Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!ut-sally!ut-ngp!mberns
From: mberns@ut-ngp.UUCP (Mark Bernstein)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <2727@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 10:37:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.2727
Posted: Wed Dec 18 10:37:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 02:55:44 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP> <806@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: UTexas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.politics:12561 net.auto:8843

[]
>   From: abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper )

> ...Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state
> that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be
> required to assume the  full costs associated with his injuries,
> including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and
> rehabilitation!
 
Amen.   And further, the insurance companies themselves could require seat belt
use as a necessary prerequisite for paying claims in accidents.  Perhaps this
by itself could satisfy individuals who feel that state laws infringe on their 
right to liberty, yet encourage seat belt use and relieve the pressure on
public services such as hospitals, etc.  One could wear a seat belt or not; 
free choice.  But you'd KNOW up-front that you were waiving your insurance 
coverage in that event.  You'd be free (albeit slightly crazy) to do so.    
Just a few well-publicized instances of insurance companies refusing to
cover medical bills when seat belts were not used might dramatically
increase belt use.   And, for the flaming libertarians out there, you'd
still have the option (without *state* compulsion) to choose not to wear
one, if it was that important to you.   The same could go for motorcycle
helmet use.

A general comment after several months of this stuff on the net:

Regardless of state laws or insurance companies - I find it absolutely
INCREDIBLE that a person with an IQ above 20 could, on the basis of
an abstract issue of "liberty" (or any other reason), CHOOSE not to wear 
a seat belt.  This whole discussion, which has appeared in the net over
the last several months (now revived in connection with Massachusetts),
is the weirdest thing I've seen in quite some time.  I'm sorry, but you 
have to be really stupid (flame all you want) not to
take this elementary precaution against injury or death before taking off
down the highway at 55  (or in the case of the other "liberty" issue in
net.auto, at 85 or whatever with your radar detector).   Many complainers
about the seat belt laws would probably agree easily with me.  But all the talk
along the lines of "... of *course* I wear mine, but I resent the government
forcing me to..." I consider outright dangerous rhetorical crap, which only 
encourages some people to think they *ought* not bother to wear them, and
postpones the taking of appropriate measures to get people to use them.  As
has been pointed out on the net time and again, seat belt use is NOT
simply a matter involving a single person's choice.   And I could argue 
that *I* resent other people's negligence forcing my insurance rates and
taxes up.   The whole thing is ridiculous - does one argue that there
ought to be no laws against stealing because such laws infringe on one's
right to choose to steal, and after all, the only person harmed is the
one who was robbed?   Should there be no laws at all governing speed limits
on city streets and highways? (Note: the question of whether 55 is a reasonable
limit for interstates is quite separate.  The issue here is whether anyone
could argue that there ought to be *no* speed limits at all).  Of course,
reasonable people answer "no" to both questions.  But how is the 
case of seat belts truly different to some of the same people?  I just
don't understand it.  The potential (and actual) "harm" to society and its
interests in the lack of seat belt use is patently clear - and it has
little to do with the injury to the individual per se.  That we as a society 
even need to be talking about laws and "liberty" in this regard is 
a sad, sad commentary, and a perversion of the Constitutional concepts of
liberty and freedom. 


-Mark Bernstein (UT - Austin, Speech)