't help since you don't have to pay
higher insurance premiums for the "privilege" of risking your life this
way.
--
Tom Teixeira, Massachusetts Computer Corporation. Westford MA
...!{ihnp4,harpo,decvax}!masscomp!tjt (617) 692-6200 x275lab@qubix.UUCP (Larry Bickford) (01/25/84)
A Canadian I once worked with told me that Canada has mandatory seatbelt
laws, and they are enforced - not that the officers try to find them,
but if a passing check indicates no belt, they proceed to attract the
offending driver's attention.
My personal feeling is that the best way to get protective devices used
is through the insurance companies and court system, namely, failure to
wear a seatbelt can be considered "contributory negligence" if you are
injured in an accident - not using the means supplied to you to reduce
your risk of injury is *your* fault. This has been successfully used on
several occasions, lessening or even eliminating the defendant's
liability for bodily injury.
Sidelight: Each week, the Maryland State Police releases a list of the
automobile-caused fatalities of the previous week. In about '78 or '79,
they began adding a new piece of information: W[N]HL - "would [not] have
lessened" - if in the officer's judgment, the wearing of a seatbelt
would [not] have lessened the amount of the injury. It wouldn't be applicable
in many cases (pedestrians or {motor,bi}cyclists), but it is interesting
to note that the WHL's usually exceed the WNHL's.
Larry Bickford, {sun,amd70,decwrl,ittvax}!qubix!labroot@zehntel.UUCP (01/26/84)
#R:amd70:-424900:zinfandel:4900014:000:940 zinfandel!berry Jan 24 09:30:00 1984 This discussion has already strayed from the original question. It was not "What about mandatory seatbelt laws" but "What about mandatory CHILD-RESTRAINT laws in California." That's very different. I have had a car seat (Strolee Wee-Care, if you must know) since my son was 3 days old. (He's 18 months now.) I would have had it to take him home from the hospital but the shipper was slow. Benjamin has ALWAYS been strapped into it whenever we drive anywhere. He always will be until he is old enough to drive his own car. (well, he won't always use the car seat...) The rationale is, tiny tots are not old and wise enough to decide rationally whether or not to wear seatbelts. Therefore, since the burden of statistics is in favor of seatbelts, ALL tots should wear them. I think this is good. I am not pleased that it has to be enforced by a law. Berry Kercheval Zehntel Inc. (ihnp4!zehntel!zinfandel!berry) (415)932-6900
leif@erix.UUCP (Leif Samuelsson XT/DMG) (01/27/84)
We had the same debate going in Sweden several years ago.
After the law was passed here you could still see quite a
few people driving around without belt in pure spite.
Even those who had previously been known to use them.
But as police started enforcing the law, more and more people
gave in. Now the time is ripe for a belt law applying to
the backseat passengers as well.
How would you feel about a law requiring dipped headlights
day and night, all year? We have that.
Leif Samuelsson
..{decvax, philabs}!mcvax!enea!erix!leifres@ihuxn.UUCP (Rich Strebendt) (01/27/84)
With all the discussion of seatbelt laws and the need to FORCE some idiots to protect their own lives, I thought that the way that I became a convert to buckling up might be of interest -- perhaps as an addition to the laws. The University at which I did my undergraduate work had (and probably still has) a fine Department of Engineering Mechanics which had a contract with one of the auto makers to aid in the quest for a better windshield (the results of which quest are now incorporated in American passenger cars). In order to test the effects of bouncing a human skull off of a windshield they used REAL human skulls -- unclaimed cadavers from the city morgue which were used for this research then given a proper burial. I had an opportunity to view some of the film footage shot during these tests. Watching a REAL person (whatever their state of life) bouncing off of a windshield and seeing the resultant mess (even in slow motion) then realizing that some day that could be a REAL you ... I now feel very uncomfortable in an automobile without a belt snuggly fastened around my waist and another gently laying across my chest. What I would propose is that the manditory seatbelt laws be VIGOROUSLY enforced (to protect me from the stupidity of drivers who do not wear them), that insurance benefits be denied to any driver involved in an accident and found to have been beltless at the time, and that all drivers be REQUIRED to view a film such as the one I did so that they can see very graphically the results of stupidity. I would not expect quite so much static about dubious "freedoms" after viewing such a film. I know that it had its effect on me ... I ALWAYS buckle up and insist that my passengers do so also. Rich Strebendt ...!ihnp4!ihuxn!res
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (01/27/84)
There have been a lot of articles arguing the idealistic pros and cons of mandatory seatbelt laws, but relatively few suggesting any means of enforcing such a law. The only idea I can remember seeing is allowing insurance companies to adjust their payments based on whether an injured person was found to be wearing a seatbelt. Does anyone have any other ideas? I have mixed feelings on the idealistic merits of a mandatory seatbelt law, but I would certainly NOT support one unless it could be enforced in some way. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
mam@charm.UUCP (01/27/84)
A few points about those $%%$%# seatbelts:
1) I wear my seatbelt whenever driving, and whenever practical as a passenger.
