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