Replies

>>How about doing away with mandatory speed limits and just say that your insurance won't cover your accident if you were going 110 mph?

Or (something like Germany) working it out with your insurance company that you are covered over 100mph if you have qualified equippment, and more rigourous skill testing.

>>Or how about doing away with mandatory drivers licenses and having the insurance company not pay if you drive without a license?

I prefer to have the state out of the licensing business, and let the insurance company decide what qualifies you to drive with their funds at risk. The only important government function would be to see that each car displays proof of currently paid up insurance, and that could be done by meter maids, not armed cops.

>>Mandatory licenses, speed limits AND seat belts are all there to protect us. Why ignore one and accept the other two?

Seat belts are different in that they protect only the wearer. The others you mention protect PUBLIC safety. Did you even read the article do learn of this clear distinction?

Seat belts are different in that they protect only the wearer. The others you mention protect PUBLIC safety. Did you even read the article do learn of this clear distinction?

That is not always true - there have been cases of people injured by a body being rocketed through a windshield becasue they were not belted in. Just because the article ignores certain facts does not make them vanish.