From: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!wagner
Newsgroups: net.auto
Title: Re: seatbelts and freedom
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.305
Posted: Tue Aug 17 09:33:42 1982
Received: Tue Aug 17 11:31:13 1982
References: watmath.3319

The arguements for free will and not being forced to use a 
seatbelt are obvious.  Freedom has been defined as the 
right to swing your fist to within an inch of others.  In other
words, you are free to do anything which does not impact others.I purposely submitted the previous article to show how not 
wearing a seat belt impacts others.  When you are unable to 
control your car in a panic situation, you clearly impact
(no pun intended) others.  And when you go flying out of your
car, you dont just take your own life with you on a ride -
on a crowded highway, you risk the lives of those in the cars
you hit.  This is a similar situation to the one that Americans
seem to have a lot of trouble with - gun control.  You are free
to have a gun, but by doing so, you are potentially preparing
to violate someone elses rights.  Our countries differ in how
we prepare for that possiblility.  In Canada, you can have the
gun, but it must be registered.  In the US, it is such an 
inalienable right that the society can not even register the
guns for its partial protection.  (Please, I dont really want
to start a gun control arguement, I just want to develop the
thesis that society can partially control an item without
the individual losing a lot of freedom, and society gains a
lot of control over the case where the bounds of freedom have
been exceeded by the individual).
  Now, I claim, and others on the net have backed me up, that
ones control of a car in a panic situation is improved with 
seat belts.  Aside from irregular planned panic stops to 
test the condition of my car and my reflexes, I have 
unfortunately had more practical experience with real-life
accident and near-accident situations than I really wanted.
If anyone contests the control question, they are welcome to
come try it with me.  Ill drive, you stay in the pasenger seat
without a seat belt.  There is a parking lot (huge) near where
I grew up.  Every year, once snow has fallen, preferably 
with some sheet ice, we go out on a saturday when the lot is
empty, and practice panic stopping and turning on ice.  I 
could never keep control of the car without a belt.  And the
situation is more contrived than real life (I know when I am
going to hit the brakes, spin the car, etc).  Ok, I hope 
people agree about control.  If not, we can talk about it more
later.
  Given control is improved with a belt, we then have the issue
of projectile people, which I have gone over already, and wont
belabour again, unless it becomes necessary.  That leaves us 
with two situations where the issue of a belt is more than a 
personal issue.  I claim that both of these situations are
basically highway situations (sure, I recreated the glare ice
situation at slower speeds, but then I *purposely* put the
car in a tailspin.  You dont tend to get thrown around so
much in the city).  Perhaps we could come to a compromise as
follows:
At low speeds, the largest likely result of not wearing a 
belt is self-inflicted injury only.  So belts are optional
at city speeds on city-quality roads or equivalent.
On the highway, or any road, country included, with speed limit
above the city norm (which we will call 50KMH or 30MPH for 
purposes of this discussion) belts are compulsory to go over
the 50KMH limit.  If the road has a minimum speed (freeway),
then belts are de-facto necessary.  On the country road, you
can chose to do only 50KMH, but you will get a speeding/belt
combined fine if you are caught above without a belt on.
  How does this strike the people of the net.  It is trying
to be a compromise between the rights of the individual and
those of the larger number.  If you write back with comments,
please make it clear whether you are commenting on the 
theoretical level or the implimentation level, since there
are clearly some implimentation level problems.  I will 
talk in a few days about some implimentation details that
have occured to me, but first, does anyone like it in principle?

Michael Wagner, UTCS