Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
Message-ID: <402@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 6-Apr-85 21:03:21 EST
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.402
Posted: Sat Apr  6 21:03:21 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 7-Apr-85 05:10:42 EST
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 63

>They are just one more step down "The Road to Serfdom."  More directly,
>they disgust me.  They are a lot less of an inconvenience than many
>regulations, but what is most disturbing is that they seem to me
>symbolic of the gov't. 'strapping you in.'

This is something of a kneejerk response.  But the writer is honest
enough to note that he is in part reacting to the symbolic element of
being strapped down, a situation that arouses one's fear of being
rendered helpless (as we were when we were infants).  I suspect that
this psychological aspect has something to do with the rather
emotional reactions people have against seat-belt laws, just as I am
certain that psychological considerations too obvious to mention
account for some of the highly emotional opposition to gun control
laws.  (Maybe this is cocktail-party Freud, but it's worth thinking
about.)

Here are some arguments in favor of seat-belt laws:

1.  Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their
vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others.

2.  Unbelted occupants endanger others by the weight of their moving
bodies in a collision.  

3.  If we could internalize the costs of medical bills then the
opponents of the laws would have a stronger case.  As it is, I have
to pay through my taxes and insurance rates part of the cost of
accident-related injuries.

4.  Related to the previous point, any injury or death has a social
cost.  It includes the cost of medical treatment and rehabilitation,
the cost of time lost from work, the disruption suffered by
organizations when a functioning member (say, a schoolteacher) is
suddenly missing, the grief of friends and loved ones, and perhaps
others I haven't thought of.  I don't see the internalization of these
cost as a realistic possibility.  I have many friends, loved ones,
and co-workers who drive or ride in cars.  If seat-belt laws will
significantly reduce the incidence of death and injuries in this
group, then that is a reason for me to support them.  And apparently
seat-belt laws can be effective, such as the one in effect in
Victoria, Australia since 1972.  In the first two years after the law
was passed there was an 80% reduction in eye injuries, a 50%
reduction in spinal cord injuries, and a 51% drop in drivers admitted
to hospitals.  Fatalities have continued to decline in relation to
the number of vehicles registered.  I believe Australians cherish
their freedom as much as Americans, yet as far as I know they are not
pressing for repeal of the law.  

5.  Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle
Up" ad campaign.  People tend to pay more attention when something is
made illegal.  But I don't think this alone is sufficient reason for
the laws, and I doubt that Prohibition taught people very much about
the evils of strong drink.  (Then again, they'd heard it all before,
but many people apparently still do not realize how much safer they
are when wearing a seat-belt). 

6.  Dry up about the road to serfdom.  The Bill of Rights has not
been repealed -- yet.  If the laws are unpopular enough, they will be
repealed.  If you're concerned about freedom, worry about the real
threats, such as the New Right types who want to legislate a
God-fearing, "Christian" America.  

Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes