How's This for Irony?
 

First Read This

Then read this

HA !!!!!
I beleve the saying is " live by the sword , die by the sword "!!!!!!!

Yeah, ironic, but stupid at the same time. There's such a thing as taking contrariness too far.

Oh yeah? How about this?

http://fox.org/~vince/out/ironing.jpg

Oh, you meant...

So smart and at the same time, so stupid.

I don't see any irony. He was a libertarian who supported removing seat belt laws so people could make that choice for themselves. The result of that choice are irrelevant. He chose not to wear one. When you're in the back of an SUV and it rolls, you probably wouldn't make it even if you were wearing one.

It's a shame to lose a decent and bright guy who was on the right track when so many others aren't.

So are all Libertarians firm believers in Darwinism?

The irony is that he let his ideology (read as "replacement for critical review of thought processes) get in the way of doing what is a good idea regardless of your feelings for the idea.

So the question becomes, was he really that bright after all?

Seems to me if the law said to this guy "don't drink battery acid", ten minutes later he'd neck a pint of it.

If someone doesn't want to wear a motorcycle helmet and fights against such laws because they make it tougher for him to see and he accepts the risks involved. Then later this same guy dies from head trauma he got in a motorcycle accident, that's not irony, and it's not allowing his feelings to keep him from exercising a good idea.

It's a man accepting the risks involved in a certain activity even when he falls victim to those risks. It's like Evil Kenevil jumping cars on a motorcycle and crashing. He accepted the risks and he didn't make it. That doesn't mean he was wrong for accepting the risks.

If you choose to play baseball and get hit by a ball in the eye, choosing to play baseball wasn't wrong.

Society feels it has the right to specify the use of seat belts because society also pays a price: So the argument that society should not intrude because it only affects me is a fallacy.

So Darwinism is compatible with Libertarianism...that's what I was thinking.

That can be used as an argument against anything; people should not be allowed to drink, smoke, ride bicycles, ski, etc. since they are increasing their probability of getting injured by participating in such activities. Since theses injuries cost society more money in health care costs, these activities should be outlawed. If everyone wore helmets while driving, injuries and hospital costs would be reduced. Is this an argument for enforcing such a law?

So the argument that society should not intrude because it only affects me is a fallacy.

Yes, but a Libertarian would say do away with the (partially) socialized healthcare too, that way society wouldn't be paying for it.

the costs go beyond the loss of lives and result in higher taxes, health care costs, and insurance costs

Unsure about the taxes, health care, etc, but I know any insurance company in their right mind should deny payment or compensation to any dumbass that doesn't wear a belt and ends up on the pavement.

Driving without insurance is and should be against the law because that action has the ability to impact many other people in very negative ways. Driving without a belt is the driver's problem.

Out of curiosity, would you still believe this if seatbelt use was not required by law?

Yep. All the insurance companies have to do is include a simple clause that the insured waives their right to medical compensation should they not wear their seatbelt. The evidence at a crash scene is easy to detect and is always noted, even today.

Really -- if you get smashed head-on and are ejected through the windsheild, you don't deserve to get anything for your choice. Seatbelt uncomfortable? It wrinkles your clothing? Maybe an insurance company would pop up that will insure you and they'd charge a fortune. Think of how much you'd have to pay in that event! Smokers already pay higher medical insurance rates, so those of a non-seatbelt wearer could be five or six times what seatbelt wearers pay and I think that is entirely fair. I'm sure people are eager and willing to line up to pay that much for their own comfort when riding in an automobile. If they're willing to risk serious injury and their lives in the name of convience, why not hemmorage money too?

Should insurance companies also refuse to pay claims for people who were involved in accidents while talking on a cell phone?

Sure, why not? If its in the policy and you sign it, its valid.

Compared to a bare-bones policy, I pay a lower rate because:

I store my car in the garage.
My vehicle has airbags.
My vehicle has anti-lock brakes.
I do not own a sports car.
I've never gotten a ticket.

I'm much less likely to have my car stolen, to sustain serious injury, and even get into an accident. People who drive two-seater convertibles with turbo-charged engines are taking a huge risk, so they pay more. Elect to not wear a seatbelt? You better pay more. If its a clause in your contract and you get into an accident without wearing a seatbelt? You sure as hell better pay more to compensate. Any sane insurance company would tack on a massive fine for violating a basic safety policy.

(Note: My rates are higher than other people because of some other odd items. I'm single, I'm male, I'm under twenty-six years of age, I live in Florida, etc. Some of these aren't even my choice and I'm still included in a "high-risk" catagory, but I accept it and I pay for it.)

Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim?

Ok, let’s suppose a parent is driving his children to school, and is hit by a drunk driver. The parent was wearing his seatbelt, but while he wasn’t looking, his child removed his. The child is then ejected from the car and killed in the accident. Should the insurance company deny the claim?

