How's This for Irony? - Page 2

Fudge Armadillo · 01-12-2005, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Driving without insurance is and should be against the law because that action has the ability to impact many other people in very negative ways. Driving without a belt is the driver's problem.

Out of curiosity, would you still believe this if seatbelt use was not required by law?

Kitsune · 01-12-2005, 02:19 PM

Yep. All the insurance companies have to do is include a simple clause that the insured waives their right to medical compensation should they not wear their seatbelt. The evidence at a crash scene is easy to detect and is always noted, even today.

Really -- if you get smashed head-on and are ejected through the windsheild, you don't deserve to get anything for your choice. Seatbelt uncomfortable? It wrinkles your clothing? Maybe an insurance company would pop up that will insure you and they'd charge a fortune. Think of how much you'd have to pay in that event! Smokers already pay higher medical insurance rates, so those of a non-seatbelt wearer could be five or six times what seatbelt wearers pay and I think that is entirely fair. I'm sure people are eager and willing to line up to pay that much for their own comfort when riding in an automobile. If they're willing to risk serious injury and their lives in the name of convience, why not hemmorage money too?

Fudge Armadillo · 01-12-2005, 02:22 PM

Should insurance companies also refuse to pay claims for people who were involved in accidents while talking on a cell phone?

Kitsune · 01-12-2005, 02:36 PM

Sure, why not? If its in the policy and you sign it, its valid.

Compared to a bare-bones policy, I pay a lower rate because:

I store my car in the garage.
My vehicle has airbags.
My vehicle has anti-lock brakes.
I do not own a sports car.
I've never gotten a ticket.

I'm much less likely to have my car stolen, to sustain serious injury, and even get into an accident. People who drive two-seater convertibles with turbo-charged engines are taking a huge risk, so they pay more. Elect to not wear a seatbelt? You better pay more. If its a clause in your contract and you get into an accident without wearing a seatbelt? You sure as hell better pay more to compensate. Any sane insurance company would tack on a massive fine for violating a basic safety policy.

(Note: My rates are higher than other people because of some other odd items. I'm single, I'm male, I'm under twenty-six years of age, I live in Florida, etc. Some of these aren't even my choice and I'm still included in a "high-risk" catagory, but I accept it and I pay for it.)

Fudge Armadillo · 01-12-2005, 02:41 PM

Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim?

Kitsune · 01-12-2005, 02:59 PM

Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim?

That's a good question, actually. I don't have kids, so I have no idea how the policy reads for children passengers. I think most car seats have child-proof buckles, but once they're old enough to ride normally, there's no way to provide proof that the adult buckled them in beforehand. I thought kids in the car were under their parent's medical policy, not car insurance?

Interesting aspect of the law: I know in many states the driver is at fault if the passenger is found to not be wearing a belt. Sometime ago in FL, (and still currently in GA) when you could be pulled over for your passenger not wearing a seatbelt just as well as you could for not wearing it, I wouldn't even start the car if someone riding to lunch with me refused to put it on. I didn't want a ticket!

Clodfobble · 01-12-2005, 03:15 PM

If the child is killed, there's no medical bills to pay for him anyway.

I wonder if that factors into the "more costly emergency room bills" statistic in general. It would seem that non-seatbelt wearers would be killed more frequently, and thus result in fewer medical bills than seatbelted people who required some amount of hospital care. But perhaps non-seatbelted folks, when they do make it to the hospital, require so much more care that it overshadows the total dollar amount of the seatbelted citizens.

OnyxCougar · 01-12-2005, 04:30 PM

It's the responsibility of the driver to ensure all passengers are obeying the laws of the state. Period. "I didn't know" doesn't work.

mrnoodle · 01-12-2005, 04:31 PM

Clodfobble, the latter is true, I would think. Someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is more likely to be seriously injured in a fender-bender, of which there are millions more each year than high-speed collisions/rollovers/etc.

Cyber Wolf · 01-12-2005, 05:18 PM

As bright as this kid supposedly was, I think he was a bit off with the concept of choice. The way his article reads is that people don't have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt and have lost the ability to make that decision. This isn't the case. You always have the choice to or not to buckle up. The only thing the law does is punish the ones who are caught, it doesn't make you unable to drive off without buckling up.

It's just like drinking and driving. After drinking, you have the choice to get behind the wheel or not. If you do, you run the risk of (at the least) getting pulled over and ticketed/jailed for drunk driving or (at the worst) killing yourself and/or someone else. Sure, you could get home relatively safe and sound but that's not the point.

Lack of choice isn't what folks like this guy are really crying about, it's the consequences of the choice made. He didn't want to live with the consequences, and that's exactly what ended up happening. The only way you would actually not have the choice to drive without buckling is if the vehicle you drive is set up so that it will not start UNTIL the driver's seatbelt is buckled.

Unfortunately, he chose the wrong chalice and was destroyed. Being booksmart doesn't mean you know what's good for you.

Radar · 01-12-2005, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Yes, but a Libertarian would say do away with the (partially) socialized healthcare too, that way society wouldn't be paying for it.

Correct.

Also it really doesn't matter what the insurance company would do. What they will or won't cover is between you and them when you make a contract. If they make a stipulation in your policy that anyone killed while not wearing a seatbelt is not covered, and you agree to it, you shouldn't get paid.

dar512 · 01-12-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Unfortunately, he chose the wrong chalice and was destroyed. Being booksmart doesn't mean you know what's good for you.

He chose ... poorly. [love that line]

plthijinx · 01-12-2005, 09:43 PM

he made a choice and died as a result. personally, i wear my seatbelt because 1. it makes me feel more comfortable/secure and 2. i believe that it is safer. in the airplane, whether i'm the pilot or i'm on a major carrier as a passenger, i always wear my seatbelt, funny thing about turbulence......

anyway, he gambled and lost. sucks to be him.

garnet · 01-13-2005, 02:56 AM

Smart kid, and I think he had good points. But I think he was off the mark on a few things, including the following:

"If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers."

Is he saying that it isn't worth $138 million to save 6,100 lives? It's pretty hard to to put dollar figures on a human life, but I personally think that's a pretty good investment.

xoxoxoBruce · 01-13-2005, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512

Society feels it has the right to specify the use of seat belts because society also pays a price:

So the argument that society should not intrude because it only affects me is a fallacy.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are bureaucrats with next years funding as their prime concern. They'll lie their ass off to make themselves seem important. When the numbers don't add up to their story, they change the counting guidelines.
Car-A hits car-B and shoves it into parked car-C. The person in car-c has been drinking. That is an alcohol related accident, according to the NHTSA.
The NHTSA mandated airbags way to powerful. People started getting killed but it took years for them to change their position and allow 2nd generation bags.
The NHTSA claimed the best way to save gas was a 55mph limit, which would save 3% nationally when in reality having everyone inflate their tires to the proper air pressure would have saved 6%.
They fought tooth and nail against raising the 55mph limit because of the carnage it would create. When that didn't happen they started adding pedestrian and bicycle deaths in to bring the numbers up.

The NHSTA is a classic case of "Figures don't lie but liars can figure."

The The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is often quote in articles as the "Institute for Highway Safety" conveniently leaving the Insurance Industry connection out.

The Highway Loss Data Institute is another Insurance Industry baby.

Don't get me started on red light cameras and the heaps of horseshit they're piling on there.

01-12-2005, 02:22 PM	#18
Fudge Armadillo What's the matter with you? Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 30	Should insurance companies also refuse to pay claims for people who were involved in accidents while talking on a cell phone? __________________ "You be the captain, and I'll be no one." --Kasey Chambers

01-12-2005, 02:41 PM	#20
Fudge Armadillo What's the matter with you? Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Michigan Posts: 30	Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim? __________________ "You be the captain, and I'll be no one." --Kasey Chambers

01-12-2005, 04:30 PM	#23
OnyxCougar Junior Master Dwellar Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Kingdom of Atlantia Posts: 2,979	It's the responsibility of the driver to ensure all passengers are obeying the laws of the state. Period. "I didn't know" doesn't work. __________________ Impotentes defendere libertatem non possunt. "Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." ~Franklin D. Roosevelt

01-12-2005, 04:31 PM	#24
mrnoodle bent Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: under the weather Posts: 2,656	Clodfobble, the latter is true, I would think. Someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is more likely to be seriously injured in a fender-bender, of which there are millions more each year than high-speed collisions/rollovers/etc. __________________ Sìn a nall na cuaranan sin. -- Cha mhór is fheairrde thu iad, tha iad coltach ri cat air a dhathadh

