Seat Belt Laws - The Latest Ad Campaign

POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Tuesday, June 7, 2005 02:46
VIEWED: 9635
PAGE 5 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 5:20 PM

There is a conundrum over private (risky) decisions leading to social costs: an imbalance between responsibility versus authority.

The crack-addicted woman who has child after child
The vegetable motoryclist who didn't wear a helmet
The person who smokes to express their rebellion and gets cancer (that was the way cigarette mfrs marketed their wares to women)
The obese person who is treated for diabetes

In all cases, the costs are borne by others, either in the form of higher taxes or higher insurance premiums. One way to re-balance the responsibility and authority is to either

(1) charge risk-takers higher insurance premiums or
(2)limit the payout to those who take risks.

In the case where neither can be done- such as the crack addict who produces many children (and the fathers cannot be found to pay child support- after all, THEY engaged in risky behavior too!) then socieyt necessarily needs to step in and remove that person's authority, since they have no way of meeting their responsibilities.

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 6:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ilizede:
Refusing to wear a seatbelt because you refuse to be a sheep is moronic, albeit, your choice.

Ok, I was gonna be done, but I hear this kind of response so often and it just drives me nuts.

First of all, you are entirely missing the point. I'm not refusing to wear seat belts. I'm refusing to grant someone else authority over my personal decisions regarding my safety. I might wear them, I might not. But it's MY decision.

Second, under the law that you are all cheering for it's most decidedly NOT my choice. That's what I'm complaining about.

Dong Ma?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 6:43 PM

So, if it is your decision, do you also agree to (say) a 60% payout on medical costs if evidence show you were not wearing a seatbelt and you were injured? (I assume a factor can be developed that shows and approximate average cost-savings for wearing seatbelts.)

SERGEANTX

Thursday, June 2, 2005 7:31 PM

I'm assuming my health care costs (100% of them) are the responsibility of myself or my family (through insurance or other means).
As a slight tangent, this my biggest concern with the various universal health plans being proposed. They would inevitably lead to micromanaging people's private health and safety decisions, as your assumption illustrates.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JCKNIFE

Thursday, June 2, 2005 10:52 PM

I'm with you on this one, Sarge--I don't care for the .gov telling me what to do "for my own good." So while I make sure my kids are buckled in, I sometimes do and sometimes don't wear one myself.

I'm also generally against helmet laws.

I do, however, carry a gun for the same reason that most people wear seatbelts. Not expecting to need it, but just in case.

SIGNYM

Thursday, June 2, 2005 11:51 PM

But let's say the insurance company makes it policy against full payout for non-seat-belted injuries, or for people who are found driving drunk. Or they decide to increase premiums for the obese, or for people who smoke. Or they reimburse insured who have air bags. If there isn't some sort of parsing, the cost is spread equally among ppl who take safer options, and those who don't. While I realise that insurance companies are theoretically in business to spread "risk" (altho in fact they are in business to make a profit- but that's another story...) the "risk" they are spreading has generally been thought of as the unavoidable who-could-have-foreseen-it calamity, not as a result of personal choices. Once personal choices come into the equation, then it seem less fair to spread avoidable as well as unavoidable risk.

SERGEANTX

Friday, June 3, 2005 12:44 AM

Sounds good to me Signym. That's really what they ought to be doing. Insurance companies exist to assess and deal with risk. They can limit their risk by writing more exclusive policies, but they have to attract a decent number of customers to make the whole thing work.

But, that's not what they're doing. Instead, as the biggest lobbyists for seat belt laws and similar legislation, they're essentially persuading the government to do their job for them.

The problem is, if the insurance companies made these calls themselves, consumers would still have some choice in the matter. Consumers could decide how much intrusion they were willing accept in exchange for low rates. But why bother trying to find the right balance to please your customers? Far easier to lobby government and just force everyone to play ball. They make a boatload more money and we're all safer. Everyone wins, right?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RUE

Friday, June 3, 2005 1:38 AM

'You pays your money, you takes your choice.'

It would be interesting if insurance companies did accident investigations to determine the costs and benefits of seatbelt use. Then there would be real numbers on this particular issue.

So, to pursue how this might go in real life.

Suppose it turns out that on the whole set belt use is associated with reduction of injury.

How to account for this?

Suppose companies offer two policies, one for seat belt users - with a lower premium, and the other for those who don't use seat belts - at a higher premium.

When ppl go for insurance, many will claim to be seat belt users, even if they aren't, in order to get the lower premium.

Given that, there would have to be a disclaimer in the policies that those found not having worn a seat belt on accident investgation would have some reduced payout, or perhaps have their policy voided completely (in accordance with whatever accounting factors are determined by the insurance company).

In the situation where a non-seat belt user (with a seat belt policy) faces devastating medical costs, the incentive to cheat is increased, and therefore the costs to the insurance company of simply running the business goes up (increased fraud surveillance).

I'm sure everyone has some horror story of how a legitimate insurance claim of some type was dragged on and on. This would make it worse. Costs go up and the process slows down, even for those making legitimate claims. So in some ways, those not using seat belts would still cost the seat belt user more. (Still assuming seat belt use saves on medical bills overall.)

And if the non-seat belt user needs medical care more expensive than they or their family can afford, it creates another issue for which no solution has been discussed.

Anyway, I HAVE to go. There are other scenarios to run through, and there is still the idea that it would pay society to foot the bill for risky individuals, that there are other social benefits to be gained. But that's for some future date.

JASONZZZ

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:09 AM

Ok. But back to my original thing with making well informed and well educated choices. If we get rid of that law tomorrow, how exactly will you go about assessing each situation to make sure that you would be making the correct one?

I am just wondering how you would and how each of us would be able to make an informed choice. An informed choice here would require knowledge and understanding of at least fundamental calculus level physics involves collision and basic mechanics, some trigonometry, at least some basic statistics, and some way of tracking the litany of likely collision and non-collision scenarios.

On the legal side, you actually do still have a choice in obeying the law or not. You'll just have to face a civil penalty rather than a physical one.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But at the same time I can not conscionably recommend that someone shouldn't use a seatbelt because it only works part of the time.

But nobody is recommending this. Not even me.

By all means, recommend seatbelts. Recommend to your heart's content. Just don't FORCE seatbelts. Let people choose without coercion.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

HARDWARE

Friday, June 3, 2005 6:58 AM

Rue,

Your argument about increased insurance costs is fatally flawed thanks to the insurance business.

Airbags save lives, but they also increased insurance costs. You see people who would have been killed in collisions prior to air bags have been surviving. What was not known prior to air bags adoption is the collateral injuries that people suffered in previously unsurvivable collisions.

For example, one of the drivers involved in the very first airbag to airbag equipped collision suffered a fracture in one of the small foot bones of her left foot. Without the airbag in her car she would have eaten the steering wheel and the responding officer thought he had two fatalities based on the conditions of the cars. If there had been two fatalities the driver at fault's insurance would have paid out the benefit for wrongful death (varies by state) and paid the cost of the car and that would have been the end of it. Now this driver will require medical intervention and there will be a pain and suffering award. Net result; lives saved but additional costs.

FWIW I don't want a government dictating what my actions will be, even if they are actions I choose to perform. IMHO the younger generations are beginning to behave like zombies. Never question authority, do as they tell you. March to glorious worker's cubicle farm #2073 and be happy in your work. Work will set you free after all.

The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE