Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site iddic.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!orca!iddic!dhs From: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: Seat Belts Message-ID: <2104@iddic.UUCP> Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 17:43:14 EDT Article-I.D.: iddic.2104 Posted: Fri Aug 2 17:43:14 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:15:04 EDT References: <316@baylor.UUCP> <145@batman.UUCP> <2193@amdcad.UUCP> <1385@peora.UUCP> <1026@mhuxt.UUCP> Reply-To: dhs@iddic.UUCP (David H. Straayer) Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR Lines: 99 What follows is an annotated re-posting of an article I posted to net.autos and net.politics in April. I thought I had also posted it to net.legal, but the absence of replies here and the current discussion make me suspicious about whether it ever actually got posted to net.legal. Most of the discussion recently on net.legal has to do with one half of the proposal that follows, which I call "Insurance reform". The other half of my proposal is, I think, also important because it deals with liability, negligence, and lawsuit. Here is the posting: I would willingly support seatbelt laws, but I am not optimistic about getting them passed. I would like to share a couple of arguments, and advocate an alternate proposal. CON seatbelt laws: the "Slippery Slide" (Thanks to Bob Edge for the name) The point is this: some restrictions on personal freedom, while not overly intrusive in themselves, establish a "slippery slide" toward more intrusive restrictions on freedom. The classic example is antipornography laws which have a tendency to "slide" into restrictions on free speech which are unacceptable to those who place a high value on civil liberties. I'm not sure how applicable this argument is here. I don't hear anyone clamoring to have the freedom to choose to refuse seat belts on commercial airline flights. I'm not personally overly concerned about slippery slides from seat belt laws into other intrusions on my personal freedom, but I appreciate the concern of others, and I am wary of those who try to "protect me" from various and sundry evils. PRO seatbelt laws: Freedom implies responsibility. If you want to be "free" to choose not to wear a seatbelt, you should accept the responsibility for the consequences of your actions. People "choose" to not wear seatbelts, and then expect others to pay for their decisions via higher insurance rates and expensive personal damage claims. Cynical observation: Most folks don't object to compulsory child-restraint laws to protect children. They don't squalk about motorcycle helmet laws (these folks who don't own motorcycles), but when a restrictions threatens to affect THEM, oh my! The screams and clamor! My proposal: Tough "Contributory Negligence" laws, with attendant insurance law reform. Under my proposal, states would recognize by law that failure to wear seatbelts constitutes contributory negligence. This applies when an injury can be reasonably be attributed to the choice to refuse effective, proven safety devices. Existing insurance policies would be exempted from having to cover losses due to the consequences of such choices. An illustration: Suppose you are driving without your seatbelt and I, in another car, make a mistake which causes us to have an accident. Under this proposal you couldn't force me to pay for the permanent disability and/or pain & suffering which wouldn't have happened if you had been taking reasonable precaution (wearing your seatbelt). Yes, my negligence caused the accident, but YOUR negligence caused it to be a lot worse than it would have been. I still pay for the damage to your car, and your trip to the emergency room, but not your six weeks out of work, or your burial expenses, the loss to your family, as the case may be. Under this system, you would have choices: 1 Wear your seat belt. 2 Don't wear your belt, and accept responsibility for the consequences of your decision. If you are severly injured when you needn't have been, you may end up declaring bankruptcy, losing your house, etc. - but that's your choice. 3 Don't wear your seat belt and pay extra premiums to purchase supplemental insurance to protect you against the consequences of not wearing your belt. We can assume that with such laws, many folks would still refuse to wear their belts, and after a few lives have been ruined, there would be a demand for such insurance. We could to force insurance companies to offer these riders, or perhaps the forces of a free market would come into play. Under this proposal, no adult would be forced to wear a seat belt. Those who do choose to wear seat belts would have lower insurance rates, because they wouldn't be have to insure themselves against risks they don't take. Even those who don't wear belts would have lower liability rates, because they wouldn't have to pay to insure against damage to others who don't buckle up. Perhaps we could even convince the Federal Government that these laws eliminate the need for mandatory airbags. And for those of you who own antique cars: you may have the choice of adding non-stock safety features to your car (like turn signals and brake lights), or perhaps pay somewhat higher insurance rates. As for me, I buckle up! Dave Straayer Tektronix, Inc. POBOX 1000, MS 63-166 Wilsonville, OR 97070