This Is A Game Changer

[chipbennett]

I personally couldn't care less if someone I'm not responsible for chooses not to wear a seatbelt. If they want to take the risk of dying in a car crash, that's their business - not my business, nor the government's business. (The same holds true for motorcycles and helmets.)

Just don't make me pay to clean up the mess.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Just don't make me pay to clean up the mess.

And here we get to the point of the law.

Insurance companies lobbied hard for this. Very hard. And won with the legislation.

Those who are bankrupted with expensive post-accident care or who essentially become wards of the state with their medicare/medicade are burdens upon us all. The less burden upon the tax payer - the better....right?

So we have the conundrum of not wanting the government to take more in taxes... vs. the government mandating a seatbelt.

 

[chipbennett]

And here we get to the point of the law.

Insurance companies lobbied hard for this. Very hard. And won with the legislation.

Those who are bankrupted with expensive post-accident care or who essentially become wards of the state with their medicare/medicade are burdens upon us all. The less burden upon the tax payer - the better....right?

So we have the conundrum of not wanting the government to take more in taxes... vs. the government mandating a seatbelt.

Or change the law, and restore the concept of individual responsibility. Insurance companies should be free to indemnify themselves against injuries caused by failure to use a seatbelt. Taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of that failure, either.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Or change the law, and restore the concept of individual responsibility. Insurance companies should be free to indemnify themselves against injuries caused by failure to use a seatbelt. Taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of that failure, either.

I am not sure about this one. You would introduce a nasty little mess of defining the concept, fueled by lobbying money, and what happens when you have someone severely injured in a car that was smashed flat who happened not to be wearing a seatbelt, especially if the accident was caused by another driver of another vehicle? This could lead toward a situation similar with demanding that crime victims take any of a number of proactive measures to prevent crime before a criminal is held responsible including doors that meet certain standards being locked, valuables secured in a safe (like the California gun laws) or wearing a bulletproof vest in public.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Or change the law, and restore the concept of individual responsibility. Insurance companies should be free to indemnify themselves against injuries caused by failure to use a seatbelt. Taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of that failure, either.

On one hand, I'm all for an insurance company to stipulate things to that effect: Sorry, you weren't wearing your seatbelt, we're not paying for X, Y, and Z. But then that burden of paying for X, Y, and Z falls squarely on the rest of the taxpayers.

Anyone know if insurance companies refuse payment for claims involving excessive speed? I think they do for criminal behavior...IE not covering your car crash if you're fleeing from the police.

But this really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

 

[chipbennett]

I am not sure about this one. You would introduce a nasty little mess of defining the concept, fueled by lobbying money, and what happens when you have someone severely injured in a car that was smashed flat who happened not to be wearing a seatbelt, especially if the accident was caused by another driver of another vehicle?

So, I'm all for the parties entering into a contractual relationship to have complete control over the agreed-upon terms of the contract. If someone enters into such a contract, then they implied consent/agreement with the terms. If the seatbelt term is not agreeable, then get a different term (such as a higher rate), get the term modified (such as "injury directly related to failure to wear a seatbelt", rather than blanket indemnification, for example), or find an insurance company that offers different terms.

This could lead toward a situation similar with demanding that crime victims take any of a number of proactive measures to prevent crime before a criminal is held responsible including doors that meet certain standards being locked, valuables secured in a safe (like the California gun laws) or wearing a bulletproof vest in public.

I disagree. Insurance is a two-party contractual relationship to which both parties are privy. There is no such relationship between criminal and victim, because the victim is not privy to the terms of the relationship.

 

[chipbennett]

On one hand, I'm all for an insurance company to stipulate things to that effect: Sorry, you weren't wearing your seatbelt, we're not paying for X, Y, and Z. But then that burden of paying for X, Y, and Z falls squarely on the rest of the taxpayers.

Anyone know if insurance companies refuse payment for claims involving excessive speed? I think they do for criminal behavior...IE not covering your car crash if you're fleeing from the police.

But this really is a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

Why is that necessarily true? Even if it is true today, why must it remain/continue to be true?

 

[IndyDave1776]

So, I'm all for the parties entering into a contractual relationship to have complete control over the agreed-upon terms of the contract. If someone enters into such a contract, then they implied consent/agreement with the terms. If the seatbelt term is not agreeable, then get a different term (such as a higher rate), get the term modified (such as "injury directly related to failure to wear a seatbelt", rather than blanket indemnification, for example), or find an insurance company that offers different terms.



I disagree. Insurance is a two-party contractual relationship to which both parties are privy. There is no such relationship between criminal and victim, because the victim is not privy to the terms of the relationship.

