jas@druxy.UUCP (ShanklandJA) (01/27/84)
I guess enforcement does get a little tricky, doesn't it? In defense of such laws, seatbelt use has skyrocketed in countries that have passed mandatory seatbelt laws. Given the enforcement problems, it's a little hard to explain, but it is true. In West Germany, seat belt use went from somewhere around 10% to somewhere around 70% when the law was passed. Maybe it just makes people think a little.... As for the legitimacy of restricting people's right to be fools: I, too, do not care to pay a share of scraping these people off the pavement and patching them back together. If they really enjoy not wearing a seatbelt, they may do so in the comfort of their living rooms. Jim Shankland ..!ihnp4!druxy!jas
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (01/28/84)
We have reached the extremities of the nonsense universe. The notion of "it is my right" to be a moron. Giving morons freedom of choice is a very dangerous thing especially when their decisions to "do what they want" (they apparently believe in free will) affect other human beings. It's very simple. Things that you consider to be "rights" and "freedoms" are not things to be taken for granted, but rather earned. Those who cannot show a reasonable level of competence in an activity should not be allowed to do it. Those who would complain about this are either (1) incompetent enough that they would lose their freedom as a result (too f**king bad!) or (2) too lazy to learn how to achieve a reasonable level of competence. Who the hell says you have a right to drive the way you want to on roads where other people drive, on roads for which other people paid their share? Before being allowed to exercise a "right" one should be required to show that one knows how to exercise it properly (meaning without causing damage to the lives of other people). Would there ever have been any clamor at all about the right not to wear seatbelts if there had never been any other way to drive a car than with a seatbelt? Of course not. One might just as well argue, then, that a person released from prison after serving a term for mass murder should be allowed to continue to behave as he used to, because otherwise his freedom would be curtailed. I'm not concerned with the means by which people show their competence, just that they do. Leave it to societal engineers to figure out. And if you don't like the dangers inherent in societal engineering (wow, like, 1984, man, bummer!), then stop a second to realize that it goes on anyway, whenever a commercial for a Schlockomotors ZPL-X-1000 TURBO-CAR is aired on the top-rated TV show "Let's Kill Some Minorities" (a comedy produced by Fred Silverman). So there. Uhh, isn't this net.flame?? Summing it all up (that's my job) -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
neal@denelcor.UUCP (01/31/84)
************************************************************************** This reminds me of the fellow in England (where apparently they have had such laws for some time) who was arrested for selling T-shirts with a big diagonal stripe. Seems you could wear one of his T-shirts and the Bobbies would think you had your shoulder belt all nicely fastened. I am against any such law. I maintain that we have too many ill-conceived laws now. The more laws--or at least the more laws such as this that are unduly difficult to enforce and/or trample personal liberties, the less respect that any law and even the concept of LAW gets. The idea of limiting an insurance payment (or other liability) to someone who is injured while not wearing one sounds very reasonable. I wonder if it's been tried and what the outcome was. (Probably not by an insurance company--their policies are prime examples of legal contracts with every 'i' dotted and every 't' crossed; but individual liability is as much common law as statute law anyway.) Regards, Neal Weidenhofer Denelcor, Inc. <hao|csu-cs|brl-bmd>!denelcor!neal
jim@haring.UUCP (02/07/84)
>This reminds me of the fellow in England (where apparently >they have had such laws for some time).... Actually, the law on seatbelts came into force almost exactly a year ago, about the time I left (no connection). It may be interesting to find out from someone still there what the effect has been, since other factors such as oil prices, speed limits, road conditions have not, to my knowledge, changed significantly in that time. Jim McKie Centrum voor Wiskunde en Informatica, Amsterdam ..mcvax!jim
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (02/07/84)
From: marvin::cobb (Graham R. Cobb)
Someone mentioned that mandatory sealbelt laws have now been in force in
England for one year and expressed interest in the results.
I do not know the figures as I am just quoting from a news report I heard
while driving home. However, I believe that the results have been quite
impressive: seatbelt usage has gone up a lot (from 60% to over 90% ?) and
deaths and injuries have been cut down dramaticly.
I realise that without figures to back this up it will cut no ice with anyone
who is anti seatbelt legislation. I, personally, am ambivalent about the
legislation (but I always wear my belt), but the results quite surprised
me - I did not expect to see a measurable result. If anyone has the figures
please feel free to post them (and correct me if necessary!).
Graham R. Cobb
PSI development, Digital Equipment Co., Reading, England
Enet: MARVIN::COBB
UUCP: ...{ucbvax,allegra,decvax}!decwrl!rhea!marvin!cobb
ARPA: decwrl!rhea!marvin!cobb@SU-Shasta
ARPA: decwrl!rhea!marvin!cobb@Berkeley
(Happy day when all these become cobb@marvin.dec, or something!)
Tue 7-Feb-1984 10:31 GMT