Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!vax135!ariel!houti!hogpc!houxm!mhuxa!mhuxi!cbosgd!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
From: preece@uicsl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: learn our lessons - (nf)
Message-ID: <2385@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 15-Jul-83 00:01:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.2385
Posted: Fri Jul 15 00:01:13 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jul-83 21:48:49 EDT
Lines: 35

#R:aplvax:-16100:uicsl:4300040:000:1461
uicsl!preece    Jul  8 08:43:00 1983

The wearing of seatbelts has two effects on the public at large
which do indeed give us a reason to require their use.

A drive wearing a seatbelt is much more likely to be able to
maintain control of the car after a high acceleration caused
by mechanical failure, impact, or change in road surface.
It's hard to drive effectively when you've been thrown
halfway across the car. If you can't control your car, you
can't keep it from hitting me, so I am involved directly.

The indirect argument is the same as that for helmets on
motorcyclists. Many of those who fail to protect themselves
don't get cleanly killed, but instead become vegetables;
costly vegetables requiring expensive care. That care has a
direct effect on our insurance costs (obviously those costs
include all levels of injury, not just total incapacitation).
Your medical bills are deducted from your income for tax purposes,
so we all pay some of it that way, too.

Finally, society pays a common price as well. The loss of a
functioning, useful person diminishes the quality of life for
everyone else.

So, I do think we should protect people from themselves when
doing so does not unduly diminish the quality of life. Where the
effect become undue is, of course, a matter for much further
discussion, but I see no reason why society shouldn't say that
part of the cost of the privilege of driving on the public
highways is the use of seatbelts.

scott preece
pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece