Seatbelt Laws

[A18]

...

[Redefeatbush04]

As you all know from the "how many times have you been arrested thread", I was hit with one of those fascist seat belt laws. Abolish them. I wear my seatbelt 9 times out of 10, but regardless, it is your own personal choice whether you put your life in danger or not. As long as you are not endangering the lives of others, I don't see why it is a big deal.

[Gabu]

I don't know why anyone would choose not to wear a seat belt, but as long as you don't kill someone else in the process, I don't see why you should be forced to wear one.

[badnarikin04]

Get rid of them. Like John Dibble says, there is a system of social darwinism. Those who are dumb enough not to wear a seatbelt are the ones most likely to die early.

How people can't realize that the speed displayed on the dash is the speed that their bodies are traveling at goes over my head.

It's also one's personal choice not to wear a seatbelt.

[Engineer]

The problem with you not wearing your seatbelt is that it causes my insurance rates to go up.  People who don't wear seatbelts sustain greater injuries in a car accident and the insurance companies have to shell out more money to cover them.  The insurance companies recoup their losses by raising insurance rates on everybody.  It would be great to have a question on your insurance application asking if you wear your seatbelts, and if you don't you pay a higher insurance rate, but people would lie about it to save money.  Therefore we have the seatbelt law, in order to help curb high insurance rates.

In this case, your actions (not wearing your seatbelt) does effect others.

[John Dibble]

Yeah, let idiots die. We have too many as it is.

I'm fine though with laws requiring children to wear seat belts, though. After they're 18, let them make their own decision on the matter.

[John Dibble]

In this case, your actions (not wearing your seatbelt) does effect others.

I understand your argument, but there is a problem - virtually all actions you take somehow affect someone else to one degree or another. If I take the last cookie, someone else can't have it. Since the effect is indirect, I don't think we should legislate it.

[A18]

You're free to switch to an insurance company that won't cover damages inflicted while someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

[Gabu]

In this case, your actions (not wearing your seatbelt) does effect others.

If I take the last cookie, someone else can't have it. Since the effect is indirect, I don't think we should legislate it.

I disagree; I'm going to run for Senate so I can propose a constitutional amendment banning people from taking the last cookie!

[A18]

Because BC is a state now...

[Gabu]

Because BC is a state now...

Senate, Parliament, whatever.

[Mikem]

You're free to switch to an insurance company that won't cover damages inflicted while someone wasn't wearing a seatbelt.

I do not know of any such policy.  Please provide the policy exclusion language.

[A18]

If there was enough demand for it, there would be one.

[Engineer]

So, if I get insurance with a company that doesn't cover unseatbelted people and the other guy has the same policy (because it's cheaper) and he doesn't wear his seatbelt and we get in an accident and he's injuried, who pays for it?  By youir definition, nobody does. 

Except the insurance company or the government.

[John Dibble]

So, if I get insurance with a company that doesn't cover unseatbelted people and the other guy has the same policy (because it's cheaper) and he doesn't wear his seatbelt and we get in an accident and he's injuried, who pays for it?  By youir definition, nobody does. 

Except the insurance company or the government.

I think what he means is if you don't wear a seat belt, and you get hurt, then your insurance company does not have to pay for it. If someone hurts you but they don't wear a seat belt and you do, their company still has to pay for your injuries.

[Mikem]

If there was enough demand for it, there would be one.

you have much to learn about insurance underwriting.  That isnt how it works. 

so what happens if car A crosses the median and hits car B.  Car B driver is not wearing seatbelt.  You are saying that Insurance company A would not cover the damages caused to the driver.  But they have to, because their insured was negligent in operating his vehicle and caused damage to driver B.  They are liable as a matter of common law.  Insurance company A and Driver B have no contract so they cannot enforce this on them. 

See doesnt work, insurance is to cover your negligence and cannot enfore clauses upon a third party.

[A18]

Read John Dibble's post. If you don't wear a seat belt, and you get hurt, then your insurance company does not have to pay for it. If someone hurts you but they don't wear a seat belt and you do, their company still has to pay for your injuries.

[Mikem]

no you read his again, you will see that in his scenario the person being indemnified was wearing a belt.  so what if you wernt wearing a belt and someone hit you and they were at fault?  that is my scenario.  It is totally different.

[A18]

Then the person who hit you would still have to pay.

[Mikem]

so they are personally liable, not their insurance?  YOU GET NOTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE POOR!  why do you think insurance is mandatory.  you just arnt making any sense.  why is it the other persons fault that you arnt wearing a belt.  they would be loosing coverage through no fault of their own

[A18]

Their insurance company would still cover it.