That's a good question, actually. I don't have kids, so I have no idea how the policy reads for children passengers. I think most car seats have child-proof buckles, but once they're old enough to ride normally, there's no way to provide proof that the adult buckled them in beforehand. I thought kids in the car were under their parent's medical policy, not car insurance?

Interesting aspect of the law: I know in many states the driver is at fault if the passenger is found to not be wearing a belt. Sometime ago in FL, (and still currently in GA) when you could be pulled over for your passenger not wearing a seatbelt just as well as you could for not wearing it, I wouldn't even start the car if someone riding to lunch with me refused to put it on. I didn't want a ticket!

If the child is killed, there's no medical bills to pay for him anyway.

I wonder if that factors into the "more costly emergency room bills" statistic in general. It would seem that non-seatbelt wearers would be killed more frequently, and thus result in fewer medical bills than seatbelted people who required some amount of hospital care. But perhaps non-seatbelted folks, when they do make it to the hospital, require so much more care that it overshadows the total dollar amount of the seatbelted citizens.

It's the responsibility of the driver to ensure all passengers are obeying the laws of the state. Period. "I didn't know" doesn't work.

Clodfobble, the latter is true, I would think. Someone who doesn't wear a seatbelt is more likely to be seriously injured in a fender-bender, of which there are millions more each year than high-speed collisions/rollovers/etc.

As bright as this kid supposedly was, I think he was a bit off with the concept of choice. The way his article reads is that people don't have a choice whether or not to wear a seatbelt and have lost the ability to make that decision. This isn't the case. You always have the choice to or not to buckle up. The only thing the law does is punish the ones who are caught, it doesn't make you unable to drive off without buckling up.

It's just like drinking and driving. After drinking, you have the choice to get behind the wheel or not. If you do, you run the risk of (at the least) getting pulled over and ticketed/jailed for drunk driving or (at the worst) killing yourself and/or someone else. Sure, you could get home relatively safe and sound but that's not the point.

Lack of choice isn't what folks like this guy are really crying about, it's the consequences of the choice made. He didn't want to live with the consequences, and that's exactly what ended up happening. The only way you would actually not have the choice to drive without buckling is if the vehicle you drive is set up so that it will not start UNTIL the driver's seatbelt is buckled.

Unfortunately, he chose the wrong chalice and was destroyed. Being booksmart doesn't mean you know what's good for you.

Correct.

Also it really doesn't matter what the insurance company would do. What they will or won't cover is between you and them when you make a contract. If they make a stipulation in your policy that anyone killed while not wearing a seatbelt is not covered, and you agree to it, you shouldn't get paid.

He chose ... poorly. [love that line]

he made a choice and died as a result. personally, i wear my seatbelt because 1. it makes me feel more comfortable/secure and 2. i believe that it is safer. in the airplane, whether i'm the pilot or i'm on a major carrier as a passenger, i always wear my seatbelt, funny thing about turbulence......

anyway, he gambled and lost. sucks to be him.

Smart kid, and I think he had good points. But I think he was off the mark on a few things, including the following:

"If one is doing the math, that is more than $138 million spent on seat belt laws. But the kicker is this: It is estimated, by researchers for Congress, that only 6,100 lives are saved per year because of new seat belt wearers."

Is he saying that it isn't worth $138 million to save 6,100 lives? It's pretty hard to to put dollar figures on a human life, but I personally think that's a pretty good investment.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are bureaucrats with next years funding as their prime concern. They'll lie their ass off to make themselves seem important. When the numbers don't add up to their story, they change the counting guidelines.
Car-A hits car-B and shoves it into parked car-C. The person in car-c has been drinking. That is an alcohol related accident, according to the NHTSA.
The NHTSA mandated airbags way to powerful. People started getting killed but it took years for them to change their position and allow 2nd generation bags.
The NHTSA claimed the best way to save gas was a 55mph limit, which would save 3% nationally when in reality having everyone inflate their tires to the proper air pressure would have saved 6%.
They fought tooth and nail against raising the 55mph limit because of the carnage it would create. When that didn't happen they started adding pedestrian and bicycle deaths in to bring the numbers up.

The NHSTA is a classic case of "Figures don't lie but liars can figure." :mad:

The The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety is often quote in articles as the "Institute for Highway Safety" conveniently leaving the Insurance Industry connection out. :eyebrow:

The Highway Loss Data Institute is another Insurance Industry baby.

Don't get me started on red light cameras and the heaps of horseshit they're piling on there. :mad2:

Whoa Nellie! Where in hell did that come from? The only thing that could remotely apply is the brakes and that's not necessarily true. Did you know that anti-lock brakes take LONGER to stop? Yes, they allow you to steer and don't ruin(flat spot) your tires but in most cases it's a wash. The Insurance Companies have found that the parking lot fender benders have gone up with anti-locks and are dropping the discount for them like hot potatoes. If you know how to use the brakes properly you can stop faster and still avoid obstacles. Yes, most people don't know how. :(
C'mon....that's not true. Maybe the people that make that choice tend to drive in a riskier manner but just making that choice doesn't put you at risk. I think that's probably what you meant but that ain't whatcha said. :)

Whoa Nellie! Where in hell did that come from? The only thing that could remotely apply is the brakes and that's not necessarily true.

Insurance companies do their math. Its to their advantage. Statistically, all of the above apply even if it doesn't quite work out that way in one driver's specific world.

The Insurance Companies have found that the parking lot fender benders have gone up with anti-locks

Apparently Metropolitan Auto and Home has not found this to be true. Don't get me wrong on this -- I find the discounts I get to be very unusual, myself. Moving to Florida jacked my rates up big time because auto theft is higher in this state than average. Moving from one neighborhood to another caused it to fluctuate, too. And please, someone tell me why getting married lowers your rates? The way most couples treat each other in the car I would assume that accident rates go up after they tie the knot.

C'mon....that's not true. Maybe the people that make that choice tend to drive in a riskier manner

Thats probably the more correct version. Yet, in equal accidents, the driver of a convertible versus a sealed-top vehicle is at a greater injury risk just as is someone who rides a motorcycle rather than in a car. As for turbo charging, etc, you're correct -- the insurers just find that people that drive those cars tend to drive them recklessly. I shouldn't have used the term "risk" to describe them both.

I think that's probably what you meant but that ain't whatcha said.

Yeah. Me not communicate very well, sometimes. :)

And please, someone tell me why getting married lowers your rates? The way most couples treat each other in the car I would assume that accident rates go up after they tie the knot.

Because it's not that getting married makes you safer, it's that getting married (in theory) proves you were one of the safer ones to begin with. Safe drivers tend to be the settlin' down type, statistically.

Another silly way they calculate how safe of a driver you are: when I was in high school, I got a huge discount on my insurance if showed them I got straight A's.

the military did that for years before seat belt laws were passed nationwide. if you were in the military and you were in injured while not wearing a seat belt they didn't have to pay for your injuries. same with motorcycle helmets.

I think what it comes down to is that the insurance companies can do almost anything they want, and we have no choice but to pay up. I don't get any breaks for having my car in a locked garage, although I think it would make perfect sense to do so.

People with bad credit get screwed with car insurance. One of my best friends is a very safe driver, never had a ticket or been in an accident. I always give her a hard time for driving too slow! But when she was getting divorced her husband maxed out all the credit cards, and she had to file bankruptcy. She now pays higher rates than me, even though I've had an accident and a couple tickets. She's technically a lower risk than I am, but she's still paying more. Not fair, but what can you do about it?

People with better credit (less debt to income ratio) are less likely to commit insurance fraud to make $$ to pay off their debt.

My husband is a new (less than 4yrs) insurance agent. So far, my favorite story is someone who called him for auto insurance a couple days after a very nasty storm went thru here, blowing lots and lots of trees down causing major damage. This person wanted full auto coverage, on an OLD car. After explaining everything and getting him pretty much ready to go, D told him he needed to take a picture of the vehicle before everything was complete. WHY?? was this fellows response, the car is fine... can't you do this without seeing the car?? Rrrriiiiiiiight, I BET your car is just fine.... he did not get insured by us :)

This is also why a lot of companies are not paying anymore for when you back your #1 car into your own #2 car in YOUR driveway. Tons of people do this just for the $$.
Several years ago I took the $1600 for hail damage to my 10yr old Escort ($200 shy of what the whole dang thing was worth, and $700 more than anyone was going to give me on trade) and used it to help put a downpayment of my new Taurus. (before hubby was an agent). We pretty much all would do that same thing if given the chance. I paid well over that in my premiums over the 10yrs I owned the car, with no previous claims.

What if the garage burns down? While a garage does offer some protection from vandals and the weather it also introduces other problems like fire and a spot where thieves can work on the car unnoticed. :)

What if the garage burns down? While a garage does offer some protection from vandals and the weather it also introduces other problems like fire and a spot where thieves can work on the car unnoticed.

Since I am in an apartment complex, Met Auto and Home has it listed that the garages have sprinkler systems in them. Its important for more than just the cars contained within them, as the apartments are connected to the garages! With that minor ignition problem that (Ford? GM? Chrystler? Chevy? Some American car...) was having, I feel a bit better that the builder installed them.

??????? here in texas???

??????? here in texas???

Yeah -- straight As in Texas? ;)

Speaking of insurance, do any of you pilots out there have a tough time getting life insurance?

Yep, in Austin, with State Farm, about 8 years ago.