From: smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.autos
Subject: Re: Two articles on seat belts
Date: 15 Oct 92 11:51:39 GMT
Reply-To: smith@ctron.com
Organization: Cabletron Systems, Inc.

In article <26355@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, bense@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>In rec.autos, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:

>>Any accident that shows unbelted injuries could impound the car and prove in
>>a criminal court - _not_ a civil court, "The State Vs. an Unbelted Moron" is
>>handled very differently from "Xyzzy Hospital Versus Timothy J. Nitwit" - that
>>the device had been disabled.  The hospital that treated the moron who did that
>>would be paid from a fund financed by fines on people convicted under that law.

>I like this last statement you made, but unfortunately, I don't think
>the fund would have enough cash to make it a viable one.

That's a matter for statistics.  A hefty fine would be levied against anyone
whose car had had the safety belt enforcer disabled, many of whom will _not_
be injured in the accident.  We may or may not want the fund to pay for itself,
I believe it would serve it's purpose as a deterent in either case, and would
eventually make itself only a tiny drain on public resources - especially if
anyone injured as a result of defeating a seatbelt interlock is liable for
a criminal negligence conviction that would prohibit any attempt to follow-up
his own medical care with any sort of liability lawsuit, which I think is
quite reasonable.  After all, he decided to take the risk of being hurt, and
part of that is the risk that the doctor who will put you back together again
might be having a bad day...

>(Unless you're
>indicating that the car would be auctioned off because the unbelted
>moron has given up his right to drive. This would run into problems
>with the 4th <I think> amendment against unlawful seizure.)

The 4th Amendment, regrettably, is only in force when the gov't lacks
justification for taking your property away.  Did it stop Connecticutt
from taking away radar detectors?  Will it slow down the IRS if you don't
pay your taxes?  In any event, I don't think this is necessary - or even
desirable, the car may be worthless.  Far better to levy a very hefty fine
and collect it by garnishing the salary of the perp.  Collection of fines,
by the way, is another Constitutional reason to take away your property.

>                                                              I don't
>think there is an easy way to enforce this, although the police could
>revoke any liscense of a person caught driving without a belt. Then

I wouldn't worry about people just caught driving without a belt - that
will happen in cars without an interlock.  In any event, driving a car
without a belt should not be the crime - defeating the interlock should
be the crime, and one with a big, big fine.  Also, whether the car has
belt interlocks or not, getting into an accident without a belt should
be a crime, too.  Criminal negligence.

>again, this is infringing on their right to drive, I only want to make
>those that choose to drive without belts pay for their own medical costs,
>and not pass it off to those of us that are more responsible.

As I say, I don't think that is so easily accomplished without imperiling
medical care for people who _do_ use seatbelts, as I outlined in my last
post. 

Larry Smith (smith@ctron.com)  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
Newsgroups: rec.autos