Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site fortune.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!fortune!olney From: olney@fortune.UUCP (John Olney) Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: PISSED OFF/Really Re: Seat belts Message-ID: <4889@fortune.UUCP> Date: Wed, 16-Jan-85 12:43:14 EST Article-I.D.: fortune.4889 Posted: Wed Jan 16 12:43:14 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 17-Jan-85 12:49:29 EST References:<236@calmasd.UUCP> <245@calmasd.UUCP> <830@watdcsu.UUCP> Reply-To: olney@fortune.UUCP (John olney) Distribution: na Organization: Fortune Systems, Redwood City, CA Lines: 25 Summary: Seat belts are *good* I've been reading all these flames about seat belts, and I have yet to see the reason that I believe in most: SEAT BELTS KEEP THE DRIVER IN THE DRIVER'S SEAT During high-G maneuvers (and after a relatively minor impact), an un-belted driver is likely to be thrown away from the steering wheel and his car becomes an unguided missile. A belted-in driver will still be in a position to exert some control, possibly avoiding a secondary collsion. From this point of view, seat belt laws are intended to protect *other people* from uncontrolled objects hurtling through space. This is also a good argument against air bags. A driver with and air bag between him and the wheel doesn't have very much control over his vehicle. I do believe that laws of the form "We're protecting you from yourself" are unacceptable. (If he wants to kill himself, well, that's his business.) I also believe (very strongly) that laws of the form "We're protecting other people from your foolishness" are desirable. (This can be overdone, of course... but we must make tradeoffs somewhere.) -- John H. Olney