One thing I haven't seen covered in this discussion is the slippery slope
argument. First it was airbags. Now it's seatbelts. Next?

I was comparing the relative size of an F-150 I was stopped at a light with
today with my Miata. Yikes! In any significant accident, my car would be
crushed, and probably me with it.
What's to keep the guv'ment from deciding that driving my Miata exposes me
to too much risk of injury, veggie-dom, or death? I'm aware that driving my
Miata in a truck and SUV rich environment carries certain risks, and I'm
willing to take them for the fun of driving my car. Should the government be
able to decide that its interest in preserving my health and well-being
should override my desire to own and drive my Miata? Given the precedent of
mandatory seatbelt useage - hell yeah! Scary thought.

The same argument can be made for motorcycle riders. Fortunately, here in
Colorado, the state has taken what I consider the right approach - mandatory
advanced training to ride motorcycles. I think advanced training, while
sometimes an inconvenience, is certainly a good solution to all the various
traffic problems we've been discussing. OTOH, I think it would have been a
better solution to offer incentives, but that's another topic altogether...


- Robert

_______________________________________________
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the
government and I'm here to help."
- Ronald Reagan


>-----Original Message-----
>From: pic microcontroller discussion list [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]
>On Behalf Of Jinx
>> now when you have people smart enough to wear seatbelts
>> without it being a legal requirement then i'll agree you dont
>> need to regulate it
>
>Trouble is, there'll always be people with the (rightly or wrongly)
>bolshie attitude "no bloody government tells me what to do" with
>regard to seat belts, crash helmets and other preventable health
>issues
>
>In that case, taking the extreme Libertarian point of view that
>everyone is responsible for, and takes the consequences of, their
>behaviour, do you enforce user-pays ?
>
>IOW, you KNOW, unless you're exceedingly stupid or blinkered
>(but we all make genuine mistakes or have lapses of judgement,
>although the end result is the same) that if you speed and/or drink,
>don't belt up and crash you'll probably be unnecessarily injured
>and incur extra medical costs and use up resources. Should your
>actions be a burden to others ?
>
>And on top of immediate costs, you could also factor in things
>such as lost productivity. How do you redress that ?

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads