doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (04/17/85)
> Unbelted drivers are far more apt to lose control of their > vehicles than belted drivers, thus endangering others. It might be difficult to show that fastening the seat belt would help, since I would speculate that a) not wearing seat belts, and b) reacting to an emergency by placing one's hands over one's face, would show a positive correlation :-) -- Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!doug
kenyon@nmtvax.UUCP (05/06/85)
Thanks go to all who responded to my topic about seat belts. The information and the arguments raised led me to believe that I had no hope of winning the debate (I was against mandatory seat belt legislation). The discussion on the net did help me with knowing what kinds of things might be brought up in the debate. I appologize to all of those that were subjected to the topic without cause, the groups net.kids and net.singles. God only knows how the discussion trickled into these groups. For those of you that took part, About 3M characters where sent on this subject. I was quite surprised at the amount of discussion and was also quite pleased. Thanks again! Robert Kenyon ...ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!kenyon P.S. New Mexico passed mandatory seat belt legislation a few months ago. Stupidity reigns in government! To avoid hassles with ranchers, trucks are exempt from this legislation. Probably 1/5-1/6 of all traffic in New Mexico are trucks. Prevent Stupidity! If they want to pass such a law in your state, make sure that there are no such exemptions. Remember, seat belts save lives. Legislation does nothing but create red tape. We have enough red tape, lets save some lives.
plw@panda.UUCP (Pete Williamson) (07/25/85)
>Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay >through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide >is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage >people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the >premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth). An interesting idea ... except that it would tend to cause stupid people to use seat belts ... and you know what that does to the world population's average intelligence. -- Pete Williamson "By hook or by crook, we will !!" ... #2
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (07/25/85)
> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay > through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide > is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage > people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the > premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth). > > Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? Actually, I doubt the insurance companies would go for this. It only solves half of the issue (if it even does that). Suppose, that I (with my seatbelt discount) go out driving with me belt on and run into (my fault) someone else who is not wearing their seatbelt. My policy is still obliged to pay. -Ron
peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/26/85)
An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws:
Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented
by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay
through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. Suicide
is already exempted from coverage, so there's a precedent. It will encourage
people to wear seatbelts, shut up the civil libertarians, and decrease the
premiums responsible people have to pay (or at least slow down their growth).
Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this?
--
Peter da Silva (the mad Australian)
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (07/26/85)
In article <316@baylor.UUCP> peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes: >An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > >Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >by wearing a seatbelt...... . . . >Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? No offense intended, but this is just the kind of thing that makes lawyers have unassisted orgasms, makes judges commit suicide, makes insurance company execs give smug little I'll-get-that-extra-Mercedes-this-year- after-all smiles, and makes your average Joe's wallet look like an Ethiopian famine victim. Who is to decide that an accident could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt? If the insurance company doesn't want to pay the injured all they have to do is start too long, too expensive court battle to wear the injured, the courts, and the rest of us down. This area is far too subjective and nebulous to be put into an arena where it can cause so much grief. My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! By the way, the You in "You're going to tell me...." above is not directed at Peter, just at legislators in general. They let people hang-glide and water-ski without helmets, don't they? -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (07/27/85)
> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > > Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. > > Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? > -- > Peter da Silva (the mad Australian) > UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter When Texas was considering its recently enacted seat-belt law, this very thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. Obviously this argument has a few holes, but nobody ever lost money betting on the lack of intellectual quality of Texas legislators..(-: :-) -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) (07/27/85)
In article <783@burl.UUCP>, rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' > laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't > take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that > I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last bed, so the hospital has to build a new wing, and I pay for it. You croak, and use the last cheap plot in the cemetery, so now I have to buy a more expensive one. After all this, your "freedom" has still not stopped costing me ... Now your ex-employer has to employ someone else, and train them, I pay more for his product. So, please, if you want to kill yourself, do it in some way that everyone knows that's what you are doing, and make sure that you succeed, no insurance, no hospital. That still doesn't recover all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember that society has an investment in you - you owe us! Robert Elz ucbvax!kre
rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) (07/29/85)
In article <9389@ucbvax.ARPA> kre@ucbvax.ARPA (Robert Elz) writes: >While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that >they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, >and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last >bed, so the hospital has to build a new wing, and I pay for it. You >croak, and use the last cheap plot in the cemetery, so now I have to >buy a more expensive one. After all this, your "freedom" has still >not stopped costing me ... Now your ex-employer has to employ someone >else, and train them, I pay more for his product. An interesting viewpoint, and I can see your point somewhat, but: a) You live in New York City (I know you don't, but pretend); there is a higher crime rate there, and when you get mugged your insurance company pays and I pay your insurance company. I could give a lot more examples, but the basic line is that life (and ESPECIALLY insurance) ain't fair. If you're interested in such things, definitely take the time to read _The_Invisible_Bankers_ by Andrew Tobias. b) You hang glide and fly small planes, so you get injured and/or killed. I pay. Life is a bitch, ain't it? My basic message here is much more objective than that: There are insurance discounts for non-smokers for the reasons that you put forth above, and I like that because I am a non-smoker. Am I really a non-smoker? Send me to your insurance company's doctor and I guarantee you he can answer that question reliably unless I work in a coal mine or in downtown L.A. Now, do I really wear my seatbelt all the time? Who knows but me? >So, please, if you want to kill yourself, do it in some way that >everyone knows that's what you are doing, and make sure that you >succeed, no insurance, no hospital. That still doesn't recover >all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember >that society has an investment in you - you owe us! I owe you? OK, I guess you're right -- I'll do my good deed by reducing the population, not contributing to the rise in population at a later date, not consuming anymore food, energy, or space; and I'll lower the unemployment rate at the same time -- all by suicide!! Pretty effective little act, isn't it? As for your earlier point about you paying for this and that, what about the jobs that I create in the insurance, health care, and burial industries? Not to mention the work afforded to florists (assuming someone likes me enough to send flowers to either the hospital and/or the funeral), the minister who reads my eulogy, the lawyers who squabble over my estate, the coroner who does the autopsy... I could go on for days!! I think I'll go off myself right now; what a great feeling to be benefiting others!! (Snide comments on the previous statement via mail to me, please; I'll summarize the cutest ones to the net), -- The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291) alias: Curtis Jackson ...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd mgnetp ]!burl!rcj ...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua masscomp ]!clyde!rcj
todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) (07/29/85)
> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > > Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > by wearing a seatbelt. If you want seat-belt-free insurance you have to pay > through the nose because it obviously puts you in a high-risk group. One problem with the above solution is the difficulty in determining whether or not seat-belts would have an advantageous effect or not. Also, what happens when I hit someone (my fault) and they didn't have a seat belt on? Am I less liable because they didn't wear one? The new trend of mandatory seat-belt laws is so ridiculous! My home state of North Carolina is having their law go into effect Oct. 1. I am a habitual seat-belt user but I'm almost ready to not wear them past Oct. 1. I think it's just another excuse for police to inspect vehicles. I fully support mandatory child restraint laws, however. The difference: kids can't responsibly decide whether or not to wear them and shouldn't be penalized by death for having bone-headed parents. ||||||| || || [ O-O ] Todd Jones \ ^ / {decvax,akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!todd | ~ | |___| SCI Systems Inc. doesn't necessarily agree with Todd.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/30/85)
In article <145@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: >> >> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >> by wearing a seatbelt. >> >> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? >> -- >thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by >practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it >was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), >was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt has been through an accident. I wouldn't expect any legislator to understand this, however. -- There are two kinds of people, those who lump people in groups and those who don't. Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (07/30/85)
>I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt >belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt >has been through an accident. > >I wouldn't expect any legislator to understand this, however. I'm not to sure about that, but wouldn't the injuries the person wearing the seatbelt be identifibly different from a person who was not wearing a seatbelt? In a high speed collision I would think a person wearing a seatbelt would have bruises across the waist and chest where the straps were. Also a person wearing a seatbelt would be unlikely to have suffered head injuries. Overall the idea of not paying off accident victim who weren't wearing seatbelts doesn't strike me as very practical. It would be nice if people who wore their seatbelts regularly could get lower rates, but I don't have a glimmer about how the insurance company could verify it.
