🚀 go-pugleaf

Mark.Orton@pulse.com (Mark Orton) wrote:

>In article <369410da.419386@news.pipeline.com>,
>  whorning@pipeline.com wrote:
>> MD and VA are waging a "war" against aggressive driving, but they are
>> targeting the wrong group. They need to go after the NON-aggressive
>> drivers who:
><snip>
>>
>> - lack the energy to put their seat belts on
>
>I'm going to disagree with this one.  Even though I think everyone should
>wear a seat belt (and always do myself), I don't see it as the state's job to
>force people to.  If somebody especially *wants* to get killed, let 'em.

Not good enough. I am certainly against too much government
regulation. However, the lack of wearing a belt can kill others in the
same car or other vehicles. Why? Because if a driver is killed or even
just knocked unconscious on impact, if the vehicle is still driveable,
that driver will not be in control. A driver having suffered an impact
and still conscious and still has adriveable vehicle, may bring it
under control to prevent further death.

Also, since seatbelts reduce death and injuries, they reduce insurance
costs, more than the cost of seatbelts. Thus its in the "common good"
that we all wear belts. Most restrictive laws are only imposed for the
good of all, especially when there is a significant savings/benefit to
all.

Finally, its really "selfish" of drivers not to wear belts, because if
they die in an accident as a result of not wearing their belt, they
have basically committed a cruelty to the rest of their family, with
the bereavement and all. Granted laws should not mandate morality,
however, just as there are laws against serious crime (murder, rape,
robbery, etc) so too people and governments have always has some laws
related to mores/morality, such as laws against prostitution,
gambling, adultery, public indecency. These laws reflect "acceptable"
public behavior for moral reason. So, too, there is some "moral"
justification for seat belts, that is, to reduce bereavement.


>
>I'm all in favor of requiring people to put their *children's* seat belts on.

Why are children's lives more "precious" that adults? Say if such a
child-seat belt law said, "Children under 6 must wear belts?" Are
children at age 6 no longer "precious" lives?

And why aren't parents "precious" to children? If a parent fails to
where a belt, a child may grow up destroyed by the loss of one or both
parents.

>
>I'd also be in favor of a law saying that if a person who isn't wearing a seat
>belt is injured or killed in an accident, he can't sue the driver(s) for his
>injuries.

Those are "tort" laws practiced around the world, but not in the USA,
but should be of course. The women who spilled hot tea on herself and
suffered is partly to blame for her own suffering (the fast-food
incident). (Tea cannot be enjoyed very much if the tea is not
"steeped" from steaming hot water.) If one simply cannot hold onto a
cup, then they should not drink hot tea. But at least her mistake is
partly to blame.

But then they do not pick very smart juries, just he kind that appear
on some crazy talk shows that we will leave nameless.

While I agree on the liability issue with you (no belt, no claim),
still the reasons I gave above outweigh liability issues, IMHO.