The agitprop arm of the insurance mafia – the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety – “shared” (in the mewly Leftist-speak that has replaced proper English) a video that “clarifies” the “importance of a properly adjusted car seat head restraint.” You know, those rearward-vision-obscuring things perched atop every car seat now, in the interests of “safety.”Â
Which is an interesting thing in that a hypothetical benefit is imposed (these head restraints are required, which is to say we’re effectively forced to buy them) at the cost of an objective detriment. That being what you can no longer see as clearly behind and even to the side of you, which almost certainly increases the chances of not seeing it – and so running into or backing up into it. Â
Of course, the idea is that when someone else runs into you from behind, you’ll be less likely to experience a whiplash injury. And that may be so.
But what’s interesting, from a moral-philosophical point-of-view, is that the weighing and deciding of cost-vs.-benefit is not ours to make. If we lived in a free country – note that one almost never hears that said anymore – emancipated adult humans would have the freedom to decide for themselves whether it is “safer” to be able to see what’s behind them – and on either side of them – or “safer” to have that view restricted for the sake of their head being restrained in the event they’re hit from behind.
Of course, we do not live in a free country – a fact established by the fact that adults are not emancipated. They are regarded as the idiot children – in perpetuity – of their “parents” in government, who know best and decide best. These deciders have decided it is better to have super-tall, whiplash-ameliorating headrests for just-in-case (and never mind what it costs and never mind what you want) than it is to be able to see what’s behind you and on either side of you.
But then, the real motive here is not to parent us so much as it is to infantilize us. It’s an important distinction. Children eventually grow up and become emancipated adults. American adults are never allowed to grow up much less be emancipated.
Americans – many of whom no longer have any understanding of what a “free country” is like, having been born too late to experience what it was like when America was still at least plausibly kinda-sorta free – have grown up accepting and even wanting to be treated as if they were idiot children. They have absorbed the ridiculous notion that government-knows-best, which is ridiculous because it is based on a faulty premise.
If people are too dumb to know what’s best, what of the people who constitute the government? They are rarely the best and brightest. But they are insufferably “concerned” – and have acquired the power to assert their “concerns.”
That is how it came to pass that you had to pay for seat belts in a new car, if you wanted to buy a new car. Within just a few years of that happening, you had to wear them – and if you didn’t, you could be punished – just like a little kid in school who gets spanked for disobedience. It is interesting to take note of the fact that actual kids are no longer spanked, as that is considered abuse. But emancipated adults are spanked – and worse – if they balk when ordered to “buck up” for “safety.”
Now we have to buy – and accept – not just wearing seat belts but also facing explosive devices built into the steering wheel and dash.
Once again, the deciders have decided that the hypothetical benefit of an air bag cushioning you in the event of a crash outweighs the literal costs of the air bags, which you pay regardless of any actual benefit – as well as the small but very real chance that the air bag may actually harm or even kill you. The fact that this risk is small is not the relevant thing. The relevant thing is you aren’t free to decide whether that small risk is too big for your taste.
Not to mention the actual costs of the air bags themselves, which have added thousands to to total ownership costs of cars. Again, whether air bags are a benefit on the whole is not the issue. The issue is that we’re not free to decide whether they are for ourseves.
Ironically – and also interestingly – the insurance mafia’s agitprop arm sings the praises of all of this “safety” stuff, which it then uses as one of the many excuses to charge you more for the “coverage” you’re forced by the mafia’s strongarm – the government – to buy.
“Safety” equipment isn’t free, you see.
Things such as air bags – most current year cars have at least six now – cost money, not just to buy but also to “cover.” You are forced to pay more for “coverage” because it costs more to repair or replace a car that needs to have two (or more) air bags replaced after a crash. And you also get to pay for the now-mandatory back-up cameras that have to be installed in all new vehicles, so as to allow you to see remotely what you can no longer see clearly, on account of the view being obscured by anti-whiplash head restraints and ass-in-the-air rear ends that are designed not to make it easy to see but to absorb impact forces better when someone who couldn’t see backs up into you.
Makes you feel “safe,” doesn’t it?
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.Â
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!Â
Our donate button is here.
 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
When they tabulate fatalities from airbag deployment, they confine their data to low impact collisions probably because it’s so obvious that the airbags were responsible for the fatalities. What is probably just as obvious, but ignored is the fact that high impact fatalities are also going to be due to airbag deployment because those same airbags are impacting the drivers/passengers before anything else.
If I vehicles has defective airbags, why can’t they be legally removed? From what I’ve seen, the manufacturers claim that the useful life of their airbags is no more than ten years. I’m surprised that the government hasn’t required all cars with airbags to have them replaced after ten years.
If I’m not mistaken, my car has those defective airbags. About a year or so ago I hit a deer. The poor thing was doing their best to avoid being hit, but those anti lock brakes just weren’t enough to prevent a leg or two from shattering my grill and puncturing the radiator. My neck was pretty sore for a few weeks which indicates to me that I hit that deer pretty damn hard. No airbags were deployed. Thank God, but a defective airbag system is not something I want left in my car. At the very least, I need to replace the steering wheel, and would like to find out how to remove the rest of them as well, preferably without throwing any codes or having to look at a check engine life for the rest of my life.
Here’s where the story gets weird. As God is my witness, I’m not exaggerating in the slightest. It was just starting to get dark and I’d just turned on my headlights when that deer started across the road. He was scrambling like those cartoon characters that can’t get any traction, and as the deer bounced off the front of my car and was flying down the road in front of me, I noticed that there were a pair of sunglasses flying right along side the deer’s head. It was as if the impact had knocked them off its head.
When I drove up beside the deer to see if it was still alive and check the damage to my car, those sunglasses were laying right beside the deer’s head as well. I picked them up. They were a little dusty, but undamaged. I then tossed them back to the ground and started looking at the car to see if it was still drivable.
It wasn’t until I got home that I began to wonder what the hell was that deer doing wearing sunglasses??? The obvious answer is that they didn’t want to become the proverbial ‘deer in the headlights’ obliviously transfixed by their own impending death.
The more pertinent question is what is the meaning of this? Why didn’t it work? I’m pretty sure that there’s some sort of parable here. Cars with antilock braking system, airbags that don’t deploy, headlights that sell for $100 per light, and a deer wearing sunglasses at night still can’t prevent an accident.
Hi Schnarkle,
This is a topic for a longer response; stay tuned!
The ONLY way to live in a free country or anywhere is to have NO government.
Ironically, they want you dead. Safety’s got nothing to do with it, it’s all about control and submission.
Even worse are the “safety” regulations that demand cars be “secure” in the event of a rollover (something that rarely happens) – all because a few idiots did not know how to drive Corvairs in the 1960s. The rollover rules have forced automakers to strengthen and widen the A, B, C, and D pillars of vehicles. That widening reduces visibility. That reduced visibility causes blind spots. Those blind spots then result in accidents – far more accidents than ever involved rollovers! To cope with the blind spots, drivers are now expected to pay for expensive blind spot monitoring hardware and software. It is absolute lunacy! The late 50s and early 60s hardtops had virtually no blind spots, and few were involved in rollovers!
Indeed, Colony –
I once owned a Corvair – ’64 Monza coupe – so this is a personal one for me. The Corvair was no more “unsafe” than TDI diesel VWs were “dirty.”
I was by myself recently hit a deer head-on with my I30 Infinity. It was a violent impact, but not something I could not have handled. The airbags all blew, mine knocked one hand off of the steering wheel tearing open skin, and smacked me in the face so hard I had a concussion. I had enough control that my body and head were not going forward, but the bag had to “protect” me by slamming me in the face. I guess they are suppose to be useful, but it sure didn’t seem like it with my one instance of experiencing their safety.
Hi Synickel,
Yup. I hope they don’t total your car because of the cost of replacing the air bags.
