>>>
>>>In that case you're probably right. But I don't think there is much doubt left that on balance seat belts save lives. The safest combination of all is seat belts plus air bags.
>>
>>No doubt, but at what cost? Didn't the guvment take our liberties?
>
>But where's the line? Does requiring the manufacturers to put seat belts and airbags have any effect on our liberties? Does requiring parents to have children appropriately buckled affect our liberties? Is it reasonable interference on behalf of the children.
>
>I'm also seeing an interesting thing here because airbags just work. They're there and we don't have to do anything to use them. Seat belts we have to use or they're worthless. Yet the government requires both in cars.
>
>FWIW, I do not understand why anyone would drive without seat belts and even more, why anyone would fail to strap a child in.
>
>Tamar

I agree about the seatbelts on children and I'm glad there are airbags, but the issue was loss of freedom via government intervention. Consider HOV lanes. They actually tie up traffic which causes accidents and they contribute to pollution because they slow traffic. The govt in it's wisdom decided they would force us to carpool, which would cut down on fuel consumption (hasn't happened) etc, etc, etc. Our HOV lanes are only in effect during a two hour window in the morning, for inbound traffic, and a two hour window in the evening for outbound. The rest of the time, people don't use the lanes as much as they do the other lanes because they have been conditioned to try to avoid traffic fines, which makes traffic worse!

I'm really thinking about becoming an anarchist, but everytime I try to conveign a meeting, nobody pays attention and they start tearing stuff up!<g>