I'm sorry....

[wiegie]

But that's not what he said now is it?

I almost typed up an explanation but then I figured it wouldn't be necessary.

[detlef]

But that's not what he said now is it?

 

For the record, I ALWAYS wear a seatbelt myself. I happen to think you're pretty foolish not to do so. Same as when I rode a motorcycle, I ALWAYS wore a helmet. That's not really the point though.

Depending on how you define endanger and depending on how dependent they are on you as a breadwinner and what kind of insurance you have, it's hardly a stretch now is it. Especially considering the artistic license one gets when quoting someone and dropping a snappy one-liner to dispute it.

 

I mean, if because of your vegetative state your family becomes homeless that would sort endanger them, wouldn't it?

[BigMikeinNY]

Here's a great solution for those 30 second trips. Freaking walk. No seatbelt, no gas, a little fresh air...

 

And carry home 15 bags of groceries on my back?

[Perchoutofwater]

And carry home 15 bags of groceries on my back?

 

Consider it your work out for that day.

[Kid Cid]

insurance companies could care less if you wear a seatbelt. they arent going to lose money. if they get stuck paying for someones injuries, the costs get passed on to the public with higher rates. they arent going to eat the loss by no means.

 

Just because they won't take a los it doesn't mean that their profits stay high. Higher payouts may mean higher rates which also may mean less customers hence less profits. This is not a zero sum equation.

[Grits and Shins]

Just because they won't take a los it doesn't mean that their profits stay high. Higher payouts may mean higher rates which also may mean less customers hence less profits. This is not a zero sum equation.

 

Agreed. If you've ever made an insurance claim you quickly realize that most insurance companies are not very happy about the prospect of paying out on a claim. Why do you suppose that is? It is because paying out claim directly impacts their bottom line. Yes, they can and do raise rates in an attempt to compensate for claims paid out but as Kid as said above higher rates can mean a smaller customer basis, less revenue and therefore less profit.

 

Surely nobody believes that insurance companies raise their rates directly proportional to the claims paid out the previous year in an attempt to maintain a status quo.

[Ursa Majoris]

Agreed. If you've ever made an insurance claim you quickly realize that most insurance companies are not very happy about the prospect of paying out on a claim. Why do you suppose that is? It is because paying out claim directly impacts their bottom line. Yes, they can and do raise rates in an attempt to compensate for claims paid out but as Kid as said above higher rates can mean a smaller customer basis, less revenue and therefore less profit.

 

Surely nobody believes that insurance companies raise their rates directly proportional to the claims paid out the previous year in an attempt to maintain a status quo.

Auto insurance is mandatory so there is no significant shrinking of the customer base. As for your last paragraph, of course they raise rates to compensate for what they pay out. What business doesn't? Since they're publicly traded, Wall Street insists on increased profit.

[westvirginia]

Auto insurance is mandatory so there is no significant shrinking of the customer base. As for your last paragraph, of course they raise rates to compensate for what they pay out. What business doesn't? Since they're publicly traded, Wall Street insists on increased profit.

 

Actually insurance isn't mandatory in every state, and quite a few will drive without it if they can. In GA they will suspend your license, but if you have moved in from out of state, or never registered the car here, they can't catch you, can they (I.e. the tons of immigrants, legal or not, that are here in the Gainesville area)?

 

Insurance actually uses actuaries to determine expected future payouts. That's what they base rates on. A freak weather thing that damages a bunch of cars might not cause much of a blip in payments, if any. Insurance companies can tell you how many people will die this year. They can tell you age, ethnicity, hair color, religion, health, and a bunch of other things. They just can't tell you which ones. So they make money betting against the spread.

[MojoMan]

Maybe what they should do is cite drivers who refuse to wear seat belts, but instead of fining them, which smacks of just another way to raise money, just warn them of the dangers and report them to their insurance company. Then let the insurance companies decide what to do with drivers who refuse to wear seat belts (i.e increase their rates accordingly). That way, my insurance would go down, as it should, and the drivers who refuse to wear seat belts would pay more, as they should. Same as with drivers whose cars have better safety features (side airbags, anti-lock brakes) - they get discounts.

 

While, personally, I am convinced that the cost:benefit analysis is overwhelmingly positive for seatbelt wearing and, since it is such a minor nuisance, I don't have a problem with the fuzz nailing "violators."

 

However, I do recognize the slippery slope nature of this kind of enforcement and I really like controller's idea.

 

controller for President in '12!!!

[dmarc117]

Actually insurance isn't mandatory in every state, and quite a few will drive without it if they can. In GA they will suspend your license, but if you have moved in from out of state, or never registered the car here, they can't catch you, can they (I.e. the tons of immigrants, legal or not, that are here in the Gainesville area)?

 

Insurance actually uses actuaries to determine expected future payouts. That's what they base rates on. A freak weather thing that damages a bunch of cars might not cause much of a blip in payments, if any. Insurance companies can tell you how many people will die this year. They can tell you age, ethnicity, hair color, religion, health, and a bunch of other things. They just can't tell you which ones. So they make money betting against the spread.

 

 

right, but if and when they get burned by that spread, they arent going to sit tight. they are going to recoup those losses by raising rates to everyone else.

