From the producers of "The Smoking Ban," bring you "The Food Ban"

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

That's precisely the point, though.  If the law isn't on the books, then you can't enforce that level of liability.

[Diomedes]

Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident.  This includes:

• Health Insurance

• Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
• Life Insurance
• Accidental Death / Disability
• Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)

You made your choice.  I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.

Deal.

[Geowhizzer]

Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident.  This includes:

• Health Insurance

• Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
• Life Insurance
• Accidental Death / Disability
• Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)

You made your choice.  I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.

That makes too much sense, C.  The government and the "protect me from me" mentality of too many Americans won't allow that to happen.

[Eaglez]

Tell you what - I don't have a problem taking the seatbelt laws off the books, under one condition: if you are injured in a car accident while not wearing a seatbelt, regardless of fault, you forfeit all rights to insurance coverage related to injuries caused by the accident.  This includes:

• Health Insurance

• Liability (paid to you by the other driver's insurance)
• Life Insurance
• Accidental Death / Disability
• Worker's Comp (if injured on the job)

You made your choice.  I shouldn't have to pay the consequences for your decision.

Deal.

I think that's pretty much what everyone has been arguing about. The consequences of not wearing a seat belt should not be diffused over the entire driver base, but instead should be footed by the individual who made the decision to partake in that risky behavior; no one would care if someone else not wearing their seat belt didn't adversly affect them, but unfortunately it usually does.

Most states, however, put a cap on the 'avoidable consequences' defenses. So, if you do end up going to litigation, the defense that someone 'wasn't wearing their seat belt' will, at most, add about 5-10% of the fault apportioned to the party who did  not wear their seatbelt. So, for example, if the driver who wore their seatbelt was found to be 40% at fault and the driver who did not wear their seatbelt was found to be 60% at fault, the application of the law would reapportion fault to the driver who did not wear their seatbelt at either a 5-10% clip. So, after reapportionment it would be either 35% to 65% or 30% to 70%, depending on the cap put on by states.

Reasoning being is that in not all cases is the driver not wearing a seat belt being negligent, so they shouldn't automatically recover nothing just because they weren't wearing a seat belt; a person not wearing a seat belt could be traveling along prudently and then get hit by a fleshpophead flying by. However, the law also wants to provide an incentive for people to wear seatbelts in order to mitigate foreseeable damages and lower costs throughout society, so that is why such laws are implemented.

But, when the person not wearing a seat belt has higher medical bills and more severe injuries, they shouldn't be surprised to see their premiums shoot up as a consequence of their risky behavior; And, in order to protect themselves from increased risk, I don't see a problem for insurance companies to raise their premiums on those drivers because they are more likely to file those larger claims when/if they do get into an accident.

[Geowhizzer]

Eaglez, I would argue that by not wearing a seat belt, the driver is already being negligent.

[hunt]

i wonder what ben worthlessburger thinks about this issue.

[Eaglez]

True, they are being negligent (they breached a duty to protect themselves, essentially). But the problem arises like in my hypothetical, when a person not wearing a seatbelt is driving along cautiously and then gets rear-ended or hit by someone who is wearing a seat belt and is driving around negligently or borderline reckless. It doesn't seem to be fair to then shift all of the fault on the driver who, while not wearing his seat belt, was at least driving along with cautious, which is more to be said than the person who has his seatbelt on and is driving like a maniac.

That's why states institute caps on 'avoidable consequences', like not wearing a seat belt. We want to encourage people to wear seat belts to help avoid serious injury by providing an incentive to wear them (i.e. if you don't, you will be penalized when it comes to the allocation of fault in a comparative negligence state), but we don't, at least society made a collective choice, to not penalize that individual completely when they are completely absolved from fault. If a jury would say that the driver who wore the seatbelt is 100% at fault and the person who didn't is faultless, it wouldn't seem too fair to reduce the non-negligent seatbelt-less driver because by definition they are not negligent and hence not at fault.

So I don't think that not wearing a seatbelt should automatically shift all the fault on the person who doesn't wear a seatbelt, because you can have situations when they are not at fault for actually causing the harm (i.e. the actual accident). But, in circumstances where they are comparatively at fault for causing the wreck, then instituting the cap seems like a nice incentive to buckle up.

All this stuff is still in my head from my Torts exam. Torts sucks because you really have to be a completely litigious in order to be an effective tort litigator; theoretically you can make a lawsuit with some of the most inane facts -- depends on your perspective, but I think it's unhealthy for society to have that mindset.

[ice grillin you]

Arguing that something should be illegal so that insurance companies won't charge us more is unfathomable to me.

yeah its amazing

if youre gonna have seatbelt laws simply because X amount of people die (id like to see real statistics on the total number of people killed/hurt specifically because they werent wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident) not wearing one then we must have laws for all things related to preventative health maintenance

--all out 100% smoking ban
--all out 100% drinking ban
--all citizens will be given a governmental diet plan that they must follow
--jaywalking laws need to be strictly enforced
--mandatory twice a year doctor visits
--motocycles need to be banned
--a ban on all contact sports
ect...ect...ect...


where does it end?

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I thought an all-powerful government was good?!?  What, you want to fork over half your earnings in taxes, but you don't want them to tell you how to live your life?  Ha!  Not going to happen, sparky.

[ice grillin you]

What, you want to fork over half your earnings in taxes, but you don't want them to tell you how to live your life?

what does one have to do with the other

i pay my taxes and live a pretty damn great life

why cant i pay my taxes AND expect the govt to not make ridiculous laws like the seatbelt

[Eaglez]

I don't see what's so difficult to comprehend.

There doesn't need to be a law for any of those things. The problem is you want to avoid costs and essentially 'have your cake and eat it too'. You want to partake in risky behavior but not pay the costs associated with that risky behavior.

If you want to smoke, fine -- but don't be surprised when your health insurance premiums increase because you are a greater risk to develop cancer and other sorts of diseases associated with prolonged smoking.

If you want to not wear your seatbelt, fine -- but don't be surprised when your premiums increase.

And on and on and on...

What is unfair is thinking that because you want to increase your risky behavior I have to foot the bill because I'm risk averse. If I limit my risk there is no reason that my premiums should increase; but if you increase yours it seems fundamentally fair to increase how much you pay in order to reflect the cost of your risky behavior.

You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

IGY's plan:

1.  People mostly get to do what they want and live their lives.
2.  People do not get to do things that bother him, like smoking in restaurants where he's dining.
3.  The government collects as much tax revenue as possible from people.
4.  Despite the increased wealth, the government doesn't tell him what to do.
5.  The cost of any risky, questionable, lazy, unhealthy, or perverse behavior done by a select few is communally shared by everyone thanks to the big tax dollars being collected.

How am I doing so far?

[ice grillin you]

1.  People mostly get to do what they want and live their lives. - yes...is this rocket science?

2.  People do not get to do things that bother him, like smoking in restaurants where he's dining. - yes...people dont get to do things that risk my health (they can smoke but not near me...they can not wear a seatbelt but they cant drive recklesssly)...again this is not rocket science

3.  The government collects as much tax revenue as possible from people. - define as much as possible...i dont make a ton of money pay my required taxes and still live a great life...and id have no problem with paying more taxes if they more often helped people less fortunate than me

4.  Despite the increased wealth, the government doesn't tell him what to do. - i have no problem being told what to do by the govt as long as its within reason...the system will never be perfect

5.  The cost of any risky, questionable, lazy, unhealthy, or perverse behavior done by a select few is communally shared by everyone thanks to the big tax dollars being collected. - not ANY risky behavior...just SOME risky behavoirs...specifically ones that danger other people

[ice grillin you]

You make tradeoffs every day -- don't want higher insurance premiums? Wear a seatbelt; if not, don't be surprised to pay higher premiums because you are a greater risk to file a higher claim. Make an evaluation of what is more important to you; there is no such thing as a free lunch.


because someone disagrees with the seatbelt law doesnt mean they dont wear a seatbelt...i dont know what so hard to understand about that

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The part that makes no sense is that a more wealthy government will provide you with more freedom.

That's simply not going to happen.