• Welcome to the E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial RAF Rumour Network.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

DUI, Seatbelts and Crash Helmets.

Barch

Grim Reaper 2016
1000+ Posts
4,047
412
83
The US Government are looking at a new Federal Law stating that anyone killed in and road accident with DUI, no seatbelt or not wearing a crash helmet as contributory factors will be treated as suicide meaning insurance firms can refuse to pay out.

Good or bad idea?
 

Rugby-Jock-Lad

Flight Sergeant
1000+ Posts
1,459
185
63
It's the States. Means Insurances can save a bucket-load of money whilst maximising profits. Should be coming to the UK soon then. BAD IDEA...hence it will happen!!!!
 

Late & Tired

Flight Sergeant
1000+ Posts
1,129
145
63
Absolutely agree 100% and have said so for years. The latter two cases are individual choices to disregard lawful, personal safety measures, whereas in the former, in too many cases, innocents have lost their lives at the hands of arrogant retards. Apologies if any brash approach is considered, but I have first hand dealing in some of this.
 

Deltaitem

Corporal
298
110
43
It's a stupid idea, because driving without a seatbelt, pissed at the wheel etc is definitely stupid, but is impossible to definitively identify as suicidal. Unless there's a suicide note, very recent declaration of suicidal intent, it's absolute bollocks. It's a very dangerous thing to say that all idiots behind the wheel are somehow suicidal. I can just see the lawyers (in America) queuing up to challenge such a blanket judgement. The next thing they'll do is say that all gunshot victims were suicidal if they weren't armed and shot back. If you go swimming at the beach on a red flag day and drown does that automatically make you suicidal? If you get wasted and just wander out into the roadway does that automatically make you suicidal?
It's bollocks. And in fact, it's also neo-bollocks and crypto-bollocks as well.
I'd be very surprised that the Biden government would be even considering this. Trump, maybe, but let's count our lucky stars that he never gets voted back in again, although every country in the world could periodically despair at the stupidity of their own voters.
American seat belt laws seem to be very complex, and the usual state by state patchwork with very little consistency. This reads like one of those idiot rules that will never see the light of day, but will galvanise the unthinking looters v shooters to go out there and vote for big corp, then lie down and willingly feel the corporate boot at their neck, again.
A bit like the EU army, Turkey imminently joining the EU, immigrant invasion, and let's chuck in £350m a week for the NHS while we're at it, there's always a danger of just swallowing the headline without at least a bit of critical analysis.
And back on topic as a PS, I'd have thought that if you were driving illegally ie drunk etc, your insurance would be invalid anyway.
 
Last edited:

busby1971

Super Moderator
Staff member
1000+ Posts
6,938
569
113
Not quite sure it should be suicide, theres enough stigma on this and mental health as it is.

However, if you dont take reasonable measures, then why should you be able to claim, but I do think that those hurt or injured by these people should be paid by the insurers and then they can sue the individual rather than expect Joe public to do so.
 

muttywhitedog

Retired Rock Star 5.5.14
1000+ Posts
4,582
632
113
Should the same apply to amateur potholders and hill walkers who end up perishing through being unprepared? Insurers already wriggle out of paying claims when you make a false declaration, even if it is in error. My last dog was denied thousands in eye surgery fees because he had been prescribed a week of gel for a sticky eye as a puppy. It happened whilst I was away and I was completely unaware that it had happened, and no amount of arguing on my part could convince the insurers that a sticky eye for a week had any impact on eye surgery 7 years later to correct a retina problem.
 
Top