Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!idis!cadre!sm From: sm@cadre.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: PISSED OFF (seatbelts) Message-ID: <165@cadre.ARPA> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 09:04:03 EST Article-I.D.: cadre.165 Posted: Wed Jan 16 09:04:03 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:35:35 EST References:<236@calmasd.UUCP> <245@calmasd.UUCP> <932@amdahl.UUCP> Reply-To: sm@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh. Lines: 30 Summary: In article <932@amdahl.UUCP> gam@amdahl.UUCP writes: > >On the other hand, my auto insurer will discount my insurance >by 10% if I agree to wear a seatbelt and ask my passengers to >do likewise. This is a much preferable solution: providing >*incentives* for those who choose to, and giving *them* the >rewards of having done so. >-- >Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,sun}!amdahl!gam Great!. Except that your insurer doesn't begin to pay all of the expenses that might arise from your attempted flight through a windshield. I can understand the personal liberties argument although it still boils down to what society is willing to give up to save some money. The only way that what you argued in the paragraph above would actually work is if you were billed, directly, for ALL of the expenses associated with your accident. Lest you think that this is not feasible, I might point out that a few years ago a friend of mind was killed in a tunnel when he swerved to avoid a car which had entered from the wrong end. The other driver escaped. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania sent the family of the deceased a bill for the repairs to the tunnel wall which had been necessitated by the impact of his car. Of course, seatbelts wouldn't have mattered much, in this case, anyway. Sean McLinden