Boat seat belts

[Rick Murchison]

Originally Posted by DandyDon
Today maybe we do; maybe we need cars that won't run without all occupied seats belted?

Uh. No.

People have the right to be stupid if they choose. What we need is less litigation rewarding them when they are and more litigation that punishes them and I bet you'll see more people start taking personal responsibility.

How about this... car manufacturers are free to offer the "no-go without belts" option, and those who want it can buy it.
When I'm driving I remain the sole arbiter of "all folks belted in" before the machine moves, and when I'm a passenger I always belt myself in, so I wouldn't buy that option as it would be an unnecessary expense. Don would be free to buy it for his vehicle, should he feel the need.
Like helmet laws for motorcycles, I'd rather see a law that reads "if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet you can't sue anyone for head injuries; if you don't wear a seatbelt then you can't sue anyone for injuries from being ejected from the car, or from rattling 'round inside it." Insurance companies should be free to write discounted policies that say "no seatbelt, no payoff"/"riding motorcycle without helmet, no payoff."
Rick

 

[SC_Hoaty]

One potential drawback to the scenario proposed by Rick is that if the insurance companies are free to withold payment to injured folks (motorists, passengers, and riders), then the financial burden of caring for their injuries might get passed on to the taxpayer.

Freedom comes with responsibility, and decisions have consequences.

As long as I don't suffer the consequences of your decision, I don't care what you do. But if you are irresponsible, and I have to help pay for your care, I want a say in keeping my share of the burden to a minimum.

 

[Hockeynut]

Peter, do you have a pic of one of these high speed ferries that you want equipped with belts? I am curious what they look like.

Just throwin it out there.

 

[AfterDark]

Probably could have used some here.

 

[TMHeimer]

How about this... car manufacturers are free to offer the "no-go without belts" option, and those who want it can buy it.
When I'm driving I remain the sole arbiter of "all folks belted in" before the machine moves, and when I'm a passenger I always belt myself in, so I wouldn't buy that option as it would be an unnecessary expense. Don would be free to buy it for his vehicle, should he feel the need.
Like helmet laws for motorcycles, I'd rather see a law that reads "if you ride a motorcycle without a helmet you can't sue anyone for head injuries; if you don't wear a seatbelt then you can't sue anyone for injuries from being ejected from the car, or from rattling 'round inside it." Insurance companies should be free to write discounted policies that say "no seatbelt, no payoff"/"riding motorcycle without helmet, no payoff."
Rick

I agree with everything you say Rick. SC Hoaty's point that taxpayers might pay if insurance companies don't is suspect. An arguement in the "for seat belt" camp here in Canada is exactly that, with our socialized medicine. Am not sure how that translates to tax payers paying in the U.S.--somehow, he's probably right. But, seat belts prevent death, not necessarily injury. Death doesn't cost tax payers money. Injuries do. Granted, some of those injuries will undoubtedly be much less severe if the belt was on, thus way less costly. So who's going to do the survey to see how this all balances out for the tax payer?

 

[peterbj7]

Don't forget we're also talking about other people injured by the free-floating body of someone who didn't belt up.

 

[Rdahlgren45]

what happens when the boat capsizes(sp)?

 

[peterbj7]

Assuming you're uninjured, as is probable if you were belted in, you unclip the belt and escape the normal way. Most unusual for that to happen rapidly or without plenty of warning though.