abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (abeles) (02/08/85)
Driving is not a right, but a privilege. Unfortunately, it's impossible to get along without driving for most people today. But driving has certain inherent dangers and those dangers entail expenses. Insurance is the only solution to pay for those expenses. Insurance means that we all pay if you don't wear your seat-belt. So you should be forced to wear it IF you want to drive. Nobody is forcing you to drive. I don't think it would be practical to have different rates for those who wear seatbelts, not any more practical than it would be to have different roads for those who wear them.
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (02/11/85)
> Driving is not a right, but a privilege. Unfortunately, it's impossible > to get along without driving for most people today. But driving has > certain inherent dangers and those dangers entail expenses. Insurance > is the only solution to pay for those expenses. Insurance means that > we all pay if you don't wear your seat-belt. So you should be forced to > wear it IF you want to drive. Nobody is forcing you to drive. What is the matter with insurance policies that refuse to pay off to anyone who is injured while not wearing a seatbelt. Do you ever stop to think of non-governmental solutions? > I don't think it would be practical to have different rates for those who > wear seatbelts, not any more practical than it would be to have different > roads for those who wear them. Why wouldn't it be practical to have different rates for those who wear seatbelts (which is different from my suggestion above)? There are different rates for different ages... There are different rates for different vehicles. People who have completed "safe driving" courses are frequently eligible for different rates. --Cliff [Matthews] {purdue, cmcl2, ihnp4}!lanl!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
albert@harvard.ARPA (David Albert) (02/12/85)
> Why wouldn't it be practical to have different rates for those who wear > seatbelts ...? > > --Cliff [Matthews] Isn't it clear that such a rate structure could never be enforced? If you were presented with the choice of paying a higher rate or saying you wore a seatbelt, which would you do? Sure, maybe the insurance company could refuse to pay if you were found dead in your car with your seatbelt off. But could they prove you hadn't taken it off after the accident? And if it were on, could you prove that you hadn't put it on at the last minute -- thus removing your hands from the wheel and contributing to the accident -- to avoid losing your insurance? -- "...sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." David Albert ihnp4!ut-sally!harvard!albert (albert@harvard.ARPA)
mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) (02/13/85)
Why do we have laws about on which side of the road we should drive? Shouldn't we have the freedom to decide for ourselves ?:-)
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (02/17/85)
In article <742@erix.UUCP> mike@erix.UUCP (Mike Williams) writes: >Why do we have laws about on which side of the road we should drive? >Shouldn't we have the freedom to decide for ourselves ?:-) Yes. Of course, driving on the wrong side of the road will make your insurance premiums *VERY* high (cost of car/month, or greater!), and being on the wrong side of the road otherwise will void your insurance. And it's (usually) easy to find out if you were on the wrong side of the road after an accident! :-) <mike