Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ihlpl!res
From: res@ihlpl.UUCP (Rich Strebendt @ AT&T Information Systems - Indian Hill West; formerly)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Massachusetts seat belt law
Message-ID: <476@ihlpl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 31-Dec-85 15:21:56 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpl.476
Posted: Tue Dec 31 15:21:56 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 01:06:49 EST
References: <144@decwrl.DEC.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 119

In response to:

> 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.  

Nope.  Not at all.  What is at stake is my own life.  I have had
several close calls because some SOB was too macho to wear a seat belt
and shoulder harness, hit a bad bump in the road, and crossed over the
center line when he lost control.  In one such incident I dodged the
on-coming car by driving onto the shoulder -- cost me a tire and wheel
when I hit a chunk of cinder block on the shoulder, but I was able to
retain control (belted and harnessed in) and able to retain my life.

> In Massachusetts we
> have seen our freedom eroded more and more.  

Have you heard of writing to your elected representatives, and
un-electing those who don't listen?

> Why do you think the auto 
> manufactures and auto insurance companies are supporting this law, because they 
> will use it to make money.  

A worthy ambition of any for-profit organization that wants to stay
that way!

> The auto industry doesn't want to install air bags
> (which has been proven the most effective)

Air bags have NOT been "proven the most effective" -- indeed, there is
strong evidence that they are only partially effective in a small class
of accidents.  There is also evidence that they are downright dangerous
to children.

> because it will cost them money and
> the insurance companies see a way out of paying claims.  

If the resulting cost reduction is even partially passed along to me in
the form of rate reductions -- TERRIFIC!!!  (I am not so naive as to
expect ALL of the cost savings to be passed on as rate reductions! :-)

> I have already seen 
> ads in print where it stated that proof of wearing a seat belt must be made by
> a police officer at the scene of the accident or your claim will not be paid.
> Now tell me how many times have you seen a police officer at the scene of an 
> accident as it happens?

I subscribe to (and often read :-) many magazines, popular,
professional, and business, but I have not seen such ads, so I cannot
comment on the contents of the ads.  Who placed the ads, and where?  

> Some claim it will save lives.  It will but it will
> also take lives.

Correct on the former point -- the "Some [who] claim ..." are such
biased and anti-freedom people (:-) as state cops, paramedics, and
others who have to clean up after a nice juicy (blood all over the
place) accident.  As to those whose lives will be taken -- this is a
very, very small number of people compared with the number whose lives
will be saved, and the conditions that have to be met in order for such
an unfortunate tragedy to occur are VERY unusual.

> There are many cases were people died because they were 
> wearing their seat belt and were trapped in the car.

As there are many cases where a fellow suffered a heart attack whilst
having sex.  A pity, but some people just run out of luck at some point
and have to cash their chips in.  The whole point of the seat-belt laws
is an attempt to MINIMIZE unnecessary death; no-one has ever said that ALL
highway deaths would thereby be prevented.

> Its a real crap shoot.
> 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".

Ask the cops who NOW have to tell many more relatives "... if only he
had been wearing a seat belt."

> This is a choice that should
> be made by the individual not by a Governor playing GOD.

It was left to individual choice for many years, but that option did
not work.  Ours is a macho culture, and it is not macho to buckle up.
As a result a lot of people died; not just the macho drivers, but a lot
of innocent passengers and people unfortunate enough to be in the wrong
place at the wrong time.

> If a person feels
> better wearing them wear them but don't sentence non-wearers to potential death
> because some of you feel it will save you money.

To the contrary -- I hope that we are "sentencing" a lot of people to
longer, less painful, more productive lives.  And, if it saves all of us
a few bucks to boot -- great!

> 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.

Puppy piddle!!  (Substitute your own favorite animal and excrement here)

This is no more an issue of fundamental freedoms covered by the
Constitution than the freedom to piss on the sidewalk would be.  It is
necessary for our representatives to balance individual priviledge
against the safety and well being of the populace at large.  Pissing on the 
sidewalk would present a health and safety hazard to the populace.  It has
become clear over the past several years that failure to wear a
seatbelt poses a danger to both the safety and to the well being (such
as financial well being) of the entire population.  Hence, it is
incumbent on our legislators to examine the tradeoffs and to enact such
legislation as is needed to protect the populace from beltless A-holes.
I am glad that they are finally getting their asses in gear and
enacting this long overdue legislation.

					Rich Strebendt
					...!ihnp4!iwsl6!res