However, in my car, I don't wear the shoulder belt. Why? Because said belt cuts me
across the throat when I do wear it, and it would decapitate me should an
accident happen. Do I really want a cop pulling me over because I was not
wearing a dangerous "safety" misfeature? I know a woman who won't wear
seatbelts at all, because she was in an accident in which she would have
got killed had she worn the thing. I don't agree with this as a reason for
not wearing the belts at all, but that's HER problem.
2) If we make laws on the basis of "If you don't do what I KNOW is
right for you, then others will have to shoulder the burden of your mistake.",
where will it end? Manditory physical exams each year? Censorship of material
felt to be harmful to the psyche? The banning of anything which has ever been
shown to cause cancer in mice? For a look at where this line of thought can go
if taken to the limit, read Jack Williamson's "Huminoid" series. In it, a race
of robots is invented whose stated goal is to keep man (singular and collective)
SAFE. It got to the point where people were not allowed to handle sharp objects
or things with electricity - a robot had to be told to do it for them. The
inventor of these robots finally saw the danger, so the robots gave him a
brain operation. He was very happy thereafter... It turned out that the
robot's real purpose was to make sure than Man could not be a threat to the
nice, clean, ordered galaxy. Read these books and then think about helmet laws!
3) Any flames about spelling, grammar, typography, etc. will be copied
over 100 times and mailed several times to the poster. Or maybe not; I might
think of something nastier. Cheers!
{BTL}!charm!mamphil@amd70.UUCP (01/28/84)
California has had a mandatory child restraint law for a year now.
Does anyone know how it is working out?
--
Phil Ngai (408) 988-7777 {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd70!phillarry@ihuxf.UUCP (01/28/84)
Speaking of letting the "insurance company's adjust payments based on if the occupants were wearing their seat belts"... There was a story on a local news show yesterday that a Chicago mother & daughter got their adjustment in court. Seems that they had been ``innocent victoms'' in an accident and had sued for X-millions of dollars - while the jury found them in the right, their compensation was reduced to a *mere* $10,000. Why? The just deceided that the injuries wouldn't have been as severe IF they would have had their seatbelts on! ---PLEASE NOTE--- Do NOT flame back to me about the merits of seatbelts and the circumstances of this incident!! I am just reporting what happened. [I happen to be very PRO-seatbelts, and very ANTI-passive restraint device - but I admit not knowing HOW to get people to wear them] -- Larry Marek ihnp4!ihuxf!larry
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (01/29/84)
In Ontario, there is a fine (I think $28) for anyone who is not
wearing a seatbelt, whether in the front or the back of a car,
if the car is equipped with them (and newer cars must be). The
interesting point is who is legally responsible for the fine.
If the offender is under 16, the driver is responsible, but if
the offender is over 16, the offender is responsible. So I am not
obliged to make you put your belt on, unless you are under 16.
(I don't remember which way 16-year-olds are counted).
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtgam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (01/30/84)
Much as I favor public safety laws and even the 55-MPH limit, I must
agree that requiring adults to wear seatbelts is a dumb idea. In
a more cynical mood, I would say those who don't are just continuing
the process of natural selection...
When an adult passenger gets into my car, I ask them to put on their
seatbelt. Though I encourage it, if they don't want to, I don't force
it. They are adults, presumably self-determining and all that good
stuff, and I feel they can choose not to. Thus should the law keep
its nose out.
While the California law requiring children to be strapped in bothers
me a bit, ultimately I feel that the state probably should protect
those children from their parents' ignorance in this case.
--
Gordon A. Moffett
{ allegra, decvax!decwrl } !amd70!proper
hplabs!intelca!proper!gambillp@azure.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (01/30/84)
I fully agree with the proponents of mandatory seatbelt laws. I believe that
anyone caught in a car without a seatbelt should face immediate execution.
I also think that taking vitamins ought to be mandatory. Why should my health
insurance be higher because all those idiots who refuse to take their vitamins?
If they want to endanger their health, that's OK, but not if they make society
pick up the tab for increased demand on the medical services.
While we're at it: Anyone not following a healthy diet ("healthy" to be defined
by the Surgeon General) should face death by firing squad.
We should also put telescreens into every home so Big Brother can ascertain
that everyone performs their daily excercises.
:-)
Bill Pfeifer
{cbosg,decvax,harpo,ihnss,ogcvax,pur-ee,ucbvax,zehntel} !tektronix!tekmdp!billpmarla@ssc-vax.UUCP (Marla S Baer) (01/31/84)
[]\ I can see one problem with (refusing/limiting) a person's insurance due to non use of seatbelts. What happens when this uninsured driver hits someone else? I was recently rearended by a 16 year old. Fortunately he was insured (My car was totalled,value $2300). I know that I could have taken him to court for the money if he hadn't been insured, but how could I have collected?? (16 year olds aren't known for their great abundance of wealth! ;=} ) In Washington State, there is no reason to have insurance. The only time you would be caught without it is if you are in an accident. Insurance papers are not required for purchase of a car, licensing of such, or in any violation (ie. a ticket). I have wound up paying quite a bit of additional money for uninsured motorist coverage. That's so, if I am in an accident, and the other driver doesn't have insurance, my insurance will cover me. My solution to the "seat belt" discussion would be to make being caught without seatbelts in an accident a premium increase offense. I currently get discounts as a "safe" driver- no accidents(my fault) or tickets within the past three years. Being caught without my seatbelt on would justify having my premiums raised by canceling my safe driver discount. Marla S. Baer ssc-vax!marla
scw@cepu.UUCP (01/31/84)
*<-dead bug Andy Kegel states: >Your wearing or not wearing a seatbelt is not simply your business. A >driver belted into place is more likely to regain control of a car than >one who is bouncing about the passenger compartment or a driver who is >thrown clear of the car. A driver who can regain control of a car is >less likely to hit, injure, or kill me. Therefore, I want every driver >to wear a seatbelt to protect me. I also want other bodies in the car >to be kept out of the driver's way, so perhaps others in the car should >be required to ride in the trunk or wear seatbelts. The problem with this is that you are assuming competence in the driver. I would suspect that 99+% of the drivers on the road that \don't/ wear seatbelts are incapable of controlling an automobile under anything except 'normal' conditions, this specificly includes when the car has been hit by (or has hit) anything on the road larger than a worm cast, or is required to avoid an object on the roadway (such as an accident). >Airbags are something that I tried to buy for my new car, but I would >not require you to buy them. Like helmets for motorcyclists, they >should be optional as they protect you, not me. Continuing that >thought, I believe that hospitals should be allowed to deny services to >those who do not protect themselves, and insurance companies should be >allowed to deny coverage (at any cost). Why should a nurse or doctor >be required to scrape that hash off the street and put it back in your >skull? Why should I have to pay for your stupidity through my >insurance pool? Airbags