Originally posted by MayharmCrap.
You're a driver?
There is only that rare, 1 in a thousand chance, that the person ramming from behind is not guilty or part guilty for the incident. Driving safely requires safe distance and safe speeds.
Overtaking should not be done at an excessive speed compared to the vehicle being overtaken. With both vehicles going at no more than ten kilometers ...[text shortened]... side[/i]...
Overtake at an excessive speed and [b]you are not a safe driver...
MÅ¥HÅRM[/b]
The speed at which overtaking is safe is relative to situation.
If you are on a road and there's only one car besides yours on it, driving on the right, you are reasonably safe to overtake at any speed you wish.
If that said car on the right is approaching a truck, then it is safer to overtake with more caution.
Just look at the German statistics. They have roads where there is no speed limit and they have less accidents on their motorways than any other country.
If people know that cars are going to be overtaking, they WILL check their mirrors before throwing their cars out into the next lane.
Show me how [the argument articulated above] is unreasonable, or if you agree with it, show me how the law regarding seatbelts is inconsistent with it. Convince me that your right to be unbuckled trumps my right to expect it. In so doing, you must demonstrate the invalidity in the multiferious studies from independent sources which show congruence between lower insurance rates with higher seatbelt use. Or, that if those studies are true, that the financial impact is negligible.
Say I have sensitive nipples. Seatbelts can rub up against them. Not only painful, but considering I drive 40.000 km's a year, constant irritation can lead to cancer.
I had a motorbike accident and the helmet flew off my head. If it hadn't, the way my face connected with the ground, the doctors reckon I would have broken my neck.
I know two girls who were in a car accident. They were rammed from behind (they weren't looking in their mirrors) and the air cushion thing sprung up on them. When this inflates, it directly deflates again. They swerved off the road, into the railing. Both broke their necks. They were wearing seatbelts.
If they hadn't they would be dead. As it is they are both paraplegics now and can't wipe their own arses. As far as insurance costs go. IF they'd died the total cost would have been 20.000 to 30.000 euro (clearing the road, getting rid of the car and burying them). They didn't though and the costs are now over the 3 million euros.
I'd rather be dead than suffer anal leakage.
Ofcourse wearing a seatbelt or a crash helmet is generally safer. I won't disagree with that. But looking at the profits these insurance companies are reaping in, I don't find that an argument to force people to bow to their will.
Originally posted by shavixmir"The speed at which overtaking is safe is relative to situation.
Crap.
The speed at which overtaking is safe is relative to situation.
If you are on a road and there's only one car besides yours on it, driving on the right, you are reasonably safe to overtake at any speed you wish.
If that said car on the right is approaching a truck, then it is safer to overtake with more caution.
Just look at the German st ...[text shortened]... be overtaking, they WILL check their mirrors before throwing their cars out into the next lane.
If you are on a road and there's only one car besides yours on it, driving on the right, you are reasonably safe to overtake at any speed you wish. "
In other words... you are not a safe driver.
MÅ¥HÅRM
You know Shav, I've tried to be honest, critical, but supportive. I've tried to demonstrate where your argument is flawed and how it can be strengthened. I've said, and believe, that if you really believe what you are saying, you should take it to the highest level. But, what you've demonstrated that you just want to complain. And I am truly sorry I can't be supportive of it. I would love to give anyone comfort from a plight, but it's totally self inflicted and, I believe deserved.
Originally posted by shavixmir
Say I have sensitive nipples. Seatbelts can rub up against them. Not only painful, but considering I drive 40.000 km's a year, constant irritation can lead to cancer.
A ludicrous situation, of course, but it presumes that not wearing seatbelts is the only solution. Perhaps getting bearskin covers for them would solve the problem. I mean, cmon. It's you're not even positing a reasonable argument.
Originally posted by shavixmir
I had a motorbike accident and the helmet flew off my head. If it hadn't, the way my face connected with the ground, the doctors reckon I would have broken my neck.
Without any evidence, this is hearsay, but taken at face value: so what? Does that mean that all people shouldn't wear helmets? Helmets decrease the RISK of injury, not elimiate it. This is proven. Would you rather flip a coin, heads you die, tails you live, or roll a die where only a 6 will result in your death? Cmon.
Originally posted by shavixmir
I know two girls who were in a car accident... etc. etc.
Again, like above, we are talking about probability. Do seatbelts always save lives? Of course not. Does wearing them always save the insurance payer money? No. Does it most of the time? Absolutely, uncategorically, unequivocably.
Originally posted by shavixmir
Of course wearing a seatbelt or a crash helmet is generally safer. I won't disagree with that. But looking at the profits these insurance companies are reaping in, I don't find that an argument to force people to bow to their will.
Here, I think is the problem. You resent being told what to do. I do, too! I hate abuses in authority. I hate people who think they know something when they don't. I hate being told I'm wrong when I'm not. Fair enough.
However, when my personal liberties directly impact another person's, then the fact is I am over the line. We agree the insurance companies suck. But your actions penalize me, not them. That's crap. If you want to hurt them, fine. Civil disobedience? Wonderful! Boycotts? Bravo! But make me foot your bill? That's total crap, and that's exactly what you're doing.
I'm tired of your irrelevant arguments and complaints. I'll wait until you say something that supports why I have to foot your bill.
Nemesio
Originally posted by nemesioWhy you should foot my bill:
You know Shav, I've tried to be honest, critical, but supportive. I've tried to demonstrate where your argument is flawed and how it can be strengthened. I've said, and believe, that if you really believe what you are saying, you should take it to the highest level. But, what you've demonstrated that you just want to complain. And I am truly sorry I ...[text shortened]... . I'll wait until you say something that supports why I have to foot your bill.
Nemesio
Say you are one of the following:
- a smoker
- a car driver
- an alcohol drinker
- Somebody who eats fast foods
- Somebody who doesn't eat vegetables
- Someone who is over/under weight
- The person who invented the use of lead in every day products (who is also the same person who invented CFC's)
- Someone who works in coal mines
- Someone who works in a nuclear plant
- Someone who who doesn't have their children protected against diseases (inoccualted?)
- Someone who has had sex without use of a condom
- Someone who works too hard
- Someone who doesn't sport enough
I'll pay your bill.
So, you'll pay mine.
That is what society is all about. Forgiving each what we do to ourselves and helping when things go wrong. That's what makes us the most succesful social group in existence. The fact that we can help each other and do help each other.
Now, I understand that insurance companies would like to change this. They're not there for humanity or society. They are there to make a profit. Their dictations ruin society.
Insurance companies were invented by the rich to make profit, they are not needed.
A fair and just tax-system can deem all insurance companies uncalled for. Like the national health system in Britain deems health insurance companies un-needed.
And that's the bottom line. If you don't pay for my mistakes, then I wouldn't need to pay for yours and society will crumble and the insurance companies will divide and rule us.
Protecting me, protecting you, protecting me from myself, protecting me from you. It goes on and on. Our little town has erected a three foot barrier between lanes to protect us from head on accidents by drunks and dopers. Now I can't cross the street unless I walk a half mile down the road. The highway is littered with dead animals trying to get over the damn thing. Meanwhile we can't get bike lanes or sidewalks in much of the community because of the cost factor. Our ex-mayor is now in prison (along with his secretary) from embezzeling a quarter million from local tax coffers and our property taxes just went up! It's really discouraging.