Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mtxinu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbtopaz!unisoft!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: mandatory seatbelt laws ???
Message-ID: <131@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Jun-84 22:19:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: mtxinu.131
Posted: Sun Jun 17 22:19:10 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Jun-84 02:31:59 EDT
References: <1076@wateng.UUCP>
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley
Lines: 44

Seat belts do only protect the wearer (aside from the "control"
question of not being firmly placed in the vehicle).  However,
there are secondary effects that are quite significant.  It costs
society quite a lot, even just in terms of money, to deal with
automotive injuries (I don't call them "accidents" for various
reasons that maybe I'll elaborate on later).  In particular,
the ambulance and emergency room responses are usually tax-supported
activities.  If the injuries are more severe, as they usually
are without belts, then the cost of this response is higher.

I am a fan of mandatory seat belt laws.  However, I am also
acutely aware that there are some people who for various
reasons *will not* wear belts no matter how "safe" they're
supposed to be.  While it is clear that statistically it is
much safer to wear a belt, there are cases in which wearing
a belt isn't so good.  I know people who are alive today
because they weren't wearing one.

So.  How does society make the requirement that people wear belts
without unduely straining their individual freedoms?  The idea
I have, which I will admit is not fully baked, is this.
If a person is injured in an automotive mishap and is found to
not have been wearing a seat belt, then they would be financially
liable for *all* of the medical/response-related expenses
generated by their injury.  This would include (at least) the cost of
police, ambulance, fire, and hospital activities.  Further,
they would be prohibited from seeking any damages (civil or otherwise)
from another party relating to those injuries (except perhaps
from their own insurance company).

This allows an individual the freedom to not wear belts, and
at the same time allows society to allocate the responsibility for that
action to the individual.  Clearly, it will not always (ever?)
be an easy task to determine that a victim wasn't wearing a belt.
However, given that I haven't heard any other schemes for enforcing
mandatory belt laws that I like, or that allow for people with
strong emotional reasons to disregard the law in a reasonable way
(I certainly do not advocate ignoring a law just because one
has an emotional bias against it [or a rational one, for that matter]),
I throw this one out for comment.

-- 
Ed Gould
ucbvax!mtxinu!ed