laura@hoptoad.uucp (Laura Creighton) (08/01/86)
In article <1022@im4u.UUCP> twichell@im4u.UUCP (Brian Twichell) writes: >>The point is not that society is trying to save you from yourself, >>Garry. The point IS that unhelmeted motorcyclists cost alot of >>money when they are in accidents. This money comes from >>the same pool of insurance money that the rest of us >>contribute to. If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all >>responsibility to insure themselves (that is, have their own >>separate insurance pool), then I will gladly allow them to take >>the additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. Actually, all the motorcyclists I know who ride without helmets would bne interested in taking this risk. The problem is that it is not set up to enable them to do so. When you look at this as a problem you might then take a look at the insurance racket. If you don't end up thinking that it is (not that it has to be, and not that the concept of buying insuirance in itself is a wrong) as practiuced today, exactly like paying protection money to your local Mafioso enforcer, then I don't think that you have looked hard enough. Between the government and the insurance companies, we all have to pay far too much. If you want to drastically lower your insurance bill, you are going to have to lobby. My favourite ideas is to have a paper which one can sign which gives away your right to sue in a given circumstance. Not too long ago I was kicked out of a tree by a Forest ranger. It seems that he was afraid that I might sue if I fell out of the tree. The hell with it. Life is pretty bleak if I can't go climb a tree when I feel like it. I would love to sign away my right to sue if I am injured or killed while climbing a tree on National Forests. At somepoint I would like it if it were understood that if you were killed or injured while driving a vehicle drunk, then you chose to take your life in your own hands and nobody else shoudl be in any way responsible for your injuries, et al. (If you think that this is the way your insurance works, read it again. and Again. A lady so drunk she could not walk fell in front of my mother's car from between a hedge after she started up from a stop at a stop sign. She (my mother) was going >10 m.p.h. when she hit the old lady. Unfortunately, the lady was 65 years old and broke a leg. My mother went to court, after being sued by the old lady, with the full cofidence that any reasonable legal system would understand that an old lady who had drabk illicit liquor (>7 bottles of beer in 3 hours) at a place she was babysitting and got so drubk she had to hold onto a hedge to stand up let go of the hedge, and fell into the path of an oncoming automobile that was not going more than 10 m.p.h beiong less than 20 feet from where my mother had made a full stop could not win a case againt her for damages. Wrong-o. Mymother got to pay dsamages, and in insurance money is still paying for it in higher premiums a decade later.) This is a rotten articel. I apologise. There are millions of typos and I should delete words and whole sentences. What you don't realise is that I am typing a full paragraph ahead of the echoing because of some bugs in CGI which make it use all of the CPU on hoptoad....and John Gilmore is using it now. I could wat until he is done and fix this up, but I want to go to bed. Typing this damnb article has been frustrating enough as it is. Pised off at Insurance and buggy software.... Laura -- Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura utzoo!hoptoad!laura sun!hoptoad!laura toad@lll-crg.arpa
cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) (08/03/86)
>>If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all responsibility to >>insure themselves then I will gladly allow them to take the >>additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. > > (Laura points out that many would accept the responsibility if it > were possible for them to do so.) > Not too long ago I was kicked out of a tree by a Forest ranger. > It seems that he was afraid that I might sue if I fell out of the > tree. > > [a pedestrian was] so drunk she had to hold onto a hedge to stand > up. [she] let go of the hedge, and fell into the path of an oncoming > automobile that was not going more than 10 m.p.h [the pedestrian] > being less than 20 feet from where my mother had made a full stop. > [The driver, Laura's mother, was successfully sued.] > > Laura Creighton It seems that the people in the U.S., manifested in our legal system, are with increasing speed losing sight of any concept of personal responsibility. (I say the people in the U.S. since I don't know if other countries find themselves in the same situation in the U.S. does.). I was always taught (or did I just learn) that you may do most anything, as long as you are fully and completely prepared to accept the results of your actions. That it is your social (and personal) responsibility