Carl Fisher wrote:
But that's the rub. When a bozo without a seatbelt gets into an accident, their injuries are likely to be much greater than they would've been had they had it on. No problem (for you and me) if the person is able to pay their increased medical expenses out of their own funds. But if they don't have adequate insurance (and it seems the dumbest people don't), then their care comes at taxpayer expense. Even if they are well-insured, the extra cost comes out of the insurance company's pool, which ends up raising rates for everyone- same deal. So multiply that by the number of idiots in your area, and your share of the bill really starts to add up. As you can see, allowing some kinds of risky behaviors does end up affecting other people's lives.
I've seen research quoted that says seatbelt versus no seatbelt is basically a statistical wash on the money side for insurance companies. Why? Because if fewer people wear seatbelts, more people just *die* in accidents rather than having injuries that they survive.
But legislators then contend that "good, we didn't care about money anyway, we care about *saving lives*" when in reality they only care about the revenue those tickets generate.
Which is all hooey to me since the next thing they'll want to do is legislate away Coke machines. After all, eleven people per year (or some such annoying number) die trying to shake them so drinks fall out. *sigh*
To me it should be enough for the federal government to legislate our cars be built with safety in mind, including personal safety devices. They can even legislate that school systems are *required* to teach us about said equipment, including how and *why* to properly use them (including child safety seats...teach people early!). But they shouldn't tell me what *I* have to do, even if there were some statistical reason why insurance costs more for everyone. I mean if that were the only reason then let's raise the driving age to 18. Or 20. I think we'd all agree that increasing the average maturity level of drivers would cause fewer accidents. Okay, I believe that last statement, and I *still* don't support the driving age change. I would support more required education for drivers, though.
I'm a motorcyclist who also does *not* support helmet laws, though I'd never ride a bike without one. There's definitely data there that shows insurance costs are *increased* due to helmet laws because more people survive bike accidents with them, whereas most die without them. Motorcycles are definitely an area where more education is needed. Dealers also shouldn't be allowed to sell them to people with no motorcycle license. At the very least they shouldn't be allowed to ride them off the showroom floor when they purchase! But they are...and go ask Barnette's Suzuki how many Hayabusa's out of the first twelve they sold were not totalled in the first two weeks of each bike's life. I think it was one. Two of them happened within a mile of their store or something. None of the riders had test ridden the bike (few motorcycle dealers allow that anyway) and I'm fairly certain only two or three of that twelve even had motorcycle licenses. No one wants to point that kind of thing out to legislators, though, because we'd just end up with horsepower limits or something similarly stupid.
I'm rambling now. Must stop. I just think we need smarter laws. Which would result in fewer laws.
--Donnie
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
. Several months later we noticed the check had not been cashed. It has been over a year and the check still has not been cashed.