Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Seat belts
Message-ID: <855@peora.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 24-Apr-85 08:41:27 EST
Article-I.D.: peora.855
Posted: Wed Apr 24 08:41:27 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Apr-85 04:10:21 EST
References: <552@abnji.UUCP> <1560027@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl.
Lines: 28

mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora at New York University), writing about
mandatory seatbelt laws, says:

> The problem with this argument, is that it does not specify how far
> we must go in restricting drivers.

This (and what follows) is a ``slippery slope'' argument, and as such is
fallacious.  No one is claiming the other things mentioned need to be done,
and requiring seatbelts to be worn does not lead to those things happening.

While I am a strong supporter of wearing seatbelts (it doesn't make any
sense not to), I have heard that there is an ulterior motive to the seatbelt
laws: that the federal gov't has said that, if sufficiently many states
will pass seatbelt laws, the gov't will not require airbags in automobiles.
Personally, I don't like this.  I think automobiles need protection for
collisions from the side; and whereas I don't know if they make airbags
for the side, I know that as a computer scientist my ability to function
(and thus earn a living) would be likely to be impaired if I got brain
damage from running into the side windshield with my head, something that
seatbelts don't help.

I think we should have airbags, on the side (and all around), instead. It's
good for job security.
-- 
Full-Name:  J. Eric Roskos
UUCP:       ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail:    MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
	    2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642