Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site calgary.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!alberta!calgary!radford
From: radford@calgary.UUCP (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
Message-ID: <352@calgary.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Apr-85 00:25:49 EST
Article-I.D.: calgary.352
Posted: Mon Apr  8 00:25:49 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Apr-85 01:21:36 EST
References: <402@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta
Lines: 71


> 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.  

Do you have any evidence of significant effects of this nature? All the
seat-belt data I've heard of concerns safety of the wearer, not others.
I find it hard to believe the above effects are very large, compared, say,
to the dangers posed by drivers who use one hand to hold a coffee cup
(should that be outlawed?).

> 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.

If any of my friends think they have a right to force me to wear seat-belts
on pain of death so they can avoid having to deal with grief if I die, they
can cease being my friends any time. I'm not exaggerating about the "on
pain of death" part. Trace through the consequences of persistent refusal
to pay a ticket. All state power rests on violence, and ultimately the power
to kill. The casual way some people are willing to invoke this power is
frightening.

As for the costs of medical care, this is not a problem for the
opponents of seat-belt laws, but rather for the proponents of public medical
care. Anyone who is willing to sell their freedom for security in the
way implied by this argument should work for repeal of laws against slavery
so they can find their true place in society.

> 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). 

The educational effect would mainly be to desensitise people to the 
erosion of freedom.

> 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.  

The whole point of the Bill of Rights is to protect MINORITIES against
the tyrrany of the majority (or their representatives). It is useful
precisely as a counter to your apparent blind faith in democracy.

> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes


    Radford Neal
    The University of Calgary