Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amd!amdcad!lll-crg!ucdavis!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!alan
From: alan@sun.uucp (Alan Marr)
Newsgroups: net.flame,net.legal
Subject: Re: Driving as a right or privilege / "for your own good"
Message-ID: <2894@sun.uucp>
Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 01:18:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: sun.2894
Posted: Tue Oct 15 01:18:25 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Oct-85 05:42:36 EDT
References: <193@l5.uucp>
Reply-To: alan@sun.UUCP (Alan Marr)
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.flame:12325 net.legal:2437

I used to think helmet laws were a good idea.  Then I grew from
reading and now I think that helmet usage is natural selection
in action and laws just interfere.

I used to think that seat-belt laws were a good thing.  Then I
realized that the principle of saying "X is dangerous" and
surrounding it with impediments to access (excessive licensing,
certification, training reqts, etc.) interfere with freedom in
ways that can chip away at our rights bit by bit.  However, with
seatbelts, the driver can retain control more easily in
accidents.  For example, if you hit sand in a slide area, skid,
and strike an obstacle with a glancing blow, I would like
you to recover so as not to bounce into my lane of oncoming
traffic.  In this sense, seatbelts (and the laws that encourage
their use) protect innocent people in a real sense.  So about
seatbelts I am wavering.

Insurance to cover third-parties is something I think is a good
idea, but I wonder what the best mechanism is?  Perhaps
"no-fault" third party insurance would be good?

---
{ucbvax,decwrl}!sun!alan

"Extraordinary how potent cheap music is."  Noel Coward