From: utzoo!decvax!ittvax!swatt
Newsgroups: net.auto
Title: Re: Cool air on bags
Article-I.D.: ittvax.425
Posted: Thu Aug 19 19:26:06 1982
Received: Fri Aug 20 04:29:06 1982
References: physics.130

I hesitate to get into this argument, but having already been on
record for a major flame about motorcycle helmets, here I go ...

  1)    "The government should preserve freedom of choice and
	NOT require airbags, ... but require automakers to make them
	available to those who want them".

	I fail to see how this preserves "freedom of choice". GM
	offered from (I think 1976-1978, but I may be wrong), airbags
	as a $250 option on certain model cars.  They thought they
	would sell several hundred thousand; they sold about 2
	thousand.  At that rate they LOST about $1000 for every airbag
	they sold.  Now people often accuse the auto industry of NOT
	pushing safety options, but you better believe in this case GM
	was TRYING to sell more airbags so they could lose less money.

	The point is: If enough people are willing to pay the ACTUAL
	cost to design and install airbags, the US government doesn't
	have to require anything; plain old capitalist greed will
	suffice to make airbags available.  If enough people AREN'T
	willing to pay the acutual cost, then requiring automakers to
	provide airbags to those who "want" them is forcing those who
	don't purchase airbags to subsidise those who do.  You may call
	this "freedom of choice"; I call it "robbery".

	Perhaps in the interim since GM's early attempt, more people
	have decided they would pay for optional airbags and a similar
	offer today would be successful.  I don't know, but I think
	that's what automakers have marketing people to tell them.

  2)    "Rather than require airbags, the government should require
	seatbelt usage.  Only 10% of the drivers on the road are
	using their seatbelts".

	This was espoused by none other than Road&Track, normally
	staunchly anti-regulation.  It's hard to imagine HOW you're
	going to enforce seatbelt usage without massive invasions of
	privacy.  Roadblocks?  Automatic cameras under overpasses?
	
	IF ONLY 10% OF THE DRIVERS ARE USING THEIR SEATBELTS, THEN THE
	90% WHO AREN'T CONSTITUTE A MAJORITY.  If you think about that
	for a while, perhaps you'll back off trying to force them.

	Second, this assumes that wearing seatbelts is generally safer.
	Now I believe it, and all the studies I have ever seen support
	this, but what gives me (or anyone) the right to force my
	conclusions on anyone else? I'm not God and am not omnicient;
	are you? Is some government agency?  Is Ralph Nadar?

  3)	"People who are injured in accidents while not wearing
	seatbelts shouldn't be allowed to collect damages".

	This makes the same assumption as (2).  Further, even if we
	accept the studies that show statistically that the class of
	automobile occupants wearing seatbelts suffer less and fewer
	injuries than the class of automobile occupants NOT wearing
	seatbelts, what does this tell us about the PARTICULAR accident
	in which a PARTICULAR individual is injured?  Nothing.

	Again, I'm not God and I cannot know for sure in any given
	accident whether seatbelts benefitted or harmed the wearer.  If
	the car catches fire, it MIGHT have been better to be thrown
	through the windshield rather than stay restrained inside the
	car.

	What if the injured person not wearing a seatbelt were
	permanently crippled.  Would you still withold the right to
	sue?  How about if the other driver was clearly at fault?
	Drunk?  Drunk with a suspended license for previous drunk
	driving?  I can sit here for hours and dream up situations such
	that I don't care what the law is, any lawyer worth his salt in
	front of any human jury could get an award.

	Further, I doubt the right to sue could be taken away from
	an individual without due process.

  4)	"People who don't wear seatbelts should pay higher insurance
	premiums".

	As someone else already noted, the auto insurance I pay is
	not for personal injuries, but liability and collision.  MY
	seatbelt usage has no affect on how much damage I might cause
	to someone else.  Further, MY insurance company doesn't have
	a contract with a person suing under MY coverage.  It's hard
	to see how any agreements between my insurance company and me
	could be made binding on the plaintiff.

Thomas Jefferson once said words to the effect that there are always
individuals who think people need saving from some evil or another
enough to justify compromising the principles of Democracy.  People who
spend a lot of time worrying about what to do about automobile
accidents should read a little history too.  They will discover that in
EVERY period of recoded history there has always been some group of
damn fools who thought all you had to do to so solve any "problem" was
pass a law requiring one thing or prohibiting something else.  The
present is no different.

Harry Truman once said "The only thing new is history you haven't
read".  How true.

	- Alan S. Watt