to be aware of all the results your actions could cause, and win or lose, you take the outcome "like a man". (I wish to imply no sexism by the above usage. I thought for several minutes, and could not think of a different phrase which would say the same thing in short order. If you know of one, please let me know by e-mail, and will use it exclusively.) If you can't or don't want to take care of the situation afterwards, don't play the game. That is how I thought things went. This, in my mind, means that you should be able to ride you bike with no helmet, but either you cover the medical expenses, or you get no extra-ordinary care for your head injuries. In the case of Laura's tree climbing, no suing the park and personnel (and it seems Laura wouldn't). Now if you are walking by the tree, and it falls on you, that is a different story. In the case of the drunk pedestrian, I find it to be both an insult to, and a sad commentary on, our society. (Assuming the the pedestrian could not be seen, and just fell in front of the car.) If I drink, and I fall in front of a car, it can only be my fault, and my responsibility. And with reguard to people suing bars because someone got drunk there, and hit them, I almost could not believe it when the first case I heard about found against the bar. Does that mean that if someone gets whiskey from a state store here in Ohio, where the state runs all "package" store sales except for beer and wine, I can sue the state for "letting" him get drunk? My question, and the reason I included net.legal in the newsgroups, would be; Are the lawers responsible for the total disreguard for the concept of personal responsibility? Or is society the driving force behind the lawers? If I go to a lawer with a suit he fees is B.S., but might win in todays courts, and I WANT representation, why shouldn't he represent me? Is today's society only interested in personal freedom and personal responsibility when it gets them what they want? The first one to see an illusion by which men have flourished for centuries surely stands in a lonely place. Gary Zukav - The Dancing Wu Li Masters ...ihnp4!ll1!cej Llewellyn Jones
mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) (08/05/86)
In article <436@ll1.UUCP>, cej@ll1.UUCP (One of the Jones Boys) writes: > >>If unhelmeted motorcyclists will take on all responsibility to > >>insure themselves then I will gladly allow them to take the > >>additional risk that coincides with riding without a helmet. > > Is there any evidence that unhelmeted motorcyclists increase the cost of insurance vs. helmeted motorcyclists ? This is an area where anomalies often occur. For example, the wearing of a helmet increases the probability of surviving an accident (I think a generally well-documented fact). However, this means other injuries must be treated (broken bones, internal injuries, cuts, abrasions, etc.) at some expense. Whereas, a motorcyclist who dies in an accident requires no further treatment, and the insurance company has no long-drawn-out hospital stay to cover. The higher survival probability attributable to the helmet may mean a higher expected cost per accident for the helmeted motorcyclist. While I'm not suggesting I know the facts either, I think that the assumption that unhelmeted motorcyclists cost more to insure bears some examination. -- Mike Taylor ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,sun}!amdahl!mat [ This may not reflect my opinion, let alone anyone else's. ]
ronc@fai.UUCP (Ronald O. Christian) (08/06/86)
In article <3519@amdahl.UUCP> mat@amdahl.UUCP (Mike Taylor) writes: >[helmets increase the chance] >of surviving an accident (I think a generally well-documented fact). >However, this means other injuries must be treated (broken bones, >internal injuries, cuts, abrasions, etc.) at some expense. Whereas, >a motorcyclist who dies in an accident requires no further treatment, In areas where helmet laws are enacted, spinal injuries increase. It occurs to me that the reason for this is that people that would normally be dead are now merely severly injured, due to their helmet preventing them losing their grey matter. You make an interesting point about dead people requiring less insurance money than severly injured people. Kind of negates the standard argument about helmet laws, I.E., to save the taxpayer money, albeit in a bizarre fashion. Kinda reminds me of that kid in Arizona who said "if I'm going to crash I'm not even going to hit the brakes. I'd rather be dead than spend my life paralyzed." I wonder if he's still alive. Me, I wear a helmet. Should I strike out, the insurance company is just going to have to pay my hospital bill. :-) But I still think helmet laws suck. Ron -- -- Ronald O. Christian (Fujitsu America Inc., San Jose, Calif.) seismo!amdahl!fai!ronc -or- ihnp4!pesnta!fai!ronc Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: "If you are seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it."