Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site jhunix.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law Message-ID: <1467@jhunix.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Dec-85 12:42:22 EST Article-I.D.: jhunix.1467 Posted: Wed Dec 18 12:42:22 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 21-Dec-85 05:19:14 EST References: <294@frog.UUCP> <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> Reply-To: ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) Distribution: net Organization: Johns Hopkins Univ. Computing Ctr. Lines: 55 Xref: watmath net.politics:12601 net.auto:8861 In article <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) ) writes: >In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >>Now I wear my seat belt as a matter of habit, and take it >>off only in exceptional circumstances. But I am getting >>tired of having these morons telling me what to do. >You might be interested to know that "these morons" also pay for the >police who investigate the accidents, the ambulance and fire crews who >respond to the accident, and, in many cases, the very expensive costs of >a shock/trauma unit (well over $1000 per day) to nurse you back to >life. In addition, other "morons" who also pay auto insurance premiums, >which I undertand are very high in your state, are underwritingg >unnecessarily high settlements because some other "intelligent person" >exercised his right not to wear a seat belt. According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate (you _may_ get a lower rate if you're a nonsmoker, but "may" isn't "always") and the extra fires due to smoking cause excess fire-related costs that affect non-smokers too. We should ban all non-carpool auto driving because everyone else would otherwise have to pay the costs accociated with the extra accidents, the police, ambulance, fire dept., shock trauma unit, auto insurance, etc.... >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! >Perhaps the same should be true if the intelligentsia who ride >motorcycles without proper helmets. But although not having a seatbelt on generally increases the damages caused to the non-wearer in an accident, it doesn't by itself cause the accident. Perhaps they should be forced to pay only the difference between what the damages would have been if they had worn the belt and what the damages actually are. (Such an estimate would be hard to make, but it would definitely exclude such things as police and court costs.) Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, fires started by cigarettes--you have to pay for all the costs, including loss of your property in the fire, charge for the fire truck to come--and unlike the seatbelt case, if you hadn't smoked you wouldn't have incurred any costs at all. (To be sure, if you aren't careless with your cigarettes you won't start any fires, but then if you never get in an accident the seatbelt isn't going to matter either.) DISCLAIMER: I support neither the "charge the seatbelt skippers who have accidents" nor the "charge the smokers who start fires" policies. I am just trting to show how ridiculous the "charge the seatbelt skippers" idea is. -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa