From: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com (Les Bartel)
Subject: Re: Two articles on seat belts
Reply-To: lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Organization: Dazix, An Intergraph Company
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 14:24:59 GMT

In article <5546@balrog.ctron.com>, smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) writes:
|> 
|> 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...

I would hate the interlock system.  That means that I would have to buckle
up to move the car out of the garage so I can get into the attic or move
my powersaw into the middle of the garage to work on my next project.  If
insurance companies would refuse to pay on a claim where the insured was
not properly belted, fine.  You read the policy, and understood that.  If
you don't like it, find another insurance company.  Second, I don't want
the gov't reaching into my activities that far.  There is a place for gov't,
but they have far exceeded their jurisdiction already, as far as I'm
concerned.

|> >(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

Oh really.  Where is the exception in that ammendment when it comes to the
war on drugs?  If you are suspected of being involved in any kind of drug
deal, you (oh, excuse me, your property) is guilty until proven innocent.

|> 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.

No, No, NOOOOOO!!!  If you don't wear a belt, you don't injure others
(except perhaps in very rare circumstances).  You will drive up the
costs of health care, though.  This isn't a perfect world.  The best
we can do is compromise.  It would be much more effective to make sure
that all the vehicles on the road are safe (state or federal inspections).
If your car doesn't poss, you fix it or junk it.  Second we need to make
sure that the drivers on the road can really drive safely.  I know
Alabama's license exam is a joke, and I suspect it is most other places
as well.  At least Kansas made you pass an eye test every four years in
addition to the written test.

|> 
|> >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. 

Granted this is a problem.  There are several views as to how to solve this.
What happens if the injured party doesn't have the money to pay?  The cost
will still be passed on to those of us who can pay.

|> 
|> 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.

 - les

-- 
Les Bartel			lester@naomi.b23b.ingr.com
Intergraph Corporation		Huntsville, AL
Electronics Division		(205) 730-8537

65% of all statistics are incorrect.
Newsgroups: rec.autos