Subject:
|
Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 12:38:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
255 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Rather than regulating the height of SUVs, why not let the insurance companies
> charge higher premiums to those that choose to raise them to unsafe heights?
This topic isn't exactly an obsession of mine but I thought I'd point out that
much more than certain "costs" are at stake here. And I for one am not
prepared to accept that money will cover for the damages (i.e. the ability to
cover for the presumed value of a human life does not validate the existence
of the circumstances allowing for the loss of that life). No amount of
liability coverage should allow for the routine use of the rights of way in
this manner -- moreover such a use might be considered an extraordinary use of
the roads and therefore regulatable for that very reason. We don't allow
Formula 1 vehicles on the rights of way, why should we allow "Monster" trucks
or SUVs?
Where human lives are not at risk in so pointed a manner, I have no dispute
with erring on the side of NOT regulating a thing -- in fact, it's my
preference to regulate/legislate as little as possible. But I don't see that
people behave responsibly in light of the dangers that their SUVs pose, or
that they are necessarily even aware of the dangers that they pose on the
roads with their jacked up vehicles in the first place.
If drivers will not cogitate, we must legislate...and I don't care about the
size of the vehicle as such (which I suppose is useful), I just want the whole
thing lower to the ground. That will make it safe enough for me. And in case
you wondered: yes, I feel the same way about multi-axle vehicles.
The subject line says it all (Re: I'm lucky to be alive) -- Frank almost
died! It doesn't, for example read: "I'm lucky to have avoided certain
property losses." Insurance just will not cover for the loss that Frank was
very nearly confronted with.
-- Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
| (...) An important note here, that I've mentioned before - I believe that my injuries were so minimal in part because the SUV WAS higher than my vehicle and thus rode up on top of my car, which involved more of the car in energy absorbing crumpling (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
| (...) Chiming in a bit late here. As usual, it's not regulation that's needed, per se, but some encouragement of responsibility. That super high SUV driver needs to be responsible for things his SUV causes. I would posit that no-fault insurance (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
26 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
