I noticed there's a new campaign to encourage seat belt use, front and rear, despite there being legal requirements to use them .
I suspect belt usage is way below 90% in the front and 50% in the back , and it occurs to me that in addition to any moral arguments for using them ( such as the effect on family and friends when you hurtle thorugh your windscreen , or the trauma for emergency services when they try to extract you) .
If people think they should have a choice they should do it taking into account the economic effects of their actions.
If people are harmed more through not wearing belts, one of the effects is to push up the costs of insurance .
So how about, if insurers can establish that occupants were unbelted , they apply a special excess to any claims for their personal injury? That way they pick up the cost of their choice, rather than the rest of us doing so.
|
It's called contributory negligence and if it goes to court, that already happens.
If it doesn't go to court, then the chances are that the claimant's solicitors have taken that into account when advising on quantum of damages, or the defendant insurers would take it into court.
I think standard contrib is about 25% - and given the likely injuries when not wearing a seat belt, 25% of the damages is quite a lot; worth litigating on in most cases, I'd say.
|
Presumably you prove the absence of seatbelts by showing in which county the driver landed?
I recall a comment by an accident investigator who told of a trainee who went with him to a crash scene and asked what the neat hemispherical shape in the windscreen was. "head of an unrestrained child" was the answer.
Household rule now is "no child seat, no journey". No exceptions.
|
|