Pedestrians have a higher likelihood of being hit.
Cyclists without helmets are actually less likely to get hit.
Deductible is the same to the insured whether you hit a thousand dollar bumper or a million dollar bumper.
Insurance company goes to court, not you, generally.
If you hit someone and it was your fault... well, it was your fault. You take your life into your hands whenever you get behind the wheel..
Know who gets killed in car accidents more than cyclists? Other drivers who aren't wearing helmets. Court is the same result with another driver or a pedestrian, negating your hypothetical.
We don't need bicycle helmet laws.
Deductible is the same to the insured whether you hit a thousand dollar bumper or a million dollar bumper. Insurance company goes to court, not you, generally.
These internal details do not change the overarching fact that whatever court fees and judgements insurance companies pay will be reflected in the premiums that I pay.
Pedestrians have a higher likelihood of being hit. If you hit someone and it was your fault... well, it was your fault.
If I run my car on a sidewalk and I hit someone then yes, it is my fault. If some asshole with no lights is weaving around in the middle of the road at night and I hit the brakes too late, then no it's not my fault.
Know who gets killed in car accidents more than cyclists? Other drivers who aren't wearing helmets.
Yes if I straight up slam into somebody at 60MPH then they are dying regardless of if they are in a car or on a bicycle. But a little 5MPH bump won't do jack to somebody in a car but is half-likely to break the neck of a bicyclist.
We don't need bicycle helmet laws.
Sign away your right to hold others liable in an accident and you can ride your bicycle however you please, my man. It's no different than the illegality of driving without a tail light or a seatbelt.
If it's not your fault you don't pay, once again rendering your argument moot.
If it's not my fault, I'm not liable.
Tail lights are an interesting example. You know why they raised the brake lights on all cars closer to eye level? Because it saves lives. By your logic, all tail lights should be eye level to reduce liability. Right? Either way, we don't need to pay cops to ticket for broken tail lights. If harm is caused for lack of tail light, you pay.
Showers in hotel rooms are another liability example. Many hotels are no longer installing bathtubs, just showers because they are safer. By your logic, nobody should have bathtubs... which are more dangerous, by far, than bicycle riding.
In fact, bathroom falls are very deadly. By your logic, this whole country should be required to have handle bars and no bathtubs. You see the slippery slope?
You, ultimately, justify wanting more rules for me because you don't want to pay a higher insurance premium. It's laughable, honestly. Do you listen to yoursrlf?
You're exactly the problem. The CDC, a non elected body, makes bullshit ultimatums for the whole country, circumventing laws, legislation and common sense. Just like you're doing now.
You are justifying more bullshit laws and you haven't articulated a single good reason why.
Insurance companies are more affected by fraud than actual accidents, which... again, if it isn't your fault, your premiums aren't going up.
So... aside from your desire to massage your insurance company's prostate, I can't really see that you've successfully justified forcing people to wear pointless accessories sold at a premium.
If it's not your fault you don't pay, once again rendering your argument moot. If it's not my fault, I'm not liable.
No that isn't true, you are liable if the court decides you are liable, regardless of if you are actually at fault. As you have argued for the complete corruption of the government I'm certain you will agree that the courts will corruptly hold people who are not at fault liable as well.
Either way, we don't need to pay cops to ticket for broken tail lights. If harm is caused for lack of tail light, you pay.
Right.
By your logic, nobody should have bathtubs...
If somebody dies in a bathtub, I am not held liable, therefore by my logic, I don't care if people have bathtubs. If I were a hotel owner and I could be held liable if someone died in a bathtub, then yes by my logic I would forbid my guests to have bathtubs unless they signed a form indemnifying me from bathtub deaths.
By your logic, this whole country should be required to have handle bars and no bathtubs.
Again, by my logic, as I don't have to pay for bathroom falls, I don't care what this whole country does. But if we give "free" i.e. taxpayer-funded healthcare to people that fall in bathrooms, then yes I demand that all those people be required to have handle bars and forbidden from bathtubs.
You, ultimately, justify wanting more rules for me because you don't want to pay a higher insurance premium.
No I told you quite clearly that if you waive your right to hold me liable in accidents you are free to engage in whatever risky behaviors you want. Your refusal to waive that right justifies me wanting more rules for you.
The CDC, a non elected body, makes bullshit ultimatums for the whole country, circumventing laws, legislation and common sense.
And how does the CDC do this? Because people like you will sue anytime you get injured and if you can find even one bullshit ultimatum given by CDC that the property owner didn't follow you can fleece them for millions for something as stupid as ordering hot coffee and then spilling it on yourself "because it wasn't labeled hot".
Insurance companies are more affected by fraud than actual accidents, which... again, if it isn't your fault, your premiums aren't going up.
In microeconomic terms yes if one random guy has an accident that will not directly affect my premiums. But in macroeconomic terms if your legal system lets morons weave around cars with no lights in the middle of the night and they keep getting their necks snapped and million dollar payouts, the risk calculus forces insurance companies to raise all premiums, including mine.
I can't really see that you've successfully justified forcing people to wear pointless accessories sold at a premium.
All I justified is a choice - either waive your liability or wear your helmet. It's not my fault you want to have your cake and eat it too.
(post is archived)