dembry@hplabs.UUCP (04/19/85)
Actually, a very good alternative to seat-belt laws is to allow car-insurance firms to sell two types of policies: seat-belt wearers and non-seatbelt wearers insurance. If you have seatbelt wearers insurance, your rates would be lower since you will most likely not be as badly injured in a crash. However, if you have this type of insurance and you are injured while not wearing your seatbelts, then the insurance firm is off the hook wrt medical/death payments and you cannot sue for damages. Thus, we have preserved freedom of choice while at the same time making people responsible for their own actions. Paul Dembry
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/03/85)
> Actually, a very good alternative to seat-belt laws is to allow > car-insurance firms to sell two types of policies: seat-belt > wearers and non-seatbelt wearers insurance. If you have > seatbelt wearers insurance, your rates would be lower since you > will most likely not be as badly injured in a crash. However, > if you have this type of insurance and you are injured while not > wearing your seatbelts, then the insurance firm is off the hook > wrt medical/death payments and you cannot sue for damages. > Thus, we have preserved freedom of choice while at the same time > making people responsible for their own actions. > Paul Dembry I think only conservative fuddy-duddyness is holding up insurance companies on this. In fact, the Inter-Insurance Exchange of the California State Automobile Assocation (AAA in northern California and Nevada, to the rest of you) already offers a 10% reduction in premiums if you promise to use seatbelts. I don't know if it is legally binding if you get in an accident without a seatbelt. Certainly sounds like a good idea. I suspect the reason that the big insurance companies that form the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety haven't done so is because they would drive away a lot of customers that way. It's lots easier to lobby Congress and the States to pass seatbelt and airbag laws so they don't have to take the heat from upset customers.
2141smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (05/04/85)
> > if you have this type of insurance and you are injured while not > > wearing your seatbelts, then the insurance firm is off the hook > > wrt medical/death payments and you cannot sue for damages. > > Thus, we have preserved freedom of choice while at the same time > > making people responsible for their own actions. Step 2: Not only is their own insurance off the hook, but everyone elses insurance company must be off the hook for the negligence of anyone who is injured while not belted up. My insurance company should not be required to pay any claim from the "unbelted injured" unless they bought unusual risk coverage for such cases.