will lower the probability that you can take \ANY/ corrective action after a collision (p<0.000000000001), it is very difficult to steer/attempt to steer an automobile with a great huge bag between you and the steering wheel. RE: insurance, perhaps you should get into a different pool? >(I fully expect huge amounts of flaming as a result of this. If I had >any sense, I would stop this right now.) Actually I'm not flaming at all, this subject is *MUCH* to serious to allow flaming on/about/around it. "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty nor saftey." -Benjamin Franklin (I *ALWAYS* wear mine, and my child is always strapped into her car-seat). -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: ...{ hao, trw-unix, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
wagner@utcsstat.UUCP (Michael Wagner) (02/01/84)
[] Rich Strebendt talks about seeing movies of bodies bouncing off windshields. Didnt everyone get to see these in drivers ed? I did, and that was 14 years ago!!! Michael Wagner, UTCS (utcsstat!wagner) P.S. If most people here didnt, I guess that explains how this discussion could go on for so long. The pictures sure convince you of the value of seat belts. And yes, I *have* had a friend immobilized in a car after an accident by a seat belt you couldnt release, but it was a 10 year old design, and you cant buy such stupid seat belts any more. And I always carry a pocketknife.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/01/84)
I hate repeating myself, but on this net it is clearly necessary. How
does the insurance company get to determine that the injured driver (in
a serious accident, of course) was not wearing a seatbelt? Would you trust
this judgment to *your* insurance company? I sure wouldn't!
Greg "I had one bad night, and I'm still getting screwed" Woods
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woodsplaskon@hplabsc.UUCP (Dawn Plaskon) (02/10/84)
The judgement of whether a driver/passenger had been wearing their
seat belt during an accident would come from the police report filed
at the time of the accident. This is very easy to judge.
1) They scrape you off the pavement. A check of your vehicle shows
no damage to the seat belts. You weren't wearing them, hence
you are responsible for at least some portion of your injury.
2) You are unfastened from your seat belt and removed from the car.
Or you simply unfasten and remove yourself. It is unlikely that
an unfastened driver/passenger would be able to remove themselves
after an accident. If they could, it is unlikely that they are badly
injured. An alternative is to stay buckled in till the police
arrive and can verify that you are buckled in.
3) You are scraped off the pavement and a check of the vehicle shows
that the seat belt has been rended from its fastenings. Obviously,
you were wearing it and faulty materials are responsible for your
not being safely tucked into the vehicle. A law suit against the
seat belt maker here. (Ah, well, any excuse to sue).
Of course, there is no way to avoid the attempts of the unscrupulous to
defraud anyone they can, but I agree that limiting the insurance
restitution given to those people not wearing seat belts in an accident
puts the onus of their actions onto themselves.
By the way, there are people who have made a science of studying traffic
accidents and can tell from looking at the vehicles, tire marks, and
locations who hit who, and how fast they were going at the time and
from which directions. Impressive, ain't it.minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (02/14/84)
Seat belt webbing is designed to stretch in an accident -- and the sewing is designed to tear. An accident investigator can easily tell if the belt was used. By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace the belts. Martin.
lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) (02/18/84)
> >By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace the belts. > By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace the car.
bobgian@psuvax.UUCP (02/19/84)
>> >>By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace the belts. >> > >By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace the car. > By the way, if you're in a serious accident, replace yourself. (sorry, just couldn't resist! :-) -- Bob `Happiness is an Adaptive Multilevel Symbol System' Gian...
bobgian@psuvax.UUCP (02/19/84)
Wrong .signature! Should have been ... -- Bob Giansiracusa (Dept of Computer Science, Penn State Univ, 814-865-9507) Arpa: bobgian%PSUVAX1.BITNET@Berkeley Bitnet: bobgian@PSUVAX1.BITNET CSnet: bobgian@penn-state.CSNET UUCP: bobgian@psuvax.UUCP -or- allegra!psuvax!bobgian USnail: 333 Whitmore Lab, Penn State Univ, University Park, PA 16802