Re: The fallacy of DRLs

Subject: Re: The fallacy of DRLs
From: Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
Date: 6 Sep 1995 22:34:50 GMT
Newsgroups: rec.autos.misc, rec.autos.driving, dc.driving, can.politics, can.general, ca.driving
Organization: a2i network
References: <4Zk9afg8.rEk8@rfmw.org> <NEWTNews.810283710.6360.cbaltzer@WS.NSX.COM> <42itqt$ff2@firehose.mindspring.com> <NEWTNews.810364261.5219.cbaltzer@WS.NSX.COM> <42krjp$5fa@news.iag.net>
Xref: news.clark.net rec.autos.misc:60994 rec.autos.driving:85387 dc.driving:3770 can.politics:86529 can.general:60814 ca.driving:19996

In <42krjp$5fa@news.iag.net> firebug@iag.net (firebug) writes:

>Seatbelt laws should not be in place, let alone enforced. The government has
>no right and certainly no duty to attempt to protect people from themselves.

This is what I could call a 'half-statement', i.e., it's an argument that
needs a partner argument that is missing here.  The corrected version is:

   - seatbelt laws should not be in place
   - injuries caused to motorists in an accident, that would have been
     preventable if seatbelts were worn, shall not give said motorists
     standing to sue another party

The reason I want the *other* guy to be forced to wear a seatbelt
(despite my strong libertarian leanings) is because making him do so
decreases *my* liability under current law.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
"please ignore Dhesi" -- Mark Crispin <mrc@CAC.Washington.EDU>

References:

The fallacy of DRLs

From: jniron@rfmw.org (Jason Niron)

Re: The fallacy of DRLs

From: Craig Baltzer <cbaltzer@nsx.com>

Re: The fallacy of DRLs

From: Craig Baltzer <cbaltzer@nsx.com>

Re: The fallacy of DRLs

From: firebug@iag.net (firebug)