Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gitpyr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!gatech!gitpyr!dana
From: dana@gitpyr.UUCP (Dana Eckart)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame,net.kids,net.singles
Subject: Re: Seat belts
Message-ID: <326@gitpyr.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 09:38:37 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.326
Posted: Fri Apr 19 09:38:37 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Apr-85 07:03:18 EST
References: <429@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <335@calmasd.UUCP>
Reply-To: dana@gitpyr.UUCP (Dana Eckart)
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 35
Xref: watmath net.auto:6465 net.flame:9379 net.kids:1196 net.singles:6710
Summary: 

In article <335@calmasd.UUCP> gail@calmasd.UUCP (Gail B. Hanrahan) writes:
>The REAL issue is, should the government(s) be making laws
>*requiring* people to wear seat belts just because it's "for
>your own good"? 
>
>Where do we draw the line?

Suppose (for the sake of arguement) that Mr. B wasn't wearing his
seat belt when he was involved in a rather unfortunate car accident.
Further, suppose that he wasn't killed, but just severely injured
(although not essential to my point, possibly a quadrapalegic thus
requiring extensive care for the remainder of his life).  
This of course would require a great deal of medical assistance which
generally costs lots of money.  Either Mr. B has medical and/or auto
insurance to cover these expenses which would be reflected in higher
rates for the rest of us (since as far as I am aware no insurance 
company utilizes the fact of whether or not a person was wearing a 
seat belt) or he doesn't have enough money to pay for his treatment
and must rely on public facilities (thus costing those of us who pay
taxes).

Although this may seem heartless (and seeming to hold money in higher
regards than health) I do it only to make a point.  It seems to me
that not wearing seat belts is something which affects everybody!

I would agree with Gail on one point however, IF there was NO affect
on anyone else (e.g. Mr. B chooses to forego any medical treatment
which he cannot afford, and any laws which may prevent his refusal
are voided) then I say let him do whatever he wants (although I think
that he could possibly benefit from their use).

I hope that this point (which seems simple to me) is not too far off
base.  Does this seem reasonable to other people?

Dana Eckart