Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
Yes, we have private and free public healthcare. So great if it’s the rich not wearing a seatbelt, they have to pay for their healthcare. But poorer people (or those without health insurance) have to be paid for by the taxpayer…
Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
As long as I am not property of society, this does not cause a moral problem.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
If I have no money, I can’t get insurance or car either. Also, this is s pragmatic issue, not a moral one.
But the public health care is what pays your wounds if you get wounded bc not wearing a seatbelt. And the public heathlcare is payed by all contributors. So it’s stupid to not wear it, bc you can die or cause a major disaster.
But the public health care is what pays your wounds if you get wounded bc not wearing a seatbelt…
No one wants public health care here in India. Public health care is quite inferior on a number of parameters, and having vehicle insurance generally implies access to good private sector health care providers.
Then again, economic motives here are quite different. A sizeable chunk of population wants to grab more and more share of services paid by all contributors.
Good point. But then, seatbelts mustn’t be compulsory for people driving alone.
They still have some solid options:
In money terms, the business of insuring cars is mostly about repairs of cars.
Not using a seatbelt will still increase the chance that you are injured. This will put a burden on society.
Asking your estate to pay is useless if you have no money, insurance claims can reach the millions which most people can not afford. Pedestrians and cyclists aren’t and should not need to be insured.
Yes, we have private and free public healthcare. So great if it’s the rich not wearing a seatbelt, they have to pay for their healthcare. But poorer people (or those without health insurance) have to be paid for by the taxpayer…
As long as I am not property of society, this does not cause a moral problem.
If I have no money, I can’t get insurance or car either. Also, this is s pragmatic issue, not a moral one.
But the public health care is what pays your wounds if you get wounded bc not wearing a seatbelt. And the public heathlcare is payed by all contributors. So it’s stupid to not wear it, bc you can die or cause a major disaster.
No one wants public health care here in India. Public health care is quite inferior on a number of parameters, and having vehicle insurance generally implies access to good private sector health care providers.
Then again, economic motives here are quite different. A sizeable chunk of population wants to grab more and more share of services paid by all contributors.
If you get thrown out of the vehicle, your body can still knock out some pedestrians. Your blood on the road would be hard to clean up.
And people are dumb. Better enforce something if it’s serious, like masks.
If masks are hallmark of seriousness, take my white flag.