Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!jjs
From: jjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Jeff Sager x5265 CB 45910 JL)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Logical Conclusion
Message-ID: <1261@cbdkc1.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 11:07:58 EST
Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1261
Posted: Tue Dec 24 11:07:58 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:14:38 EST
Reply-To: jjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Jeff Sager x5265 CB 45910 JL)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Lines: 15

For those who believe in the argument that seatbelt laws save social costs,
I have this response:

Why don't you people take your argument to it's logical conclusion?  If
wearing seatbelts saves us all from certain social costs (higher insurance,
costs of medics, loss of persons who can provide valuable social input, etc.),
then seatbelts AND airbags would save us more, and driving tanks would save us
even more...
The conclusion is that not driving vehicles at all is the ONLY way to be
sure you are saving those costs.

The same goes for the "55 saves lives" believers:  0 mph is the ONLY speed
that truly saves us from vehicle related social costs.

Kinda silly isn't it??  But then, it's your argument.