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