Seatbelt Laws...

[bigred90gt]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

Choosing not to wear a seatbelt is not a personal decision that does not impact others. It's a decision that over the total number of people that choose not to wear seatbelts costs me, and the rest of the insured drivers on the road significant amounts of money in the form of insurance premiums. That is unless insurance companies want to base rates on seat belt usage, and not pay injury claims to those who say they wear their seatbelt but get into an accident without one on (yeah, lawyers would allow that).

How is it that you think that someone not wearing their seatbelt, will increase your premiums? If you get into an accident, and claim it on your insurance, YOUR premium goes up, not mine.

I too dispise the seatbelt law. Speeding laws are justifiable, DUI laws are justifiable, wreckless endangerment laws are justifiable, but seatbelt laws are just ignorant. If I do not wear my seatbelt, it does not effect anyone but me. If I get into an accident, I die, not you.

That being said, I wear mine everywhere I go. I used to live in an apartment with a corner store right across the street, when I drove there, I wore my seatbelt. It was so close, I could have hit it with a football if I so chose. I have had it engrained in my head since I was old enough to remember that seatbelts are improtant. My dad used to tell us, when we were too young to know any different, that the truck wouldnt start without all the seatbelts buckled.

[silver_pilate]

I've had the experience of being in an accident that should have killed with my seatbelt on or off. I drove a truck into a ditch at 80 mph. Upon the initial impact, if I hadn't been wearing my seatbelt, I would probably be fertilizing a field of corn right now after being thrown through the window. After my seatbelt prevented me from being ejected, the impact launched my truck into the air where it rolled over 180 degrees onto it's back, and landed upside down on the roof. The cab of the truck was folded back so that the highest point on my truck once they turned it back upright was the top of my bench seat. My seatbelt, which just saved my life, was now more likely to have killed me by holding me erect while the cab of my truck was folded back and flat with the bed. I should have been decapitated at the level of my shoulders. Somehow (I believe it was the grace of God, other's will believe it's luck), I survived with only a concusion to show for it.

As for what I think: I always wear my seatbelt. I'm more likely to die without it than with it. I don't know that it's the government's responsibility or right to obligate that I wear it, but it is the law, and I will do my best to abide by it. Even if it were overturned, I'd still wear my seatbelt.

In reguards to insurance rates: general trends in claims and payouts cause general fluctuations in the rates ALL consumers pay. If there are more injuries caused by people not wearing seatbelts, then there are more medical expenses, and thus more payouts by the insurance companies. Reguardless if it's your fault or the fault of the injured driver, it's not just your single accident that will cause rates to increase, it's the summation of accidents and claims accross the nation over years of time. Do you think your parents started paying the same amount for insurance 30 years ago that you do now? The increase is part inflation, part increased medical, repair, and labor costs, and part increased expense of overall claims. Not to mention payouts of life insurance claims for those killed in accidents that seatbelts could have saved.

Good thread, and good points all around.

--nathan

[Unit 5302]

Originally Posted by bigred90gt

How is it that you think that someone not wearing their seatbelt, will increase your premiums? If you get into an accident, and claim it on your insurance, YOUR premium goes up, not mine.

I too dispise the seatbelt law. Speeding laws are justifiable, DUI laws are justifiable, wreckless endangerment laws are justifiable, but seatbelt laws are just ignorant. If I do not wear my seatbelt, it does not effect anyone but me. If I get into an accident, I die, not you.

That being said, I wear mine everywhere I go. I used to live in an apartment with a corner store right across the street, when I drove there, I wore my seatbelt. It was so close, I could have hit it with a football if I so chose. I have had it engrained in my head since I was old enough to remember that seatbelts are improtant. My dad used to tell us, when we were too young to know any different, that the truck wouldnt start without all the seatbelts buckled.

Typical. Just like people that go to the doctor constantly to get their fair share out of their medical insurance, the lack of macro economics consideration is quite present with your logic.

Insurance companies base their rates on historical experience. You getting into an accident and suffering a far greater injury because you weren't wearing a seatbelt causes the insurance company thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars. That payout becomes part of their claims experience and is paid for by all of their insureds. Since auto insurance is required by law, I am forced to pay more money for your stubborn and rather ignorant decision. Have you ever looked at what your "uninsured motorist" portion of your insurance policy adds up to? We're not talking peanuts here.

If you cause an accident that resulting in $50,000 worth of damage, the insurance company is not going to increase your rates $50,000 are they? You don't pay for your insurance coverage. You pay for a portion of the entire pool of insureds coverage, and in return, the insurance company agrees to cover you.

[Rev]

Originally Posted by bigred90gt

My dad used to tell us, when we were too young to know any different, that the truck wouldnt start without all the seatbelts buckled.

That actually was true sometime around mid to late '70's. It was called a "seat belt interlock". The front seats had weight sensors in them. If a person was seated in the front seat without the seat belt buckled, it worked like a neutral start switch without the car in neutral or park. The car wouldn't start without buckling up. These contraptions lasted only a short time (a few years?) and were always causing problems. You could defeat them by buckling the belt and then sitting on it, but alas, that was more trouble than actually using it.

And come to think of it, They actually fixed it in the next year or so after the governmental mandate so that the seat belt had to be slightly extended (unreeled enough to cover a skinny belly) when it was buckled to stop that trick.

Historical note: Rear seat belts were an optional extra in my car. I do have them though.

Rev