Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Mandatory Seatbelt Laws
Message-ID: <1340015@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 10-Apr-85 00:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: acf4.1340015
Posted: Wed Apr 10 00:55:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 12-Apr-85 06:10:34 EST
References: <402@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 73



>/* carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) /  9:03 pm  Apr  6, 1985 */

>>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

No, it is not a kneejerk response  -  don't assume that I haven't thought about
this merely because I disagree with you!

>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.  

I can't knowledgeably comment on the validity of these two claims, but
I strongly doubt that these are the reasons the legislation was passed.

>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.

That people are required to pay thru taxes for injuries of others is wrong, and
therefore cannot be used as a justification for these laws.  As far as
insurance rates go, your dealings with your insurer are not my concern.

>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

Again, the time lost at work is of concern to my employer and myself,
not to the gov't. or anyone else.

Do you really want the government regulating you personal relations?
That is what you are advocating!

As a rule, I let friends and loved ones make their own decisions.  I may
give them advice, but I never invite in a third party to force them to
follow it.

>5.  Such laws possibly serve an educational purpose, like a "Buckle

Education or indoctrination?

>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.  

As far as I know, there is no direct relation between rights and popularity,
but if you have discovered one please let us know.

As an atheist, these things concern me, but this doesn't preclude my
worrying about those of a different ideological bent, who are intent
on doing what's "best for me" - regardless of my desires.

						Michael Sykora