Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!rsellens
From: rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.)
Newsgroups: net.auto,net.flame,net.kids,net.singles
Subject: Re: Seat belts
Message-ID: <1328@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 12:31:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.1328
Posted: Mon Apr 29 12:31:19 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 06:02:07 EDT
References: <429@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <335@calmasd.UUCP> <1299@drusd.UUCP> <104@daisy.UUCP> <866@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: rsellens@watdcsu.UUCP (Rick Sellens - Mech. Eng.)
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 55
Xref: watmath net.auto:6610 net.flame:9608 net.kids:1259 net.singles:6827
Summary: 

In article <866@peora.UUCP> joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) writes:
>As regards the arguements for requiring seatbelt use because the  cost
>to  the  public  of  a  idiot killing or permanently disabling himself
>outweighs the idiot's right to do as choses. I would like to point out
>that  the  same  reasoning would forbid any activity with greater than
>normal personal risk and no counter acting social benefit.
>
>Some examples:
>
>	- Skydiving
>	- Skiing
>	- Motorcross
>	- Smoking
>	- Over-eating
>	- drinking
>
>So before you recommend outlawing certain forms of  half-wit  behavior
>you  should  consider  how long it will take them to work down to your
>own favorite forms of half-wit behavior.

Darn Right!!!!!!!!!

I ride a motorcycle, and nothing can make me go without a Snell approved
helmet on my bike, or a seat belt in a car. (Just to make things clear.)

Why stop at greater than "normal" personal risk? Why not try to increase
the "normal" level of safety by outlawing things which have been shown
to have significant accident rates associated with them?

The difference between seat belt and helmet laws and the outright 
prohibition of a particular activity is only a matter of degree.

	Thou shalt not ride in a car without a seatbelt.

	Thou shalt not ride in a car.

Both of the above carry the same advantage of increasing personal
and general safety. Both can be objected to on the basis of discomfort
or inconvenience. (Public transit is much safer, cheaper and more incon-
venient.) A judgement is required to balance safety against perceived
quality of life. I submit that where the major risk is to the 
individual, the individual should have the right to do something
"stupid" if it pleases him. If that increases the cost of providing
that individual with medical and life insurance, let him pay the
cost. (As those in dangerous occupations do now for life insurance.)

We can either have our lives completely legislated for the benefit
of society as a whole, or we can try to maintain the freedom to 
mess yourself up. I'm not ready to live in a hive.


Rick Sellens
UUCP:  watmath!watdcsu!rsellens
CSNET: rsellens%watdcsu@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  rsellens%watdcsu%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa