Newsgroups: ca.driving
From: eoates@us.oracle.com
Subject: Re: Change in enforcement policy. (was Re: new law)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 21:13:51 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <44035@zygot.ati.com>, john@zygot.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
> In article <1993Jan4.072502.27732@netcom.com> altinbay@netcom.com (John Altinbay) writes:
> 
>>If you want to talk about lines, where do you want to draw it the other
>>direction.  If I wanted to kill someone, that would be a form of expression.
>>Should I be allowed to do it?
> 
> Are you serious? Killing a person is a direct infringement upon the
> victim's right to live. Where do I draw the line? Anything that has a
> direct and quantifiable negative impact on another person is legitimate
> fodder for legislation. Can you explain how my failure to wear a
> seatbelt, should I so choose, would affect you or anyone else,
> one way or the other? (Don't bother with the actuarial crap; the lack
> of leafy green vegetables in my diet is already increasing your health
> care costs. Perhaps a law about that as well?)
> 
> This is not about expression. It is about being able to make personal
> welfare decisions without the government intruding at every twist and
> turn. The state is quite right to demand driving ability standards and
> mechanical safety standards--these affect everyone in the proximity of
> other vehicles. But a seatbelt ONLY affects the wearer and no one else,
> just as a helmet does on a motorcyclist.
> 
> Smoking kills far more people each year than the number of deaths
> attributed to failure to wear a seatbelt. And there is a body of
> evidence to show that smoking infringes on the rights of others who
> wish to breath air free of a local contaminant. Are we banning
> smoking? Well, yes, in areas where it can be demonstrated that smoking
> assaults the rights of others. But the smoker is killing himself even
> when lighting up in the privacy of his own home. The only difference I
> see here is that smoking WILL eventually kill you; not wearing a
> seatbelt MAY kill you IF you are involved in a major accident.
> 
> But then non-seatbelt wearers do not have a multi-billion dollar
> industry lobbying for their rights.
> -- 
>  John Higdon  |   P. O. Box 7648   |   +1 408 264 4115     |       FAX:
>  john@ati.com | San Jose, CA 95150 | 10288 0 700 FOR-A-MOO | +1 408 264 4407

I've made this argument for the reasonableness of seat-belt laws, and I believe
it still to be valid:  if everyone was willing (and obligated by law) to take
responsbility for their own actions, seatbelt and helmet (and other laws
protecting you from yourself) would not be necessary.  But if, for example, you
fail to wear your seat belt, and are involved in an accident, you will sue
everyone in sight for your injuries, even though it can be shown that your
injuries were increased by your own negligence (failure to wear the belt).  If
it is shown than one of the people you sued is even 1% at fault, they will bear
the entire financial burden (deep pockets).  Until that changes, requiring you
to wear seat belts helps protect me from your lawyers.
-- 
Ed Oates (my opinions, not Oracle's)
 
" But scientists say that on Aug. 14,2126, a huge comet
  named Swift-Tuttle may smack the Earth without first
  filing an environmental empact statement or even getting
  Al Gore's permission.  If it hits a spotted owl habitat
  there will be litigation." - George Will, Dec. 28, 1992.