davy (10/08/82)
#N:pur-ee:2900007:000:699 pur-ee!davy Oct 7 08:38:00 1982 Saw an article in yesterday's paper about an insurance company (I think it was called GCI or something like that) which has a new policy that pays $10,000.00 on death if the insured dies in a car wreck and was WEARING seatbelts. There was a quote from some official of the company who said "We obviously don't want people to collect on this, and if they wear seatbelts, they won't." This company was offering the policy to people already insured with them (they only insure GM employees) for $2.00 a year. If you aren't a GM employee, you have to get a life insurance policy with one of their other companies, and then this policy will cost you something like $4.80 a year. --Dave Curry
daveb@reed.UUCP (David Billstrom) (04/17/85)
I thank Richard Carnes for his excellent summary of current research and conclusions about seatbelt usage. There's an excellent film available that communicates most of the same information (without assuming you're a high school student with an IQ of 20) called "Room to Live". I have never personally seen, nor has any other paramedic I know of ever seen, a fatality in an accident where *the seatbelt prevented the patient from living*. Never. The belief that the belt will prevent you from escaping a vehicle is a myth. Without the belt you probably won't be conscious enough to do any escaping anyway. It is possible and conceivable that the seatbelt could be the sole cause of your death, but the statistics aren't with it -- you literally have a better chance of dying by lightening. Another thing I've noticed from ambulance work is the number of times seatbelts don't make the difference between life and death, but rather the difference between calling your insurance agent or spending the next day or so in the hospital for observation, missing work, always having a bum knee, etc etc. Many minor accidents are "non-injury" for the belted driver, while the other gets an un-dramatic trip into the hospital (expensive) and loses time from work. The "cost to society" in terms of insurance rates, days from work, etc is probably as significant as work-related injuries. Those of you who find the life/death arguments a tad melodramatic might find these reasons more reasonable. I too like the alternative for mandetory seatbelts (but I'm not surprised such a good idea was expressed on the net). I'm not big on requiring people to live a certain kind of life, including self-preservation with seatbelts -- even though I try to convince everyone I meet to do so. The caveat is children, as I said in a previous article. Incidentially, I got this reply via mail: >From tektronix!decvax!decwrl!qubix!wjvax!jeff Thu Apr 11 19:37:08 1985 > >How about taking that fine for not having infant seats in the car >and giving the offender a seat...or better yet, make it a fix it >ticket where the offender has to show an infant seat installed in >the car along with a receipt for the seat (wouldn't want them to >borrow a neighbors seat for the day, now would we?). Second >citation would mandate a much stiffer penalty and no fix it clause. Now this makes sense as a progressive, rather than regressive way of dealing with reluctant or irresponsible adults. Nevermind that it doesn't help when the fine is issued AFTER an accident wherein the child is killed.
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (04/19/85)
> >From tektronix!decvax!decwrl!qubix!wjvax!jeff Thu Apr 11 19:37:08 1985 > > > >How about taking that fine for not having infant seats in the car > >and giving the offender a seat...or better yet, make it a fix it > >ticket where the offender has to show an infant seat installed in > >the car along with a receipt for the seat (wouldn't want them to > >borrow a neighbors seat for the day, now would we?). Second > >citation would mandate a much stiffer penalty and no fix it clause. > > Now this makes sense as a progressive, rather than regressive way of > dealing with reluctant or irresponsible adults. Nevermind that it doesn't > help when the fine is issued AFTER an accident wherein the child is killed. Good idea but it does bring up the issue of what are we going to do with all the children that are saved from being killed in auto accidents because of mandatory seat belts when their parents are killed because they are too stupid to wear them. I would use a :-) but there is unfortunately nothing humorous about it. David Albrecht General Electric
terryl@tekcrl.UUCP () (04/23/85)
>How about taking that fine for not having infant seats in the car >and giving the offender a seat...or better yet, make it a fix it >ticket where the offender has to show an infant seat installed in >the car along with a receipt for the seat (wouldn't want them to >borrow a neighbors seat for the day, now would we?). Second >citation would mandate a much stiffer penalty and no fix it clause. Actually, that's the way it works here in Oregon, me thinks. The fine for not having a kid in one of those infant seats is used to buy one.
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (04/25/85)
> Actually, that's the way it works here in Oregon, me thinks. The fine >for not having a kid in one of those infant seats is used to buy one. Where does one buy a kid? -- James C Armstrong, Jnr. ihnp4!abnji!nyssa Chap with wings there, five rounds rapid!