jeff@gatech.CSNET (Jeff Lee) (07/30/85)
In article <2193@amdcad.UUCP>, phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: > In article <145@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: > >> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: > >> > >> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented > >> by wearing a seatbelt. > >> > >> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? > >> -- > >thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by > >practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it > >was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), > >was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. > > I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt > belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt > has been through an accident. This is true. If fact, If you are in a moderately severe accident it is recommended (at least by consumer reports) that you replace your seatbelts because they cannot absorb a second shock as well and could possibly fail. -- Jeff Lee CSNet: Jeff @ GATech ARPA: Jeff%GATech.CSNet @ CSNet-Relay.ARPA uucp: ...!{akgua,allegra,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,seismo,ulysses}!gatech!jeff
bill@persci.UUCP (07/31/85)
In article <2193@amdcad.UUCP> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes: >>> An alternate solution to heavy seat-belt laws: [...] >>> Insurance companies stop paying for injuries that would have been prevented >>> by wearing a seatbelt. [...] >>> Any legal objections? Anybody out there with the pull to support this? >>thing was proposed as an alternative. It got shot down primarily by >>practical considerations--If a non-seat belt user was in an accident, it >>was pointed out, all they had to do (assuming they were conscious), >>was to quickly buckle up their belts before the dust settled. > >I believe that if a seat belt user is involved in an accident, the selt >belt will stretch enough that investigators can easily tell the selt belt >has been through an accident. > Phil Ngai From experience, I can testify that this is true. It's surprising the kind of evidence that a trained investigator can find. I had an accident where I was rear-ended by a car massing more than twice mine, traveling about 35-50 MPH upon impact. I had my left-turn signal going (and my brakes on -OUCH!-), which was verified by the particular way the remnants of the bulb's filaments deposited themselves upon the remnants of the bulb! Anyway, why couldn't the insurance company simply nullify the policy if the owner of the policy sustained injuries that wouldn't occur if he had been wearing his belt? (I know, this merely narrows the margin where it is questionable, yet it becomes pretty small.) I dislike paying higher premiums because other people don't wear their belts. -- William Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (07/31/85)
> I'm not to sure about that, but wouldn't the injuries the > person wearing the seatbelt be identifibly different from a > person who was not wearing a seatbelt? In a high speed > collision I would think a person wearing a seatbelt would have > bruises across the waist and chest where the straps were. > Also a person wearing a seatbelt would be unlikely to have > suffered head injuries. > > Overall the idea of not paying off accident victim who weren't > wearing seatbelts doesn't strike me as very practical. It > would be nice if people who wore their seatbelts regularly > could get lower rates, but I don't have a glimmer about how > the insurance company could verify it. They don't even need to *try* to verify which of their customers actually wears their seat belts. All they'd have to do is to offer two types of insurance: seat-belted and non-seatbelted. The only difference would be that seat-belted would cost less, and wouldn't pay for injuries caused by not wearing seat belts. As <someone> above points out, there should be big differences in the types of injuries which occur so that a non-belted driver using belted insurance wouldn't be able to fool anyone by putting the belt on after the accident. "Yep. We found him sitting there, his seatbelt fastened securely, and a perfect impression of his face in the windshield." -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
michael@saber.UUCP (Michael Marria) (07/31/85)
> In article <783@burl.UUCP>, rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson) writes: > > My solution to seatbelt, helmet, anti-suicide, and other such 'preventative' > > laws is simple: get rid of them. You're going to tell me that I can't > > take a risk that endangers no one but me? You're going to tell me that > > I can't kill myself if I want to? Rubbish! > > While the risks may endanger no-one but you (perhaps), its not true that > they harm no-one but you. When you are injured, your insurance pays you, > and I pay your insurance company. You sit in hospital and use the last > all the costs, but it at least will save some of them. Remember > that society has an investment in you - you owe us! > > Robert Elz ucbvax!kre BULLSH*T!!!
gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) (08/01/85)
Discussion of having insurance not pay for accidents where driver was not wearing a seat belt. My reply that this was considered by Texas Legislature, but dismissed based on the theory that a driver could quickly buckle up. A followup pointing out that seat belts stretch. A confirmation that they do indeed stretch and... > If fact, If you are in a moderately severe accident it is > recommended (at least by consumer reports) that you replace your seatbelts > because they cannot absorb a second shock as well and could possibly fail. Points are well taken. Being basically a libertarian by nature, I had thought of the insurance non-payment plan as an alternative to the intrusive nature of a seat belt law, but couldn't come up with a counter to the "buckling up" after the fact argument. However, it does seem that from a legislative point of view, a variation on the original argrument could be used. Might not litigants argue that they really did have their seat belts on, but the accident wasn't severe enough to stretch them? This is all promising, but I think we need more information, and possibly a body of case law, to convince legislators... -- Gene Mutschler {ihnp4 seismo ctvax}!ut-sally!batman!gene Burroughs Corp. Austin Research Center cmp.barc@utexas-20.ARPA (512) 258-2495
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (08/04/85)
In article <150@batman.UUCP> gene@batman.UUCP (Gene Mutschler) writes: >on the original argrument could be used. Might not litigants argue that >they really did have their seat belts on, but the accident wasn't severe >enough to stretch them? This is all promising, but I think we need >more information, and possibly a body of case law, to convince legislators... If the accident wasn't severe enough to stretch the seat belts, then the medical damages ought to be very low. If litigant's face is broken from hitting the windshield, even a jury is unlikely to believe the seat belt was actually used. (where seat belt means combination lap/shoulder belt) -- My sister told me "I filled up my shoe tree so I knew it was time to stop buying shoes. Then our parents gave me some shoes so I had to buy another shoe tree. And then..." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/06/85)
In article <255@SCIRTP.UUCP> todd@SCIRTP.UUCP (Todd Jones) writes: >Also, what happens when I hit someone (my fault) and they didn't have >a seat belt on? Am I less liable because they didn't wear one? In some states you are. California used to be one, but I'm not sure if it still is. The concept involved is "contributory negligence". If they weren't wearing a seatbelt then their injuries are at least partly their own fault. Just passin' thru ... -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe