[Tokra]

I think I would go with the insurance company that says it doesn't cover injuries incurred while not wearing a seatbelt.

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

These are EXACTLY the same principle you are proposing with seat belts - no difference.

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

[Atlas Sneezed]

>>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?

[RobRoy]

>>These are EXACTLY the same principle you are proposing with seat belts - no difference.<<

And I would agree with all of them.