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