jfh@sri-unix (08/16/82)
This is in response to Gil Pratt's comments. I use my seat belts ALWAYS, and I resent the government forcing me to spend several hundred extra dollars for a device which is effective only in a head-on collision. The comments about your insurance company having to pay for persons who don't use a restraint device are actually the heart of the matter! Anyone injured in an auto accident, who was not wearing seat belts, should not be able to collect one dime from the insurance company. Similarly, motorcycle riders should have the option of wearing helmets, but if they get their heads bashed in in an accident the insurance company shouldn't have to pay. This puts the responsibility for safety squarely where it belongs -- with the individual! On the other hand, to maximize freedom of choice, the government should require that air bags be available to those who wish to purchase them. Fran Heidlage duke!phs!jfh
trb@sri-unix (08/16/82)
Could someone explain something about insurance? Why doesn't insurance take into account the amount of responsibility a driver has taken when involved in an accident? I don't drink alcohol or take illegal drugs, and I always use safety belts, but I'm single, male, and under 25. I pay high insurance premiums. I wonder why I can't tell my insurance company that I'd be willing to have my deductible jacked up $1000 if I was in an accident where I was intoxicated or not wearing a safety belt. I do have certain bad driving habits; my favorite is driving above speed limits. I think it would be nice if I could tailor my coverage to take these quirks into account, if a person was a drinker, a speeder, a safety-belt non-user, or whatever, that person's policy could be specially tailored. I'm paying high premiums because many people don't act as responsibly as I do. Why don't insurance companies base their coverage rewards upon what responsibility the driver has taken? Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491