The idea behind mandatory seat belts is that by not using them you’re inviting more serious injuries than if you do. This raises insurance and medical costs for everyone, especially if you have no insurance, since you’ll be treated in the emergency room without paying for it. So, is giving up a little freedom in this case worth the societal benefit?…
Hi Steven,
Where does the pushing of this âsocietal benefitâ come from? Who says there needs to be a benefit to society? There is one law and it is called natural law. Humans already have an internal system of inherited moral codes, we do not need man made (positive law) codes to supersede these boundaries.
If an individual chooses to not wear a seat belt and they are maimed, killed, or injured then they (or their estate) should be sent a bill for the services performed.
Just out of curiosity what becomes of the individual who chooses to wear a seat belt, but is also, maimed, killed, or injured? They followed positive law and still ended up with the same outcome. Life is not safe. We cannot (nor should we) have any law that takes away decision making from the individual to foster an unrealistic upholding of majority rule.
Wonderfully said, RG!
Thank you, Eric. I am feeling very philosophical today. đ
You bet, RG!
And doing a top-shelf job of it!
Hi Steven,
No one is giving up anything when they are forced to give it up. Let’s begin by using honest language. Of a piece with being “asked” to “pay your fair share.”
As far as “societal costs” – there are no such things. There are simply costs and these are either born by the person who incurred them or transferred – by force – onto others, which is morally outrageous.
And when you say, “in this case” – well, what about other cases? How do you oppose those cases when you have already agreed with the principle that justified “in this case”?
Not to mention that the head restraints are constrained to fit the lousy posture and height of the inslurance institute’s crash dummy, making it painful for those of us with a different size or with good posture…
And you can no longer find the _adjustable_ head restraints we used to have, unless you go to your friendly Canadian car dealer.
I’m 5’9″ and have good posture — and have trouble finding a new car that doesn’t give me acute neck pain after less than 100 miles of driving.
I’ve been a automotive tech for 50 years. I’m thankful to have raised a family. It’s going to be interesting in the coming years. I wonder if we will get to the point of unrepairable cars. They keep packing more and more technology into cars. I have a 1971 gmc step side. I can get any part I need for it. Sometimes it is easier to get parts for it than late model cars.
I always found it odd they come up with all these laws and safety regulations for automobiles, but motorcycle driving is still legal. Not only that, but in my state they recently made it so motorcycle drivers don’t have to wear helmets. I am not pro regulation, but that makes absolutely no sense. Another thing that is bothersome is that I have to pass an emissions test, but diesel drivers don’t.
MC helmets force the socialist agenda out into the open. If someone chooses not to wear a helmet and needs medical coverage they don’t have. Where is it Constitutional that I/my family has to pay for other people’s medical bills. Diesels do not create air pollution. Yea I get it that it’s hard to understand but a diesel motor is a completely different animal than a gasoline motor. You’re on the right track, keep thinking something most don’t do.
Hi Dic,
The only reason motorcycles are still allowed is because they existed before the Safety Cult went mainstream. But helmet laws were – and are – the fist step toward banning them. The principle asserted, you see, is that it is necessary to require wearing a helmet – for “safety.” Well, how about armored leathers? Even then, motorcycles are riskier to ride – and doesn’t “society” have a “concern” about that?
The way to fight this – and all such things of a piece – is by defending the principle that no one else is responsible for the decisions made by others or even for the bad luck of others. If I wreck while riding and hurt myself, no one else had anything to do with my decisions so no one else “owes” me money for the consequences of my decisions. Just the same, I “owe” no one else a cent for the consequences of their decisions.
Some soft-headed people will say I am “mean” and “selfish.” Well, I’m not the one suggesting force be directed at other people to clean up my messes.
The insurance scam is very much out of control, thanks to lobbyists buying off lawmakers. Let’s take the free state of Texas. Property owners are in a pickle unable to buy insurance at fair rates if at all because underwriters aka: insurance companies don’t want to insure homes, business properties. The risk isn’t worth it they say. But the truth is insurance companies don’t do anything but shuffle paperwork and insurance companies have insurance themselves on what they insure. On the other hand many of those insurance companies make billions on auto insurance if not trillions. Yet kick their customers to the curb every step of the way during the insurance racket forced on people. It’s so bad in Texas it’s shocking because it’s so lawless. The way to fight back is to charge around 8 to 12 cents per gallon of fuel at the pump and that covers drivers with no-fault liability insurance. So everyone has insurance on their vehicles. But the trial lawyers and the MD hacks that write medical reports for ambulance chasers would put on a clown show never seen before. So for now we are stuck with a real rip-off scam of insuring our vehicles and property. It’s so bad that the state of Texas has to insure homes at a very high rate because people would lose their homes not being able to buy insurance to insures those homes as part of their home loan requirements. Bottom line, the parasites feed on the honest productive people from every direction that those parasites can put their greedy hands.
You are the first writer or speaker I have come across that has even mentioned the current stupid use of the word “share” that has become so de rigueur. It’s like nails on a blackboard every time I hear it. It has become a counterfeit word. Like our counterfeit money its essence is missing. It is meaningless. Along with “reach out” it has become part of the wusification of society. The communication of ideas is being replaced by the evoking of emotions.
English is rich with words that can convey the idea of “telling” with multiple shades of nuance. None of them are “share”. What happens when you reduce your vocabulary?
Don’t think. Feel.
Thank you. Your first sentence is worth a donation.
Thanks, Roderick – Glad you found us! And also for your support!
Share is a scam word used by the corrupt. I was at a public town-hall meeting so homeowners could have a meaningless form to say something about the unjust escalation of property taxes. I asked why some people pay more in property taxes than others because their homes were nicer when we were paying for services which should be a flat tax. The term “fair share” came into play by the Tax-feeders. My next question was: if it’s about paying one’s fair share once a property owner pays 51% of the purchase price of their home in taxes shouldn’t they be free of property taxes at that point? The answer was back to paying, their fair share. I rephrase the question to, once the home owner pays in taxes the same amount in property taxes as the purchase price should the taxes stop on that property? After the word “no” was said I cut them off with, “so there is no such thing as, fair share, but to try and shame people out of their money so the Tax-Feeders don’t go hungry. Thank you for clearing up the property tax scam forced on us by holding our homes ransom for the yearly extortion payments”.
[…] Read the Whole Article […]
Oh no! They’ve gotten to Eric too!
“Of course, the idea is that when someone else runs into you from behind”.
That should be IF someone runs into you…
[Well, given the way people drive today..maybe “when” is more appropriate)
Hell, I’m surprised that we’re still *allowed* to determine if we want to accept the risk of riding a motorcycle.
Pretty soon we’ll all be locked in a padded cell “for our own safety” of course.
Controlling the slaves….
The phones are bad…now the new cars are worse….
A video looking at the phones and all the surveillance tech connected with it….
they discuss quantum entanglement….
from the comments…
The cell phone towers went up and the sparrows flew away. Hundreds of years in the hedgerow next to our house: one tower and they’ve gone.
You have to give credit to the controllers though, they have made us addicted to a weapon….
Ask yourself why Steve Jobs (Apple CEO) before he died, he refused his children to use mobile phones. Makes you wonder why?
and ‘ol Zuck covers up all his device cameras. Snowden removed all mics from his devices and uses USB mics only when needed….and the Nokia boss as well
opened up and dismantled my old samsung phone and it had a 3rd unmarked camera under the screen in the top right corner.
don’t think you can guarantee bluetooth is turned off. I think the part of the phone that does bluetooth is called the baseband modem. It is a computing device that can run entirely independently of the operating system. So even if you go into your phone settings and turn off bluetooth, the baseband modem can ignore that. Incidentally, the simcard is also a computing device that can run independently of the phones operating system.
When your phone says 0%…there is still 30% left for monitoring etc…
The World Economic Forum has declared that all humans will have smartphones embedded into their bodies by the year 2030.
Mark of the Beast
Research Sabrina Wallace and the Biofield, turning the body into a wire, IEEE 802 especially part 15
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSZYFfd31MA
Slip your phone into a Mylar or foil pouch from time to time to thwart their efforts.
I tried that, but there was still helium in it, and my phone floated away.
My 240 Volvos had head rests that you could see through. A good solution.
I would prefer to eschew air bags and ABS brakes. I like a good seatbelt, though. A rollover crash made me a believer.
Choices are good – always.
When you buy a rifle for hunting, there will be an automatic trigger block if you aim at the wrong game.
It will be a self-aiming and self-triggering device as long as the proper target is recognized by your rifle.
If you draw a bead on the right target, the self-firing rifle will do a kill shot, the self-firing rifle will know immediately the target is a threat.
It’s for your safety.
It’s a science these days, Bibi had better be careful. The self-firing rifle will not fail. Might even be the mother of all rifles or MOAR!
It’s the end of the world as we know and I feel fine.
ad absurdum ad nauseam
>It will be a self-aiming
Self aiming rifle.
What a concept.
But, who programs it?
Well, if Marcy the Engineer tells me I should to do it… guess I should. She’s an expert! And that feminized man she’s talking to, he seems to agree.
These two are like the parents I never had! Well, better do what I’m told.
Not to mention that SAFETY is an illusion in the first place. NO ONE is getting out of this alive. You have 3 choices: violence, accident, or disease. Lo and behold, the state has managed to consolidate the first two. In case of an accident, you may experience the violence of state mandated “safety”.
Indeed. Life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. Embrace it!
You are so right. This brings to mind the only time I ever got seriously and solidly “rear-ended” (man, that sounds so ghey), back in 1982. I was driving a 1970 Dodge Dart, with its wonderful 225 cu. in. slant six. It had “headrests,” but not like today’s. They were small, and perched on two uprights such that you could adjust their height, and they really didn’t interfere with visibility, as the width of the headrest was the same as the width of my head, give or take a bit. Worked fine, I didn’t get whiplashed, even though the impact was so hard that the back of the bench seat broke and was thereafter permanently “reclined” (I arranged one of those heavy plastic milk-crate things to hold it up so I could drive it until I junked it out, a short time later).
But that was the Before Times. Wish we could get ’em back.
Safety third, it works for Mike Rowe and it works for me too. I can hardly wait for when the bureaurat’s next step will be mandating the same sort of devises for Amish horse and buggies.
I think they have a mandated reflector triangle for the back.
One good thing about airbags…
Sometimes air bag deployment pushes repair cost into total loss territory.
So, you get a brand new car, instead of one which has been patched up.
BTDT.
That’s also a reason to keep comprehensive coverage on your older paid off car. A minor fender bender that might not even warrant a call to your agent in the past, if it set off airbags might mean you need to scrap it and replace.
>keep comprehensive coverage on your older paid off car.
Which I do.
I paid cash for my 1989 F150, but have always carried full coverage. If I get in a wreck, my insurance company will pay me. Let the insurance companies fight it out as to who is responsible (“at fault”). I am not a party to that dispute.
Hi Adi,
It’s a judgment call – and my position is we all ought to be free to make our own. The thing that gets my back up is being told by someone else that their judgment takes precedence over my own, which is what we’re fundamentally talking about. That ought to be the sole thing discussed; the rest is just one man’s vs. another man’s opinion about risk-reward.
> one manâs vs. another manâs opinion about risk-reward.
But, the actuaries rule.
Because that is their job… đ
Yup!
I choose to run my own risk – and get the reward. I have run the risk of not having health insurance for most of my adult life and this alone has been very rewarding in that I am not many tens of thousands of dollars poorer. Yes, I know – I might suddenly have a big medical bill. Well, maybe. But I will not live my live cringing in fear of everything that might happen, bankrupting myself in the process!
“I have run the risk of not having health insurance for most of my adult life “- Eric
But when the SHTF…..
Got a bill for a heart procedure I had done. They wanted $150,000. When insurance kicked in,,, it paid %13,000. Eleven times less than what they were charging me without insurance. Stand by for the shock of your lifetime if you happen to need hospital services.
I hear you, Ken –
But it’s damned if you do/damned if you don’t. I am not going to spend my life paying endlessly and through the nose for “coverage.” As a self-employed dude, the cost for any “coverage” that isn’t total shit is ridiculous – and I’m not interested in shit coverage. So be it. I run the risk, which I can do – responsibly – because I am not responsible for any dependents. Dawn gets whatever I have when I croak and that’s enough for her and plenty for her to take care of the animals!
Thanks to ObamaCare you now have limited choice. It eliminated the basic of insurance – coverage amount you decide on based on your risk $$ tolerance. Many people were perfectly happy with a private catastrophic coverage plan. You cover the sniffles and a broken arm, but if that heart procedure is needed you wonât go bankrupt.
Oh no said the âexpertsâ – you had âinadequateâ coverage (the word insurance so old fashioned) So thatâs gone along with âyou can keep your doctorâ. The whole thing a huge scam and upended what many were perfectly fine with for âcoverageâ.
Hi Sparkey,
Yup. And that leering Kenyan, of course, has the best medical care his millions can buy.
The best health insurance is to eat well (whole foods and mostly meats), don’t poison yourself with processed foods, alcohol and medications, and vigorously exercise regularly.
Right….
The best health care….what you eat….
A healthy diet…….Fresh grass fed beef or any wild game meat…plus organ meats…. and raw dairy products…also wild…non farm seafood…free range chicken and eggs…. and fresh fruit…plus honey…
The two healthiest food the slave owners will ban…Fresh grass fed beef and raw dairy products…and all fresh meat and dairy products….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFdjrGmbDo
> Stand by for the shock of your lifetime if you happen to need hospital services
10-4 on that one.
Everything medical is overpriced, primarily because most medical expenses in our society are 3rd partied out.
If you are paying the bill, you *WILL* demand accountability.
“Insurance pays for it” is just another way of saying “Santa Claus.”
Sorry, folks, there is no Santa Claus.
Not sure I agree. How much will they pay you? They’ll look up your ’89 F150 in some insurance book, and tell you it’s worth $500, take it or leave it. Much as I like my ’96 Ranger, I carry only liability on it. I know that, in the event of a collision, they’ll “total” it for so little money, it won’t justify the premiums.
Well…
Yes, comma, no.
Sate Farm (my insurer) will not do stated value. But they did tell me to keep records and take photos. Inshallah, I will not have a loss. But, if I do, I have a reasonable expectation their proposed settlement will be fair, based on past experience.
I guess if you have a collection of restored vehicles (Jay Leno style) you will have rethink your insurance carrier. But, I am not in that category.
One tip:
If you buy a new vehicle, keep the window sticker. It peels off easily, and tells *exactly* how the vehicle was equipped.
In case you car is totaled, you can show the window sticker to the insurance company. BTDT. No, folks, it is *not* the “base model.” Here is how it was equipped, so pay up. Which they did.
Hi Adi,
I have what’s called an “agreed value” policy that covers my ’76 Trans-Am. In the event it’s totaled or stolen they are legally obliged to pay a predetermined amount, the agreed value. This strikes me as proper insurance. Trusting that the mafia will otherwise “pay up” more than the lowest “book value” figure for an old car is, arguably, wishful thinking.
>predetermined amount, the agreed value.
Well, good for you, Eric. Sounds like you have done it right. Those of us who drive older vehicles in various stages of restoration, definitely need to be mindful of such things.
How much is a 1929 Chevy coupe with a 1960s drivetrain (big block V8, Corvette rear end) actually worth?
Howzabout a 1946 Dodge flatbed truck, w/1960s Mopar V8?
Does anyone really know?
The answer., of course, is how much will *someone* pay for such a thing, and I think you will need to negotiate with your insurance company as to what is the proper premium, in such cases.
BTW, who is your insurer?
Hi Adi,
Classic car coverage usually allows for mods. You typically have to itemize these, of course, when the policy is first issued and they may send someone to actually inspect the vehicle. But the point is they will cover vehicles such as you describe that have been modded.
