NWI Click it or ticket (till June 2014)

[Suprtek]

Because that is a whole different insurance policy that only covers 2 cleanings per year and 50% of work done on teethe, if that, and nothing for braces

Wrong answer. Its because the auto insurance lobby is much stronger than the dental insurance lobby.

 

[Suprtek]

I've been wearing a seatbelt, by my personal choice, for many years BEFORE this law was enacted.

I think the law is unjust.

To enforce the unjust law is a travesty.

To ignore seat belts and to not wear them is foolish.

To have a law that outlaws foolishness is both sad and wrong.

It removes individual responsibility and makes personal liberty a crime. This is wrong in every way. Even if it is right to wear a seatbelt, it is wrong to make people wear them.

Well said Sir.

 

[Snapdragon]

But people's foolishness does not only hurt them. It raises the insurance premiums of people who are less willing to engage in foolishness.

 

[Darral27]

But people's foolishness does not only hurt them. It raises the insurance premiums of people who are less willing to engage in foolishness.

Many things raise medical insurance premiums. The least of which is my not wearing a seatbelt. Will I beticketed next for my 32oz fountain drink, how about eating a double cheeseburger.
When you start justifying things in that manner you sound like one of bloombergs nannies which I don't think you are.

 

[KLB]

But people's foolishness does not only hurt them. It raises the insurance premiums of people who are less willing to engage in foolishness.

So the .gov should pas a law and collect fees from those that they can catch be foolish. Yeah, that helps the problem. The answer is almost never to have the government get involved.

 

[jbombelli]

Folks, sorry, it is the law to wear your seat belt. If you don't want to be stopped, wear the belt. Yes, you are the one directly affected if you get hurt because you weren't buckled, but if also affects EVERY driver with insurance. Insurance companies will not just absorb losses, they pass them on to others. Also, think of your families. I recently delivered a death notification of someone who was killed after being ejected in a crash and not wearing a seat belt. I watched many family members cry at their LOSS and had to think of a young child who lost a parent.

So you’ve become the loss prevention arm of the insurance companies?

 

[Snapdragon]

So where do we draw the line? Do we have no laws? Some laws? If so, which ones? Old school it and stick to the constitution only? And who decides?

 

[melensdad]

So where do we draw the line? Do we have no laws? Some laws? If so, which ones? Old school it and stick to the constitution only? And who decides?

How about people accept responsibility for their own actions?

Act foolish and pay the price.

Act in a responsible fashion and save a bit of coin.

Life insurance premiums are lower for non-smokers who don't ride motorcycles, scuba dive or skydive. Life insurance is more expensive for those who engage in risky behavior.

How about people who don't use seat belts simply pay higher rates for auto insurance? No penalty for those who wear them, no spreading the costs to all. Just individual responsibility and that preserves individual liberty.

I always support liberty.

I may engage in personal responsibility by wearing a seatbelt, but I don't do it because some silly bureaucrat or some do-gooder representative wrote a law that stripped me of my liberty. I wear a seatbelt of my own choice. If I choose not to wear one at some point it will be because I am free to do so and because I exercise my liberty to choose to be foolish. That is my right!

 

[Darral27]

So where do we draw the line? Do we have no laws? Some laws? If so, which ones? Old school it and stick to the constitution only? And who decides?

It really does not have to be one or the other. That is once again a nanny state argument, either total control or anarchy, no in between. Should we not be allowed to make our decisions, whether right or wrong? When our decisions have consequences on others than we need to discuss rational laws. I have no problem with DUI laws, murder should be illegal as should rape and many more. If i do not wear a seat belt that is my business, I am not harming you or anybody else.

 

[Snapdragon]

How about people accept responsibility for their own actions?

Act foolish and pay the price.

Act in a responsible fashion and save a bit of coin.

Life insurance premiums are lower for non-smokers who don't ride motorcycles, scuba dive or skydive. Life insurance is more expensive for those who engage in risky behavior.

How about people who don't use seat belts simply pay higher rates? No penalty for those who wear them, no spreading the costs to all. Just individual responsibility and that preserves individual liberty.

I always support liberty.

I may engage in personal responsibility by wearing a seatbelt, but I don't do it because some silly bureaucrat or some do-gooder representative wrote a law that stripped me of my liberty. I wear a seatbelt of my own choice. If I choose not to wear one at some point it will be because I am free to do so and because I exercise my liberty to choose to be foolish. That is my right!

And how do we determine which drivers don't wear seat belts so we can charge them the higher rate? Ask them? I'm sure that will be effective.

 

[Suprtek]

So where do we draw the line? Do we have no laws? Some laws? If so, which ones? Old school it and stick to the constitution only? And who decides?

We do. It may be indirectly and it almost always takes way too long for the process to work, but for now it still eventually works. That's what elections are for.

 

[Snapdragon]

We do. It may be indirectly and it almost always takes way too long for the process to work, but for now it still eventually works. That's what elections are for.

And, um, haven't we had elections? Isn't that how we got where we are now?

 

[Suprtek]

And how do we determine which drivers don't wear seat belts so we can charge them the higher rate? Ask them? I'm sure that will be effective.

If insurance companies decide to write their policies in such a way as to not fully cover or not cover certain claims if it can be proven a seat belt was not worn, I honestly have no problem with that. That would be legal commerce, not government intrusion.

 

[Suprtek]

And, um, haven't we had elections? Isn't that how we got where we are now?

That is a fact. It is also a fact that our system of government and our laws are always in a constant state of change from the same process. The very debate we are having now is how it starts and how it continues. That's how its supposed to work and the process is a great thing when used properly. That's how we can disagree with civility instead of punching each other in the face all the time.

 

[melensdad]

And how do we determine which drivers don't wear seat belts so we can charge them the higher rate? Ask them? I'm sure that will be effective.

Yes.

And, just like with life insurance, it is effective.

Get in an accident, smash your face on the windshield and then claim that you wear a seatbelt and your claim will be denied. That is a very effective way to 'self police' the liars.

With life insurance if you claim to be a non-smoker they test your blood for nicotine.

Hmmm, that works too!

And again, I vote for liberty. Oh, and common sense too.

 

[Snapdragon]

But then all those people who get brain damage from no helmet or no seatbelt and don't get their insurance claim paid will have to go on Medicaid.

 

[Suprtek]

But then all those people who get brain damage from no helmet or no seatbelt and don't get their insurance claim paid will have to go on Medicaid.

I don't like that any more than you do but do you really think a seat belt law is going to change that?

 

[melensdad]

But then all those people who get brain damage from no helmet or no seatbelt and don't get their insurance claim paid will have to go on Medicaid.

Or maybe their wives will nag them until they wear a seat belt?

Or maybe they have money in the bank and will have to pay their way?

Or maybe they have equity in their home and will have to take out a mortgage to pay for their hospital bills?

Why presume that WE must pay for their actions?

Oh, wait, there are laws that require every driver to have insurance. Yet not every driver does. And there are laws saying NO DRINKING AND DRIVING but still there are drunk drivers on the roads. Heck, I had a car that was destroyed by a drunk with no insurance! So how can I be convinced that a seat belt law is good?

 

[Snapdragon]

damn multiple posts

 

[Snapdragon]

I don't like that any more than you do but do you really think a seat belt law is going to change that?

I think it will help. But I suppose there will always be new kinds of stupid that we will have to regulate. The stupid is growing faster than we can keep up.