Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!ut-sally!seismo!brl-tgr!abc
From: abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper )
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <958@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 21-Dec-85 16:38:02 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.958
Posted: Sat Dec 21 16:38:02 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 01:24:25 EST
References: <294@frog.UUCP> <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1467@jhunix.UUCP>
Reply-To: abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>)
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 21
Xref: watmath net.politics:12657 net.auto:8875

In article <1467@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes:
>
>According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people
>getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate ...
>
>Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, fires started by cigarettes...
>
>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.


Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue.  It
needs no pseudo-reasoning by analogy to be discussed.  Auto insurance
rates are going through the roof, and it seems evident that a few simple
corrective measures can bring them down for everyone.  

If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce
irrelevant analogies to confound the issue.

Brint