I don’t wear me seat belt when puttering around town. As soon and I hit a road that is 45mph or higher I put it on.
Wife bitches at me constantly about it when she is in the car. Yesterday she stated that our health insurance will go up if I get a ticket for it. Might there be some truth to that statement in certain states or with certain insurance carriers?
In those states that don’t require helmets when riding a motorcycle, is there any effort to identify risky riders and adjust insurance rates in that case?
FYI, my husband and kids got hit head on while driving on a less than 45mph road. The other driver had a seizure, accelerated, lost control and hit my family. Came close to pushing them off the road (the guard rail ptotecting them from the ditch below bent, but held) and totaled the car. Seat belts and airbags saved them from any real harm.
Even if you don’t care, you’re wife does, so do it for her.
I have no clue about the health insurance claim, though auto insurance would probably go up.
I can’t speak universally, but my insurance carrier (State Farm) only use “moving” violations in determining risk for insureds. My wife got a ticket a few years ago for having a headlight out and that didn’t show up on our profile when I moved to a different state. (The speeding ticket she got right after that, of course, DID show).
It probably depends on how your state reports these violations and your carrier. I don’t see any reason why they couldn’t or shouldn’t use it, as it would expose them to more liability should you be in an at-fault accident and your bodily injury expenses would be higher. But, of course, driving with a burned out headlight could increase accident chances and expose them, not only to personal injury, but to liability as well.
If they give an air bag discount, I don’t see why a “no seat belt” surcharge wouldn’t be appropriate.
It appears that he is asking about his health insurance, not auto insurance. I have never heard of a health insurance provider charging rates based on the insured’s driving record, although I suppose it may be possible.
D’oh! Yes, I should read for comprehension. Thanks. In that case, I agree with you. Health insurance companies never(?) ask about after the fact injuries or even major criminal violations. They typically ask if you smoke or engage in other risky behaviors like skydiving, but I don’t believe that health insurance companies “rate up” for anything that happens after the original policy issues. Certainly not group health insurance.
I don’t know if they do (a simple call would have settled it), but it would be sound policy. Insurance is all about pooling risk. I don’t want to be in the same risk pool as someone without the sense to wear a seatbelt.
On the one hand, I don’t think insurance shouldn’t pay for harm caused by stupidity. But on the other hand, if that’s a demonstrated pattern, they should be able to take that into account and adjust rates accordingly.
But if he spent his mornings in the garage drinking paint thinner, you would be okay with pooling your risk with him? I’ve never seen a question on an insurance form about drinking paint thinner. Should health insurance investigate every possible “less than ideal for health habits” that we all have?
Of course not, that would be as stupid as not wearing your seatbelt :rolleyes:
Until we get UHC or a functional replacement, we’re stuck with the broken system we now have. That system is based on people with similar risk profiles sharing costs (yes, that’s an oversimplification). Can they control for all risk factors? Of course not. Does that mean they can’t/shouldn’t control for any risk factor? Of course not.
There was an article about 10 or 11 years ago in the New Yorker about the way that increased use of airbags in modern vehicles had also resulted in a decline in seatbelt use among some groups of people. These people apparently felt that the presence of the airbags made seatbelts unnecessary, especially at lower speeds.
The safety specialists interviewed in the article pointed out, however, that airbags work far better in conjunction with seatbelts, because the seatbelt helps to keep the person’s body in position so that it actually comes into clean contact with the fully-inflated airbag. People who don’t wear seatbelts can be thrown around more, especially by any sideways motion, and are far more likely to strike the airbag a glancing blow, or even miss it altogether, resulting in severe injury or death.
Also, if you’re traveling at 40 mph, and the guy who hits you head-on is also traveling at 40 mph, that’s an 80-mph impact.
Can’t watch videos here (and find the show unwatchable). Can you summarize what it’s about? Also, I can’t remember much from high school physics, but I do recall something about weights and how forces change or something like that. Okay, maybe I don’t recall even that. But I thought when two forces meet head on the total force is basically summed.
George Patton died from a 5 mph collision where he wasn’t wearing a seat belt. Not that they were common then. Oh, and it was a lingering and very painful death. There are worse things than death, and Patton’s demise cut that short.
In California there are numerous legal penalties for people seeking to recover for injuries if they were not wearing their seat belt.
Every study I’ve read and every case I’ve handled strongly supports the wearing of seat belts as vastly reducing the severity of injuries (and usually eliminating injuries).
Anyway, this is GQ, and not the Pit. I have some choice thoughts on folks who don’t wear seat belts, and even choicer ones who refer to those worried about them as “bitching”.
Yes, total force is double, but you have two cars and their combined crumple zones absorbing it. Two identical cars hitting head on will create the same damage to the cars as each one hitting a solid wall by itself at the same speed.
And with that said: Seat belts save lives at any speed above walking speed.
I’m not an adjuster, but why would I want to use these few minor things that are publicly observable as a rationale for my policy rates when I know that there are a million private things that can’t be observed.
I guess you could say that failure to wear a seat belt is indicative of a private life of smoking, drinking, whoring, and sniffing glue, but that’s a tenuous connection.