woods@sri-unix (08/18/82)
I agree with those who say that insurance payments should be adjusted according
to whether the driver had available/was using safety devices in his car.
I never though of that before, but it's a great idea! I too always insist that
my passengers wear the seat belts, occasionally much to their annoyance because
they always say it's no skin off my butt, which right now is true, but if it
affected my insurance I would have a "valid" reason for insisting.
GREG (ucbvax!menlo70!hao!woods)jay (08/19/82)
#R:hao:-27500:hp-pcd:2400001:000:986 hp-pcd!jay Aug 19 08:22:00 1982 While the idea of an insurance company paying only if you are wearing restraints sounds good on the surface, there is a potential problem with it. Suppose in a major accident ( in this case a major accident is defined as one in which one or more persons are seriously injured) one of the injured persons was not wearing their seat belt. Based on the previously mentioned idea, this person would not receive any compensation from either insurance company. Since the injuries are serious, the person will quickly exhaust all personal funds as hospital care is not inexpensive. At this point they aren't going to kick the person out in the streets, but instead somebody (most likely some arm of the government) will pick up the tab. This means that you and I end up paying anyway. One possible solution would be a halfway measure. The insurance company would pay any required medical expenses, but would pay no punitive or compensatory monies. What do people think about this?
wagner (08/21/82)
Suggestions have been made on this newsgroup that insurance not be payable to people not using seatbelts. I think that, to be fair, it would be necessary to show that lack of seat belt was relevant to the extent of the damage. (it wasnt my idea, I cant take credit, some else said it first here, I have forgotten who). However, this might be hard. I have received at least one comment that people dont generally hit other cars when they become projectiles. The point has perhaps been missed. If you see someone flying through the air, even not very near you,|you are likely to freak out and do something stupid. Just think how many accidents are caused by rubber-neckers after all the action has completed in the main accident. Imagine what people who cant keep their eyes on the road would do with projectile people. And utzoo!laura is right - (from experience, unfortunately) if you are involved in accidents where people die, you have nightmares and other problems for months after. I was lucky - there was no way I could be considered in the wrong. What about cases when you werent sure? Like you hit the brakes instinctively and froze when you saw the person flying through the air, and the resulting secondary accident killed someone else. Would you be able to cope with guilt? Without turning this into a demonstration of "I survived a scarier accident than you did" childishness, I wonder how many anti-seatbelt types (for their own choice, not freedom-of- choice-for-others advocates) here on the net have had experiences with major accidents (serious injury - requiring hospitalization). Seems I became a bigger advocate of seatbelts after seeing what they could and couldnt do. What do others think? Michael Wagner, UTCS