Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site SCIRTP.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!SCIRTP!todd
From: todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Seat Belts
Message-ID: <255@SCIRTP.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Jul-85 16:59:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: SCIRTP.255
Posted: Mon Jul 29 16:59:36 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 05:04:08 EDT
References: <316@baylor.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 28
Xref: watmath net.politics:10175 net.legal:1934

> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws:
> 
> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented
> by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay
> through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. 

One problem with the above solution is the difficulty in determining
whether or not seat-belts would have an advantageous effect or not.
Also, what happens when I hit someone (my fault) and they didn't have
a seat belt on? Am I less liable because they didn't wear one?

The new trend of mandatory seat-belt laws is so ridiculous! 
My home state of North Carolina is having their law go into 
effect Oct. 1. I am a habitual seat-belt user but I'm almost
ready to not wear them past Oct. 1. I think it's just another
excuse for police to inspect vehicles.

I fully support mandatory child restraint laws, however.
The difference: kids can't responsibly decide whether or
not to wear them and shouldn't be penalized by death for 
having bone-headed parents.

   |||||||
   ||   ||
   [ O-O ]       Todd Jones
    \ ^ /        {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd      
    | ~ |
    |___|        SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.