On 7 May 2013, at 21:29, "Gerrit Visser" <[email protected]> wrote:
> . Instead of bruises we now have concussion and > brain damage Unfortunately for your argument your premise is wrong. Cycle helmets are not designed to protect against the kind of impact that would make such a large difference to injuries. Any helmet that did provide that much protection would make it impossible to ride a bike safely. In addition, the helmets that do exist can also be responsible for aggravating injuries under some circumstances where no injury would otherwise have occurred. Insurance companies have often tried to avoid or reduce their payouts by blaming the cyclist, but so far they have not been able to get away with it. If they could, they would. And, as stated earlier, the public purse argument doesn't work because cyclists are positive contributors, rather than beneficiaries. Similarly, for insurance companies to reduce their liabilities they should be concentrating on improving driving standards and making cyclist training more widely available. That will save more people from injury and death, and therefore save more insurance and tax money, than any number of bicycle helmets. B > I own a car, therefor I pay insurance. Being able to choose which company > makes no difference as to who gets to use the money that I pay, I get no say > whatsover as to whose accidents get paid out or not. So really I have no > choice, I pay. Now suppose person x, a car driver insured by the same > company I am insured with, has an altercation with someone on a bicycle who > is also not wearing a helmet. Instead of bruises we now have concussion and > brain damage. > > Insurance pays damages to cyclist eventually, health insurance (in this case > my tax money as it is Ontario) pays for the hospital care, other taxes pay > for ambulance, police, possibly helicopter etc. I have no idea if OHIP goes > after the insurance company for payment or not, but I doubt it. > If there are too many expensive cycling accidents involving cars, then the > rates go up, for everyone, not just that insurance company because the > probility of that risk occuring has gone up. Who is at fault makes no > difference, it is paid for out of 2 pools of $, both of which are funded by > in essence the public, by premiums or taxes or both. In the casse of car vs > cyclist incidents, the no-fault system doesn't even come into play, there is > only 1 insurance company involved. > > So, that cyclists opinion that they have the freedom to not wear a helmet > potentially impacts a lot of peoples pockets. It certainly doesn't affect > theirs as they don't pay for insurance, except perhaps OHIP. Yes, they lose > pay while in hospital depending on whether they have LTD coverage or not. If > they do, then ,,,,, yes the insurance company who provides that pays out, > using the money many others including companies pay as premiums. The company > of course passes the expense to me, the consumer. There is no magic pool of > money that pays for stuff. We all pay, directly or indirectly. > > My personal opinion is that many accidents are in fact negligence, sometimes > it is the perpertrator with an innocent victim, sometimes the victim is the > cause. And if negligent, then the person responsible should pay, directly, > some portion of the aftermath. Maybe insurance covers a lot but they need to > pay for their decision/negligence. It is called accountability. If you don't > want to wear a helmet or seatbelts, then pay for the repurcusions yourself. > That should maybe factor into the 'decision made by an adult in full > possesion of the facts'?. > > Gerrit > Who is now going to post a PESO so that he is not considered a non-photo > contributing troll :-) > > -----Original Message----- > From: PDML [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:27 PM > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" > Subject: RE: OT For the cyclists here > > First off "public money" is tax money. That's who (in Canada at least) pays > for healthcare. Most of it, anyway. > > The fact that your insurance premiums go into a pool and pay for the > collisions of others does not make it public money. You may choose your > insurance company, you may choose different levels of coverage or you may > choose not to pay insurance (if you don't drive a motor vehicle). > > Most jurisdictions have a form of no fault system. That means that sometimes > a portion of the damages of a person at fault will be covered by your > insurance provider. > > Usually no-fault benefits are fairly minimal and are not a major cost to the > system; that's why the insurance industry lobbied long and hard to have the > government implement such a system. The big awards, the "pain and > suffering", "punitive damages" and "loss of future wages" tend to still be > fault-based. > > The bottom line is that large amounts "public funds" rarely get into the > hands of one who is at fault in any motor vehicle accident. > > Cheers, > frank > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
