Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ncr-sd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ncr-sd!geoff From: geoff@ncr-sd.UUCP (Geoffrey Walton) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law Message-ID: <375@ncr-sd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 24-Dec-85 12:57:08 EST Article-I.D.: ncr-sd.375 Posted: Tue Dec 24 12:57:08 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Dec-85 03:14:52 EST References: <144@decwrl.DEC.COM> Organization: NCR Corporation, San Diego Lines: 88 In his article on the Mass. seat belt law, Kevin Carey writes: > I can't believe the view of many of the people regarding the seat > belt law. It seems all that is considered here is saving MONEY. > You all must be YUPPIES and don't care about FREEDOM. Freedom is > what is at stake. Can he really be serious? The only freedom at stake is the freedom to fly through the windshield of one's vehicle. As one who has done this (I wasn't driving, nor was I belted), and been certified dead-at-the-scene, let me assure you it's not fun. BTW, Kevin, name-calling is seldom effective. > Why do you think the auto manufactures and auto insurance companies > are supporting this law, because they will use it to make money. The > auto industry doesn't want to install air bags (which has been proven > the most effective) because it will cost them money and the insurance > companies see a way out of paying claims. I, for one, feel the price of cars is high enough; as are insurance premiums. We all know the car companies are going to charge for additional safety equipment (probably quite a bit more than it actually costs them to install it) required because people don't use what is already there. Insurance companies, too, are in business to make money. Thus they will demand compliance with the law before they pay a claim, but this is little more than their right. > Some claim it will save lives. It will but it will also take lives. > There are many cases were people died because they were wearing > their seat belt and were trapped in the car. Really? I've never heard any of these stories, nor has my father in law -- who has twenty + years on the LAPD -- nor has one of my friends who has nearly fifteen years with the CHP. Both say the same thing, "I've never unbelted a corpse at the scene of an accident," but both also have seen people who were run-over by their own car after being thrown from it. Also, it's very difficult to control your car after you've been thrown from it by the force of the original impact. The chances of killing OTHERS are much higher if you are not belted. > You then could say the percentages would favor wearing the seat > belt. It probably does, but what do you tell the surviving > families, "Sorry. but you husband was 10.3% that the seat belt > killed". This is a choice that should be made by the individual > not by a Governor playing GOD. The choice is not being made by a Governor playing God, but by a legislature which was elected by (and to serve) the people. If if you have a problem with the law write your representitaves and demand that they oppose/repeal the law. Other options include gathering signatures on a petition for repeal, election of people who better reflect your views, and simple defiance of the law. I don't know the specifics of the Mass. law, but here in California you cannot be stopped for failure to wear seatbelts, even though the law says you MUST wear them. If, however, you are stopped for something else, and you're not belted, you get two tickets instead of one. Oh, I almost forgot. Have you ever heard the percentages of traffic deaths (unbelted) which could have been prevented if the people HAD worn their belts? I've forgotten the actual numbers, but I remember that they were staggering. > Wake up America, this is an issue of freedom, if you wish to live > in a police state then move to Russia and let them tell you what to > do. I refuse to lose my freedoms, my Father fought for that freedom > and I will never give it away. This is NOT an issue of freedom, any more than driving is a right! It is an issue of preventing unnecessay carnage on our highways. If you have some strange desire to flatten your face against a pane of glass, if you feel that this is one of your God given and unalienable rights, why not try running at a glass door or window? At least then you are far less likely to kill anyone else. Remember, the mos important piece of safety equipment in any car is the mind of the person driving it. :r all usual disclaimers Geoff Walton NCR E&M San Diego {wherever}!ucbvax!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!geoff Even the smallest problem becomes unsolvable if enough meetings are held to discuss it.