Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site unmvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!unmvax!cliff
From: cliff@unmvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
Message-ID: <781@unmvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 05:14:10 EST
Article-I.D.: unmvax.781
Posted: Wed Apr 10 05:14:10 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 05:32:51 EST
References: <402@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Lines: 101

> 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.

Let's see some statistics for this one.  This is your only argument that I
believe could possibly merit such laws.  As long as the roadways are in the
governments' hands (something that if I had the power to change I wouldn't
change immediately) they should be able to make restrictions that protect
the innocent driver.  However I doubt that the effect is statistically
significant.  Eye protection for motorcyclists yes, seatbelts for automobile
drivers no.

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

You could use the same reasoning to ban automobiles of weight greater than
X, where X is the weight of your favorite car.  Seriously, which would you
prefer ran into you, a semi with a belted in truck driver, or a VW
with a beltless driver?

> 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.

This is a great example of why tax-payer subsidized medical costs is
a crock.  Another obvious one is smoking ... should we ban smoking so
we don't have to pay the cancer related costs?  What about people who
*don't* regularly fast and have enemas, there are some people that will
swear that this is the key to good health (cleans out the body).  Should
we force everyone to fast and have enemas?

> 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.

In the days of slavery you could use the same argument against the
abolitionists.  The disruption suffered by organizations when a functioning
member is suddenly given free will...  BTW, in many liberal circles it is
considered the right of most workers to go out on strike with little notice.
Are you going to deny both the right to strike *and* the right to quit one's
job for reason #4?  If not it seems rather pointless to use such reasoning
to deny one the choice of how to run one's life.

> 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). 

I don't buy even the possibility that they serve an educational purpose.
The mere existance of a seatbelt law is no more enlightening then the
existance of a law prohibiting oral sex.  Both laws are on the books in
certain places; there is little to be learned from their presense other
than the fact that some group of people thought it would be in someone's
interests to pass such a law (whose interest remains unclear).  Of course
if you go around saying that the laws against OS were passed because OS
is unhealthy then the educational portion is where you tell people that
OS is unhealthy and it could be just as easily said without passing a law.

> 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.  

No need to repeal anything, the courts can be very misguided in their
interpretations.  After all, these are the same courts that at one time
believed that certain minorities did not count as people.  You are right,
there are many pieces of legislation that will do more to restrict freedom
then the seat-belt laws, however this is no reason to ignore the implications
of the seat-belt laws.  It would be silly if someone were to ask me whether
I thought seat-belt laws were a good idea to reply:

"Of course they are, because the new right are forcing planned parenthood
 establishments to inform parents of their children's visits."

> Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes

I always wear a seatbelt when driving; I always wear my helmet when on a
motorcycle.  I am against seatbelt and helmet laws.  I don't smoke, but I
feel that anyone should be allowed to smoke whetever one wants.  It certainly
is a crock that I wind up footing the bill for seatbeltless fools or smokers'
diseased lungs, but the solution isn't to limit their free will.

I read recently that seat-belt laws are being used in New York as an
attempt to dissuade "Johns" from seeking prostitutes.  Perhaps you could
work the obvious flexibility police have for selective enforcement into
a new point 7 :-)

--Cliff