Subject:
|
Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:17:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
260 times
|
| |
|
|
richard marchetti wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
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 of metal. Also, I suspect that the SUV
would not have locked to my vehicle in the same way had he hit bumpers,
the locking together of the two vehicles caused our two vehicles to spin
as a unit, again dissipating energy.
On Larry's point, if a particular class of vehicle is significantly more
responsible for causing fatalities, and we have a system which puts
appropriate responsibility on drivers for the damage caused by their
vehicles and actions, I suspect the insurance costs would quickly get
the attention of the market, and the vehicles would be designed to be
less damaging. Our current system is also too squeamish about appliying
criminal penalties. Why is there a crime "misdemeanor death by vehicle"?
The crime should either be involuntary manslaughter (your vehicle was
the cause of the "accident" but not because of how you were driving, or
maintained your vehicle, but because something unforseen happened [flash
downpour which almost instantly dropped visibility to zero, deer jumped
out in front of you, or whatever, heart attack or other medical
condition(1)]), or a more serious crime ("accident" happened because you
fell asleep, you ran a red light or otherwise driving recklessly, didn't
maintain your vehicle, or whatever). If the accident was caused by a
defect in the vehicle, or maintenance done to the vehicle, the
manufacturer or repair shop should be facing some serious music (but if
you took the car to some shady mechanic, you will share some
responsibility).
Start giving out 5+ year sentences for causing serious injury or death,
and people will start changing their habits.
I'd also like to see some good numbers on how much more injury SUVs
cause. I recently saw something which indicated that the fatality rate
for SUV occupants is similar to that of compact cars. This suggests that
unless the fatality rate is rising, that SUVs may not cause that many
more deaths. Of course the fact that the fatality rates are similar
doesn't mean that in a collision between and SUV and a compact car, the
occupants of the compact car aren't more likely to be killed. I'm
assuming that the parity is due to two factors: SUVs are more likely to
be involved in serious single car crashes (run off the road etc. [notice
that after a snowstorm, most of the vehicles in the ditch are SUVs...4
wheel drive isn't as usefull as people think]), and SUV occupants
possibly are less likely to use seatbelts (and I suspect you are far
more likely to be thrown from an SUV than a car if you aren't wearing a
seatbelt, and even if you aren't ejected, there's a lot more space in an
SUV for you to bounce around).
(1) only if said medical condition was not known previously to be a
risk, i.e. if this is the second time you've had a heart attack while
driving, sorry, you don't get to use this excuse a 2nd time, once you
know you will have heart attacks, you are responsible for making sure
that you don't have one while operating machinery capable of causing
serious injury or death.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
| (...) I'm not sure I'm understanding your statement; are you saying that the occupants of SUV's and compacts are at similar risk of fatality? I think the concern, in addition to SUV-driver risk, is that SUV's may cause more injury to those in the (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: I'm lucky to be alive
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 21-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
|
|
|
|