[dmarc117]

While, personally, I am convinced that the cost:benefit analysis is overwhelmingly positive for seatbelt wearing and, since it is such a minor nuisance, I don't have a problem with the fuzz nailing "violators."

 

However, I do recognize the slippery slope nature of this kind of enforcement and I really like controller's idea.

 

controller for President in '12!!!

 

 

a president named controller?!?!? these hippies would go nuts!!!!

[detlef]

a president named controller?!?!? these hippies would go nuts!!!!

Wait a minute, as a leftist hippie, am in favor of an all-controlling government or not? You realize that you can only accuse me of one or the other.

[detlef]

And carry home 15 bags of groceries on my back?

You live 30 seconds from a grocery store? Do you live in a strip mall?

[MikesVikes]

And carry home 15 bags of groceries on my back?

 

Well if that's more convenient than buckling up, then by all means.

[Grits and Shins]

Auto insurance is mandatory so there is no significant shrinking of the customer base. As for your last paragraph, of course they raise rates to compensate for what they pay out. What business doesn't? Since they're publicly traded, Wall Street insists on increased profit.

 

Am I to understand that you believe once you acquire insurance you are forever required to stay with the same provider? You believe once an insurance company sets up shop it never fails?

 

Absolutely insurance companies raise rates to compensate for pay outs. But surely you see that as rates go higher that their existing customer base may shrink as customers seek to find better deals elsewhere or simply drop insurance altogether (even if it is illegal).

[yo mama]

And carry home 15 bags of groceries on my back?

Of course not. That's what wives are for.

[Egret]

You live 30 seconds from a grocery store? Do you live in a strip mall?

I live about a minute from one. Small towns are nice.

[Ursa Majoris]

Am I to understand that you believe once you acquire insurance you are forever required to stay with the same provider? You believe once an insurance company sets up shop it never fails?

 

Absolutely insurance companies raise rates to compensate for pay outs. But surely you see that as rates go higher that their existing customer base may shrink as customers seek to find better deals elsewhere or simply drop insurance altogether (even if it is illegal).

There are lots of insurance companies and they collude. Sure, you can save a few bucks here and a few bucks there but prior research I've done says their prices are as close relatively speaking as those of oil companies. After all, they're all working off the exact same data - why wouldn't they be close?

 

As for the shrinking customer base, I still don't think it's significant enough for them to worry about. The rates for everyone go up, say, 7% and pretty much everyone forks over because the cost / benefit analysis still makes sense to most people and the actual $$$ increase isn't that much. But that is a chitload of money when extrapolated across millions of people.

[SuperCharger]

I live about a minute from one. Small towns are nice.

 

I live in a subdivision that has it's own shopping plaza that includes a Publix grocery store as well and a few resturants and various stores like BlockBuster, a bank and a FedEx/Kinkos. I'm in suburbia.

[WaterMan]

We have had Click it or Ticket in my state for awhile. Not many police officers enforce it, but that's just another reason for them to be able to stop you to search your vehicle.

[TDFFFreak]

So if you believe the government has the right to tell you to buckle up for your own safety.

 

Do they also have the right to tell you not to eat saturated fats because it is a health risk? Do they have the right to tell you not to smoke because it damages your health? Do they have the right to tell you that you must wear sun screen to prevent skin cancer?

 

If not ... what is the difference?

No, but they have a right to tell you to buckle up so I don't have to clean up the blood from your body which flew threw your windshield and landed on my car.

 

Have you ever tried to get blood stains off a car? It's very inconvenient.

[Grits and Shins]

No, but they have a right to tell you to buckle up so I don't have to clean up the blood from your body which flew threw your windshield and landed on my car.

 

Have you ever tried to get blood stains off a car? It's very inconvenient.

 

So they must also have the right to tell you to put out your cigarette so I don't have to breathe your tainted air ... in addition do you know what a hassle it is to get the smell of your tobacco out of my clothes?

[The Holy Roller]

No, but they have a right to tell you to buckle up so I don't have to clean up the blood from your body which flew threw your windshield and landed on my car.

 

Have you ever tried to get blood stains off a car? It's very inconvenient.

 

I believe the Pulp Fiction boys could accomplish this.

[BeeR]

Whether I wear it or not should, not be the government's choice.

It's still your choice. You can wear the seatbelt or pay the fine.

 

Regardless of whether it is the law or not, I don't understand why people wouldn't wear a seatbelt anyway.

Stupidity, mostly.

 

Public Safety is a thinly veiled attempt to create more revenue for the State. It negatively afftects your personal liberties, those same liberties that our founding fathers thought enough of as to speak of them in our Declaration of Independence. Since then, the State (and you may use this term for any governmental entity you wish) has systematically stripped you of these liberties in the guise of the public good. All the while each and every one of you is complicit in it by not loudly voicing your displeasure at the polls, in print, on the street, and any where else your voice can be heard.

 

Vote Libertarian! The party of personal liberty AND personal responsibility!

as I was saying

 

 

Hate to break it to you, but the state is really not concerned with your well being but their own.

 

Forcing you to wear a seat belt is one way to protect themselves from potential law suits from your next of kin.

not wearing your seatbelt is simply irresponsible to your loved ones.

There you go.

[BigMikeinNY]

WOW!

 

Almost 2 years to the day I got pulled over again.