01-12-2005, 05:18 PM	#25
Cyber Wolf As stable as a ring of PU-239 Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: On a huge rock covered in water, highly advanced moss and 7 billion parasites Posts: 1,264	As bright as this kid supposedly was, I think he was a bit off with the concept of choice. The way his article reads is that people don't have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt and have lost the ability to make that decision. This isn't the case. You always have the choice to or not to buckle up. The only thing the law does is punish the ones who are caught, it doesn't make you unable to drive off without buckling up. It's just like drinking and driving. After drinking, you have the choice to get behind the wheel or not. If you do, you run the risk of (at the least) getting pulled over and ticketed/jailed for drunk driving or (at the worst) killing yourself and/or someone else. Sure, you could get home relatively safe and sound but that's not the point. Lack of choice isn't what folks like this guy are really crying about, it's the consequences of the choice made. He didn't want to live with the consequences, and that's exactly what ended up happening. The only way you would actually not have the choice to drive without buckling is if the vehicle you drive is set up so that it will not start UNTIL the driver's seatbelt is buckled. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong chalice and was destroyed. Being booksmart doesn't mean you know what's good for you. __________________ "I don't see what's so triffic about creating people as people and then getting' upset 'cos they act like people." ~Adam Young, Good Omens "I don't see why it matters what is written. Not when it's about people. It can always be crossed out." ~Adam Young, Good Omens Last edited by Cyber Wolf; 01-12-2005 at 05:21 PM.

01-12-2005, 02:19 PM	#17
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Yep. All the insurance companies have to do is include a simple clause that the insured waives their right to medical compensation should they not wear their seatbelt. The evidence at a crash scene is easy to detect and is always noted, even today. Really -- if you get smashed head-on and are ejected through the windsheild, you don't deserve to get anything for your choice. Seatbelt uncomfortable? It wrinkles your clothing? Maybe an insurance company would pop up that will insure you and they'd charge a fortune. Think of how much you'd have to pay in that event! Smokers already pay higher medical insurance rates, so those of a non-seatbelt wearer could be five or six times what seatbelt wearers pay and I think that is entirely fair. I'm sure people are eager and willing to line up to pay that much for their own comfort when riding in an automobile. If they're willing to risk serious injury and their lives in the name of convience, why not hemmorage money too?

01-12-2005, 02:36 PM	#19
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Sure, why not? If its in the policy and you sign it, its valid. Compared to a bare-bones policy, I pay a lower rate because: I store my car in the garage. My vehicle has airbags. My vehicle has anti-lock brakes. I do not own a sports car. I've never gotten a ticket. I'm much less likely to have my car stolen, to sustain serious injury, and even get into an accident. People who drive two-seater convertibles with turbo-charged engines are taking a huge risk, so they pay more. Elect to not wear a seatbelt? You better pay more. If its a clause in your contract and you get into an accident without wearing a seatbelt? You sure as hell better pay more to compensate. Any sane insurance company would tack on a massive fine for violating a basic safety policy. (Note: My rates are higher than other people because of some other odd items. I'm single, I'm male, I'm under twenty-six years of age, I live in Florida, etc. Some of these aren't even my choice and I'm still included in a "high-risk" catagory, but I accept it and I pay for it.)

01-12-2005, 02:59 PM	#21
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim? That's a good question, actually. I don't have kids, so I have no idea how the policy reads for children passengers. I think most car seats have child-proof buckles, but once they're old enough to ride normally, there's no way to provide proof that the adult buckled them in beforehand. I thought kids in the car were under their parent's medical policy, not car insurance? Interesting aspect of the law: I know in many states the driver is at fault if the passenger is found to not be wearing a belt. Sometime ago in FL, (and still currently in GA) when you could be pulled over for your passenger not wearing a seatbelt just as well as you could for not wearing it, I wouldn't even start the car if someone riding to lunch with me refused to put it on. I didn't want a ticket!

01-12-2005, 03:15 PM	#22
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	If the child is killed, there's no medical bills to pay for him anyway. I wonder if that factors into the "more costly emergency room bills" statistic in general. It would seem that non-seatbelt wearers would be killed more frequently, and thus result in fewer medical bills than seatbelted people who required some amount of hospital care. But perhaps non-seatbelted folks, when they do make it to the hospital, require so much more care that it overshadows the total dollar amount of the seatbelted citizens.

01-12-2005, 09:43 PM	#28
plthijinx Master Dwellar Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 4,197	he made a choice and died as a result. personally, i wear my seatbelt because 1. it makes me feel more comfortable/secure and 2. i believe that it is safer. in the airplane, whether i'm the pilot or i'm on a major carrier as a passenger, i always wear my seatbelt, funny thing about turbulence...... anyway, he gambled and lost. sucks to be him. __________________ For your dreams to come true, you must first have a dream.

01-13-2005, 02:56 AM	#29
garnet ... Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 657	Smart kid, and I think he had good points. But I think he was off the mark on a few things, including the following: "If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers." Is he saying that it isn't worth $138 million to save 6,100 lives? It's pretty hard to to put dollar figures on a human life, but I personally think that's a pretty good investment.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)