Seat Belt Laws

[nihil]

Hi,

I have stayed out of this because laws are different in different countries, however I will raise this point:

What are the insurance implications?

Over here, if you were not wearing your belt, that would be classed as "contributory negligence" and you would be lucky to get even 10% of your claim.

Just a thought?

[dalek]

Hi nihil

Canada, like the states in one respect has different laws when it come to the provinces, this one is from Saskatchewan:

What happens if you do not wear a seat belt? It is an offence not to buckle up. You could be fined if you fail to wear your seat belt or if you drive someone under 16 who is not properly fastened in. The fine is $125. You will also receive three demerit points for a seatbelt infraction. If this moves you into a negative safety rating or if you already have a negative safety rating you will have to pay a penalty of $25 for each negative point.

Not wearing a seat belt increases your chances of being injured in a collision. Statistics show that seat belts can decrease the chances of sustaining a serious injury in a traffic accident by as much as 50%. If you are injured in a collision while not wearing a seat belt you could be held partly responsible for your injuries, since you are required by law to wear a seat belt. Even if another person caused the collision and you decide to sue that person, you may not recover your damages in full. By neglecting to buckle up, you bear part of the responsibility for your own injuries if failure to wear a seatbelt has contributed to your injuries.

I am sure the others have similiar laws and or fines, our Insurance industry though is fairly convoluted as well when it comes to individual provinces, and I am sure that not only would it affect the claim, but also send premiums through the roof.

[KublaiKhan]

To restate my views from elsewhere: Nah. No reason to insist on regulation. It's just keeping people from doing themselves in, and the vast majority of those who would be maimed or killed by 'drunk drivers! o noes!' or something of that sort would be those who put themselves into the situation anyway.

Personally, I kind of wonder why anyone in the IT field who's had to deal with supporting clueless lusers would advocate anything that could keep said clueless types alive to pester them any longer....*wink*

[nihil]

KublaiKhan

I am afraid that your analysis is rater naiive. If the law says that you must wear a seatbelt and you do not, and get injured in an automobile accident, then this will automatically prejudice any claims against your automobile and health insurances. At best I would expect them to be severely reduced.

In general, seat belts reduce injuries as well, thereby reducing the cost of a claim. It also means fewer days off work, improving the gross national product, and spreading the tax burden.

So, whilst I have no sympathy for idiots, I am in favour of laws that reduce my automobile insurance, my health insurance and my tax liability.

I guess it is a "double edged sword" or "catch 22" situation?

[dalek]

Personally, I kind of wonder why anyone in the IT field who's had to deal with supporting clueless lusers would advocate anything that could keep said clueless types alive to pester them any longer

So they can stay "employed"

Seat Belts and Common Dog F**k= longer life....................... period.

food for thought.... how many children would not be around today to be adults, if the carseat had not come around.

An unrestrained child in a 50 km/h car crash would suffer the same consequences as a child dropped from a third-storey window. Put that kid in a car seat, and the chances of his being injured or killed fall by as much as 75 per cent - if that car seat is installed correctly.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/childcarseats/

This is the law as well, so for those against the seat belt law, would you be willing to risk your childs safety for your comfort??

[nihil]

Hi dalek hope you are having a good w/e.

What puzzles me about this "anti-seatbelt" thing is that the proponents seem to think it is some sort of infringement on their civil liberties?

That seems very strange as the whole motoring thing is based on rules and regulations?...........speed limits, parking restrictions, one way streets, traffic lights, defective vehicles, overloaded vehicles, bald tyres?

I cannot see one more (sensible) one making that much difference

[dalek]

Hi nihil

I am enjoying the weekend, tks.


I think what most people tend to forget, (and this is going to get a few individuals riled up), but the act of being allowed to operate a vehicle is in fact a "privilage" not a right, so yes you may think the seat belt law or the 50 Klm speed limit is an a**, but hey ,you don't get to decide.

Right now the big debate in Nova Scotia is the ATV's (All Terrain Vehicles), two young girls just recently lost their lives,http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2...313119-cp.html myself personally, if it's a motorized vehicle , then you should be required by Law to have a license.It may be a bit OT, but there are parrallels, and as I write this the RCMP are investigating the recent death of a 14 year old, who was not wearing a seatbelt when he flipped the car. He had a friend also 14 and his sister who is 16 with him, they survived.

The problem is that these kids live in the rural areas, and as is the practise in these places, young kids learn how to drive on the back roads (good idea in a way as there is no or hardly any traffic), but if you are out joyriding then this is the consequence.http://www.herald.ns.ca/

[JewishIntent]

What puzzles me about this "anti-seatbelt" thing is that the proponents seem to think it is some sort of infringement on their civil liberties?

I too feel this way a little. I believe that most people that feel this way, as i do, feel that while speed limits, traffic signal laws, and the like are all affecting something that helps prevent you from hurting others ie, not driving too fast and causing unsafe conditions, or signaling before a merge so you dont hit someone who happens to be mertging in your blind spot into the same lane. The seat belt laws however, exccept in the case of minors, only affect yourself. Wearing a seat belt has no affect on the safety of the people you hit or hit you but only yourself. A good example in this respect is parachutteing. It is illegal to parrachutte in most areas due to people on the ground, buildings, utilitie wires and the lies, so you don't hurt anyone or any thing. this is akin to the speed limit laws in my mind. It helps you do what your doing in a way that minimizes your chances of hurting someone else. The new seatbelt laws are almost like just outlawing the jump alltogether because even if you are doing it in a previously approved jump area, your chutte could still not open and you could die. Its just a simple matter of does the government have the right to tell you that you have to be safe when it only affects yourself, and I feel that the shouldn't be able to.

If the law says that you must wear a seatbelt and you do not, and get injured in an automobile accident, then this will automatically prejudice any claims against your automobile and health insurances. At best I would expect them to be severely reduced.

I'm not saying this isn't true, but I have never come accross this mattering where i live in Illinois. I have gotten into a couple accidents, both times buckled up,. and throughout the whole process there was never even the question of was i buckeled concerning my insurrance company. My brother also has gotten into a bad accident while he wasnt wearing his seatbelt, normally i would call him a dumbass right there but not wearing it actually saved his life, and everyone knew that he wasn't wearing it, cop who wrote the report, insurance agent, other person, etc., and it didn't affect his claim at all.

[nihil]

JewishIntent

Perhaps I should point out that dalek and myself come from countries where the emergency services and the A&E healthcare is funded by the taxpayer. People who do not wear seatbelts cost us money.

In your case, it should help to keep your insurance premiums down? If there is no legal requirement then you pay the price that way. As soon as it becomes law it will interest the insurance company, believe me!

[JewishIntent]

Perhaps I should point out that dalek and myself come from countries where the emergency services and the A&E healthcare is funded by the taxpayer. People who do not wear seatbelts cost us money

I suppose if that were the case where I am then i would have to agree with the law since at that point it would affect me if retard A gets into an accident with that guy T and isn't wearing a seatbelt, and i guess the only real reason that i have an issue with the law is the fact that except for those few cases were you physically fly out of your car and then hurt someone due to not buckleing up wearing a seabelt vs not wearing one doesn't affect anyone but yourself.