Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site hao.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!hao!woods
From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods)
Newsgroups: net.consumers,net.auto
Subject: Re: But at what cost...
Message-ID: <1774@hao.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 14:57:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: hao.1774
Posted: Wed Sep 25 14:57:32 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Sep-85 07:41:09 EDT
References: <388@decwrl.UUCP> <354@mecc.UUCP> <1770@hao.UUCP>
Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO
Lines: 57
Xref: watmath net.consumers:3053 net.auto:8314

> > 2) Passive belts as a cheaper replacement to airbags.  Passive belts don't
> > look as nice as airbags.  But would that be enough inducement for people
> > to spend more for airbags?  I doubt it.
> 
> This, I believe, is the answer...I can't think of anything better to satisfy
> (almost) everyone than to have a choice of passive belts and airbags.  Sure,
> the non-belters will grumble and whine at the cost of the airbag...perhaps
> it will be enough incentive for them to start belting.
> 

  I do not like passive belts. I ALWAYS use my seatbelts when driving. But,
there ARE some times when I want to sit in or access my car when it is not
moving, and I don't want the &%#@*! belts in my way. Have you ever tried
to get your wallet out of your pocket, pay the person in the window,
and collect your food from a drive-thru fast food place while wearing a
seat belt? Have you ever tried to get something from the glove compartment
without getting in the car in one equipped with passive belts? It's a 
HASSLE, and I don't want it imposed on me just because some OTHER people
are bozos and don't use their belts. I ALWAYS use mine when the car is moving.

> > 3) Penalties for people who buy a seatbelt car and then don't use them.
> > Now we're in the same field as the belt law discussion and insurance
> > benefit/penalty questions.  One of the problems is proving whether
> > someone was using their belt...   Scot E. Wilcoxon
>  
> Something *like* this should be included in #2 above.  

This I can agree with. The problem, of course, is as you stated: enforceability.
The courts are ALREADY overcrowded with people suing each other over car
accidents. All we need is a bunch of people trying to prove this other bozo
wasn't wearing his belt, so I shouldn't be liable for his head injuries...

We have to be realistic here. This is not a viable option. It is also a bad
idea to have the government try to protect us from our own stupidity. First
of all, it doesn't work, and second of all, more regulations cost more money
to enforce and make the already overcomplicated task of buying and repairing
cars even more so. We just have to ACCEPT the fact that some people are 
stupid and are going to continue to not wear their belts.

> Anyone caught with
> a disconnected passive belt should suffer a HEFTY penalty, and should
> count on their driving records as a moving violation.

  I disagree with solving problems by throwing laws at them. It doesn't really
work. It's treating the symptom instead of the disorder. Another thing it
does is make criminals out of people who are basically good people. And for
what? So one set of people can FORCE another set to adopt THEIR standards
of what is safe.

--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY

"I don't know, but I've been told, it's hard to run with the weight of gold
On the other hand I've heard it said, it's just as hard with the weight of lead"


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com