In rec.crafts.metalworking on 16 Feb 2005 13:37:36 -0800
jim rozen wrote:

It is tough to separate the idea that "seatbelts are good"
from "seatbelt laws are bad" at some point. Either I'm
really in a minority here on rcm (which would suprise me
honestly, given the past posting histories here) but I
don't think that we need laws to protect people from themselves.

The difficulty comes when those people are part of a society.

At what point does an individual doing something stupid have an impact
on society big enough to mean society has to protect itself? Or protect
other members?

Seatbelt laws and laws about driving drunk or while on the phone are
probably different in that way. Theoretically, someone without a
seatbelt hurts themselves only, someone who is impaired enough to be
very unlikely to be able to control a ton and a half of lethal weapon is
a danger to others.

But when the bod who hasn't a belt is killed, there's a cost. Cleaning
up if naught else. Enough of a cost to justify a law? What about the
cost of dealing with the family? What if the bod isn't killed, but is
seriously injured? If they have no insurance, who picks up the tab?
Enough of an impact to make a law?

It would seem that those who have enough money to insure themselves and
their families every which way will have less of an impact. But it is
also likely that those prudent enough to do so are also prudent enough to
wear belts. If that's so, then the costs of the death or injury due to
lack of belt will be borne by society, that is by the state. Enough of
an impact to make a law? And if so,what sort of law? "You have to have
insurance if you don't wear a belt"? Think of the policing cost!

I dont think there are simple answers, it's a complex, many layered,
problem.

Of course where I live, belts have been compulsory since long before we
had socialised medicine. But the culture is very different and I
wouldn't want to compare the two countries.

Zebee