Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site batman.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!cyb-eng!batman!gene
From: gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.legal
Subject: Re: Seat Belts
Message-ID: <150@batman.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 00:15:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: batman.150
Posted: Thu Aug  1 00:15:10 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 04:55:01 EDT
References: <316@baylor.UUCP> <145@batman.UUCP> <2193@amdcad.UUCP> <699@gatech.CSNET>
Distribution: net
Organization: Burroughs Austin Research Center, TX
Lines: 26
Xref: watmath net.politics:10234 net.legal:1962

Discussion of having insurance not pay for accidents where driver was not
wearing a seat belt.
My reply that this was considered by Texas Legislature, but dismissed based
on the theory that a driver could quickly buckle up.
A followup pointing out that seat belts stretch.
A confirmation that they do indeed stretch and...
 
>               If fact, If you are in a moderately severe accident it is
> recommended (at least by consumer reports) that you replace your seatbelts
> because they cannot absorb a second shock as well and could possibly fail.

Points are well taken.  Being basically a libertarian by nature, I had
thought of the insurance non-payment plan as an alternative to the intrusive
nature of a seat belt law, but couldn't come up with a counter to the
"buckling up" after the fact argument.

However, it does seem that from a legislative point of view, a variation
on the original argrument could be used.  Might not litigants argue that
they really did have their seat belts on, but the accident wasn't severe
enough to stretch them?  This is all promising, but I think we need
more information, and possibly a body of case law, to convince legislators...
-- 
Gene Mutschler             {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene
Burroughs Corp.
Austin Research Center     cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA
(512) 258-2495