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