Seatbelt Laws: A violation?

[loseyourname]

I don't understand what is suuuuuch a big deal about clicking that darn seatbelt into place and not complaining about having to wear it. I for one feel like something is off when I am not wearing a seatbelt in the car.. like something is missing... Just put on the darn thing and stop complaining!

read this...


Then read this:

Wow. The guy died for his beliefs. I personally think this is a pretty stupid law. I always weat my seatbelt, but if you want to take a risk, take a risk. It's your right to be an idiot if that's what you want. The only stipulation should be that if you choose to not weat a seatbelt, you waive your right for medical expenses to be covered by insurance and you waive your right to hold the driver of the second vehicle (if it's a two vehicle crash) liable for your expenses as well. The first stipulation doesn't even require a law; it can be enacted by the insurance companies themselves.

[Anonymouse]

Wow. The guy died for his beliefs. I personally think this is a pretty stupid law. I always weat my seatbelt, but if you want to take a risk, take a risk. It's your right to be an idiot if that's what you want. The only stipulation should be that if you choose to not weat a seatbelt, you waive your right for medical expenses to be covered by insurance and you waive your right to hold the driver of the second vehicle (if it's a two vehicle crash) liable for your expenses as well. The first stipulation doesn't even require a law; it can be enacted by the insurance companies themselves.

Indeed .

[Siggie]

Can't those injured people then be taken to county hospitals because their insurance isn't paying? Who pays for those?

And Mousy -
The owners of the road could raise the cost because they know people have to pay it couldn't they? People need to get to work, school, etc. We don't have that much of a choice.

Here's my response to that guy...

This attitude is a product of our individualistic culture. It's all about the individual rights and not about what's best for the whole.

Some people, through faulty reasoning of their own, won't wear seatbelts and the law is there to force those people to do so and to force them to make their children wear them as well. It's there to save lives, not to take away the right of the person who doesn't know enough to want to protect himself.

You can dig up lots of stories where seatbelts did more harm than good, but the truth is that they make up a very very tiny fraction of the cases. As a whole, they save lives.
Car manufactures didn't just decide to spend the extra money to put them in because they had an excess of profit. They did so because the research overwhelmingly showed that they save lives and prevent injury. The same kind of research that led to different windshields and steering columns, so as not to tear up your face, smash your skull and brain, or impale you.

[loseyourname]

Can't those injured people then be taken to county hospitals because their insurance isn't paying? Who pays for those?

They can purchase medical insurance that does pay. What I meant was the car insurer should not have to pay. If they haven't purchased an insurance plan that will cover them, they're screwed. Maybe those doctors that are willing to perform plastic surgery on people in South America for free can help them. Otherwise, they should have been wearing their seatbelts. Acting like a damn fool should carry consequences, but they don't have to be legislative consequences.

[Anonymouse]

The owners of the road could raise the cost because they know people have to pay it couldn't they? People need to get to work, school, etc. We don't have that much of a choice.

What? You obviously have no idea how market forces operate do you? People need to get to work, school, etc., precisely why government monopoly over roads has resulted in deteriorating quality, as is the case of all monopolies. You are forced to buy the product, even if it is not the best.

[Siggie]

What? You obviously have no idea how market forces operate do you? People need to get to work, school, etc., precisely why government monopoly over roads has resulted in deteriorating quality, as is the case of all monopolies. You are forced to buy the product, even if it is not the best.

If I knew I wouldn't have said that as a question.
For the same reason can't the cost be increased? For example gas... no matter how expensive it gets we're buying it.

[Anonymouse]

If I knew I wouldn't have said that as a question.
For the same reason can't the cost be increased? For example gas... no matter how expensive it gets we're buying it.

The costs cannot be increased simply because people want to increase them. In the scheme of no regulations, competition drives down costs, whereas a monopoly, on the other hand, can only increases costs. As you have no competition, there is nothing to compare it to. Furthermore, since it is a monopoly there is no way of knowing whether the costs exceed the benefits of the product. Thus in a monopoly as this, the producer does not need to be concerned about efficiency, as there are no competitors. It can increase costs, all at the expense of quality, but it won't matter because there is a guaranteed customer, due to its coerciveness.

[Siggie]

The costs cannot be increased simply because people want to increase them. In the scheme of no regulations, competition drives down costs, whereas a monopoly, on the other hand, can only increases costs. As you have no competition, there is nothing to compare it to. Furthermore, since it is a monopoly there is no way of knowing whether the costs exceed the benefits of the product. Thus in a monopoly as this, the producer does not need to be concerned about efficiency, as there are no competitors. It can increase costs, all at the expense of quality, but it won't matter because there is a guaranteed customer, due to its coerciveness.

I don't have a business or econ background so please explain that for me...
What competition? Are we going to have to have parallel roads?
Like when I go to valley I have to take the 118... there isn't another highway to take.
There are several different gas stations, but all the ones close to each other have the same price. Why don't any of them lower their prices so they can increase the number of customers they have?
Other states pay much much less... why does CA, especially LA have such high prices? Isn't it the same gas that's imported anyway?

[nunechka]

siggie, the point is exactly what you are saying...
"Isn't it the same gas that's imported anyway?"

it is the same gas and it is the same owner... monopoly is a situation in an industry where there is only one owner...

for example the TV stations there (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and of cource FOX) the first 4 are owned by only 4 very tight group of people and the last one is owned by a maniac... so no wonder we get to see the same sh!t on all the channels all the time, except for fox which shows the most outragous shows (and great shows, that i watch all the time like the simpsons, and king of the hill) and at the same time does the best job at brainwashing people to beleive out right lies... how do they do it? the 5 of them get together and decide te fate of the dumb people... some of us who have a healthy sense of criticism toward government, corporations, etc... dont have a problem blocking it out, but most cant distinguish the truth...

since there is no competition, there is no need to improve... and since there is no competition there is no need to lower costs to get more sales, ITS THE SAME COMPANY!... and as for the poor little taxes... look some people who dont see a problem in the oil market like to say "HEY look at the taxes you are paying" so as to divert us away from the real problem...

we pay more taxes because we have the largest population in the US per per square foot per person per capita... we have more people here then in any other state, it costs more to keep up our roads, electricity, water (which we have to get from other states, we dont have our own) etc... and unlike other states (not counting NY, and other coastal states) we care about the people in our state... siggie your post on the south was funny, and one of the reasons it was funny was because it was true... so unless we also want to be part of the south, then we must not be like them, and pay a little more taxes to have a more educated public, better roads, better companies working here, so that we can continue our lifestyle...

[Siggie]

So, the 50cent or more difference in our prices and other state's prices are due to higher taxes?