This holds up only between the insurance company and the policy holder. What happens when you are driving your Pontiac Solstice down the interstate, I run over you with my semi, and even though you got smashed flat, horror of horrors, it is determined that you weren't wearing a seatbelt, therefore, it is claimed that no liability exists. That creates a situation in which the relationship is very similar to that with a criminal with the principal difference being that it is a matter of liability rather than criminal violation.

 

[chipbennett]

This holds up only between the insurance company and the policy holder. What happens when you are driving your Pontiac Solstice down the interstate, I run over you with my semi, and even though you got smashed flat, horror of horrors, it is determined that you weren't wearing a seatbelt, therefore, it is claimed that no liability exists. That creates a situation in which the relationship is very similar to that with a criminal with the principal difference being that it is a matter of liability rather than criminal violation.

Why would you, as the driver of the semi, not be civilly - if not criminally - liable for the injuries and damage that resulted from the accident you caused?

Also: if I'm the driver of the car, and I accept an insurance policy that completely indemnifies the insurance company for failure to wear a seatbelt, then it's my fault for assuming the associated risk. If I want different terms, I should only accept an insurance policy with terms I find acceptable. (With the caveat that insurance is now state-mandated, so a great deal of freedom of free-market forces no longer exists.)

Even in that case, though: why wouldn't I (or my estate) go after you, and your insurance company?

 

[Expat]

Be careful what you wish for. I can see the liberal mob pushing insurance companies to require sensible gun safety in their policies.

 

[SMiller]

You know what sucks is I wear my seatbelt and yet I have got 3 seatbelt tickets.

 

[IndyDave1776]

ven in that case, though: why wouldn't I (or my estate) go after you, and your insurance company?

That's my point. If you open the door for nonuse of seatbelts to be an exception, this is a problem area that will have to be addressed, particularly when dealing with those involved who are not party to the agreement that would make it a nice, neat little thing to settle.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Why is that necessarily true? Even if it is true today, why must it remain/continue to be true?

What other vehicle would there be to pay for someone's hundreds of thousands / millions of dollars worth of healthcare over their lives?

 

[Alpo]

So many Pro-Choice seatbelt advocates here. Why doesn't this carry over to Roe v. Wade? (You guys opened the can of worms.....)

 

[chipbennett]

What other vehicle would there be to pay for someone's hundreds of thousands / millions of dollars worth of healthcare over their lives?

I don't personally care. If I have no involvement in a given incident, then it is morally wrong to force me to pay for any part of it.

That said: in the hypothetical posed, the driver was driving a semi, so it is reasonably safe to assume that the driver was a commercial driver. So, not only can one go after the driver, and the driver's insurance company, but also the company for whom the driver was driving.

(And yes: I realize that the company bearing the liability for the actions of its drivers means that costs incurred for that liability eventually get paid by the company's customers. So, really, non-parties are still paying for it.)

 

[chipbennett]

So many Pro-Choice seatbelt advocates here. Why doesn't this carry over to Roe v. Wade? (You guys opened the can of worms.....)

What human beings are murdered by exercising the choice to wear, or not to wear, a seatbelt?

 

[Alpo]

You cut too fine a corner on that one, amigo. I don't agree with Roe v. Wade, but your logic certainly can't escape the obvious inconsistency.

 

[chipbennett]

You cut too fine a corner on that one, amigo. I don't agree with Roe v. Wade, but your logic certainly can't escape the obvious inconsistency.

What obvious inconsistency? Please explain.

Roe v Wade asserted that the heretofore non-enumerated constitutional protection for a "right to privacy" covers the right to murder unborn human beings who are still in utero. The right to privacy, whether constitutionally enumerated or not, does not treat the act of murdering an unborn human being the same as the act of wearing/not wearing a seatbelt. The latter act does not cause per se harm; the former act does (the taking of a human life).

 

[Alpo]

Your right to not use a seatbelt could jeopardize the lives of others occupying the vehicle or an innocent bystander or MV operator. I think there is satisfactory data supporting that observation as well as common understanding of the physics involved in accidents. To distinguish between limiting a woman's "choice" in the control of her own destiny and your choice in driving willy nilly through public thoroughfares seems a bit curious.

"Don't touch my lap, but I'm going to tell you what you can do with your uterus."

 

[Tactically Fat]

it is morally wrong to force me to pay for any part of it.

Agreed.

I also think it's also morally wrong to tell an adult to wear a seat belt.

Yet when someone can't pay their healthcare bills, no matter the cause, we all pay for it. Just the way it is.