From: mayer@sono.uucp (Ron Mayer)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: lane splitting
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:02:37 GMT
	<1992Aug26.233449.381@halfdome.sf.ca.us>
	<EGGERS.92Aug27111755@csd630a.erim.org>
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California



eggers@csd630a.erim.org <EGGERS.92Aug27111755@csd630a.erim.org> writes:
>[laurie@halfdome.sf.ca.us (Laurie Abbott) writes]:
>about lane splitting...
>>   1) making it illegal does not make it safer, laura.

Worth repeating!
    "Making it illeagal does not make it safer" -laurie@halfdome.sf.ca.us 
Applies to a lot af areas in life!


>   2) the fact that insurance is high does not have anything to do with
>	 safety either.  it has to do with profits and greedy executives.
>
>No, it has to do with people trying to milk the living bejeezus out of
>anyone they can when an "accident" happens to them.  [...] Insurance
>of all forms is going to keep skyrocketing until people realize that
>you can't award everyone $100,000+ when something happens to them.

Actually, I'm afraid you're the one confusing causes and effects (or,
actually, it's a chicken-and-egg problem).  The only reason why you
can get $100,000+ when someone scratches your paint is because
insurance companies find it easier to just pay the $100000 and raise
everyone elses rates.

If you ever needed to touch-up a minor repair on your car, and you go
to a sleezy auto-body place it's not improbable to have a conversation
like this: "How much to fix this scratch?" "Ooh, we'd need to replace
half your car... about $2000" "But I'm paying for it myself, we
thought it was to minor to involve the insurance companies" "Yeah,
you're right, it doesn't look that bad, I could do it for about $800".

Medical insurance works the same way.  When I lowsided and scratched
my knee (one knee needed to be thoroughly cleaned and a few stiches,
everything else needed to be walked off),  they wanted to (keep me
over night, put me under a general anesthetic, cut up both legs, put
stitches in both knees a shin and a hand, etc.).  Part of the reason
they wanted to do this is "but insurance pays for it".  Insurance
companies then whine about "people demanding all these expensive
services" and use that as an excuse to raise everyone else's rates.

Anytime anything gets payed for with "other peoples money" you're
encouraging waste and corruption.

Insurance just rewards irresponsibility.

What I'd like to see is insurance plans which would consider
everything about my lifestile, how I drive, what I eat, what
activities I'm in, and everything about my lifestyle.  While
in some areas, like motorcycling, I'd pay more, but at least
I wouldn't have to pay for other people's irresponsibility.
Does anyone know what kind of discount I could get if an insurance 
policy existed which refused to pay anything at all for accidents in
which I'm drunk?  I'd love such a policy, because I'd never drive drunk.


>>   3) the fact that people get tickets does not have anything to do with
>>	 safety either.  it has to do with profits and greedy politicians.
>
>I don't buy this, either.  If you get a ticket around Michigan, in
>general you did something wrong.  There are rules/laws that we go
>by, most of which make sense, some of which don't [...]

You're not really contradicting her here.  Or, more accuratelly, "If
you get a ticket around Michigan, in general you probably broke a
law."   Many of the laws that "don't" "make sense" probably have "to
do with profits and greedy politicians" as she mentioned.  You didn't
really contradict her point.


>>   4) the fact that people have accidents usually has to do with one
>>	 person trying to outasshole another person. [...]
>
>[...] Then there's always the "not paying attention" factor.

Yeah, I'd say "irresponsibility" is more common than "assholing".


>>   5) if we want to make the streets safer, we should make being an
>>	 asshole illegal.
>
>Yeah, I wish we could Laurie...  I'm afraid we're stuck with the
>people we've got since driving has darn near become a right.  sigh.

It is a right.

 "Operation of a motor vehicle upon public streets and highways is not 
 a mere privilege but is a right or liberty protected by the guarantees
 of Federal and State constitutions."
     - Adams v. City of Pocatello 416 P2d 46

 "A citizen may have the right, under the 14th amendment to the 
 Constitution of the United States, to travel and transport his 
 property upon the public highways by auto vehicle, but he has no right
 to make the highways his place of business by using them as a common 
 carrier for hire; such use being a privilege which may be granted or 
 withheld by the state in its discretion, without violating the due 
 process or equal protection clauses."
     - In Re Graham 93 Cal App 88.

 Disclaimer:  I got the preceding information off the net, and have not
 yet had time to verify it.  This should not be used as legal advice.

    Ron Mayer    sun!sono!mayer
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles