Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site encore.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!encore!drelles
From: drelles@encore.UUCP (Robert Drelles)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <272@encore.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 18:49:54 EST
Article-I.D.: encore.272
Posted: Wed Dec 18 18:49:54 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Dec-85 03:25:15 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP> <408@gcc-milo.ARPA>
Reply-To: drelles@encore.UUCP (Robert Drelles)
Distribution: net
Organization: Encore Computer Corp., Marlboro, MA
Lines: 48
Keywords: seatbelts, airbags, libertarians
Xref: watmath net.politics:12558 net.auto:8842
Summary: 

In article <408@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes:
>In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes:
>>Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go
>>into effect.  They are going to use the lack of a visible
>>restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is
>>an excuse.  (For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you
>>don't get pulled over for speeding.  But if you are not
>>wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.)  Why?
...
>
>Not quite.  It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed
>that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states
>pass mandatory seat belt laws.  I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than
>airbags.
...

The attitude in the U.S. generally, and in net.auto-land in particular,
towards reasonable highway safety measures, is rather bizzare.

Seat belt laws are not simply a matter of somebody's right to be suicidal.
The increased medical costs incurred by un-seatbelted
accident victims are social costs.  Even if these costs are not re-imbursed
through taxes, insurance, or other collective means, they represent
an opportunity cost to the economy.  Since enforcement under the Mass.
law is rather unobtrusive, I don't see any grave threat to liberty
here.

Many of the arguments against airbags were originally used
against seatbelts.  I would expect that airbags to be much
more acceptable to the live-free-or-die crowd, given that they work
automatically and do not require police enforcement.  However, true
belivers are always ready to seek out and destroy all evidence
of democratic government, no matter how rudimentary.  And we the
taxpayers/ratepayers will pick up the tab as usual, unless an
unbelted driver comes flying through our windshield first.
I'd personally rather suffer under the dictatorship of fewer fatalities,
lower insurance -- and perhaps (gasp!) being rid of the 55mph speed limit
when these happen.

The really sad thing is that many anti-regulatory conservatives
tend to be quite pro-regulatory when their own moral values are threatened.
Where are the libertarians when Jerry Falwell wants to impose his "moral"
agenda on other people?  Where are the libertarians when the D.o.D. wants
to censor unclassified technical research?

Rob Drelles, Encore Computer, Marlboro, MA
Disclaimer: These opinions are exclusively my own, and do not
represent in any way those of my employer, co-workers, or other hangers on.