Where you’re very likely to get screwed is with “normal” coverage, even if the vehicle is relatively new. The insurance adjuster will go by whatever the “book value” is, irrespective of what the vehicle is realistically worth in terms of replacing it with something comparable.
As an example, my friend down the road who runs a roofing business lost his main work truck when a girl pulled out in front of his driver and the driver swerved to avoid hitting her and ran off the road, totaling the truck. This truck had been customized with racks and ladder mounts and other such stuff that my friend had to fight tooth and nail with the mafia to cover. He also lost use of this truck for several weeks while the haggling over the check for the new one was going on.
Yeah, I get it, Eric.
So, who is your insurer?
Hi Adi,
American Classics. I’ve no complaints thus far. Not-unreasonable rates for an agreed value policy that would allow me to get a similar car if the worst happened. Of course, the Orange Barchetta is of infinite value to me and could never be replaced.
Hi RK,
True – but in that event, they’ll give you next to nothing for the old vehicle. My old truck, for instance, has a book value of $4,000 or so. If I paid an additional $500 annually for a “full coverage” policy, I’d have paid out a sum equivalent to about half the value of my truck for that “coverage” after four or so years than whatever they’d hypothetically pay me if my truck were totaled.
Insurance is basically like gambling in that the house almost always wins.
>Insurance is basically like gambling
Insurance is a game, in which you bet against yourself, and hope to lose the bet.
Especially, life insurance. đ
There is no almost. It IS gambling, youâre betting against yourself, and the house ALWAYS wins. There was a time when insurance was a free market and actuarial tables mattered, if you didnât like the price you took your own chances. The problem with that is, often the lawyers didnât get paid because it wasnât worth suing Joe Average.
But with state coerced insurance, by the magic of the protection racket, the lawyers get very rich and sleek.
Amen, advocate –
I have no beef with insurance, per se. My beef is with the compulsion aspect (and cost). Insurance ought to be a low-cost proposition based upon a very unlikely cost-payout scenario. For example, health insurance with a very high deductible that pays for a catastrophic/unlikely injury or health problem would be affordable. And so would routine medical care. But since insurance is used to “cover” literally everything shy of a package of Band Aids at CVS, it costs a fortune.
Similarly as regards car insurance. No adult with a record of claims-free driving for say ten years ought to be paying more than maybe $200 annually for a basic liability-only policy. But since we can’t say no to the Mafia, most people have to pay much more than that.
There Is no such thing as “health” insurance.
There is only third party payment for medical expenses.
So, who is the third party?
If you are self employed, the third party is you.
TANSTAAFL.
>often the lawyers didnât get paid
“Pay policy limits” is how the insurance companies minimize their own (internal) legal costs. An insurance policy is a contract, and contract law rules.
History from the Christian millennium demonstrates the powerful Christian influence against insurance which existed until the beginning of the 18th century.
“Before 1720…life insurance was as yet hardly conceived…the direct insurance of life, as a means of reducing the element of chance in human affairs, was hardly thought of. Indeed, such contracts were commonly regarded as mere forms of gambling, and were prohibited in France as against good morals…insurance… is pre-eminently a modern institution. “Some two centuries ago the mass of civilized men had no conception of its meaning. Its general application and popular acceptance began within the first half of the 19th century, and its commercial and social importance have multiplied a hundred fold within living memory.”
The nominally Christian ministers failed. Then their people became weak. The moral tone of a parliamentary government mirrors that of its constituents. Soon government no longer protects its citizenry.
Then government, guided by the oligarchy , created laws to force all the people to submit to the bondage of insurance. Then God and His Word are cursed by civil authorities and by civil laws. Christians find government binding their consciences, forcing them by “law” to go against God’s Law. “We ought to obey God rather than men.” Acts:5.
“The democracy of the West today is a forerunner of Marxism, which without it would be quite unthinkable. It alone gives this world plague the soil on which the pestilence may spread…It is the object of our present democratic parliamentarism not to form an assembly of wise men but rather to put together a HERD OF INTELLECTUALLLY DEPENDENT CIPHERS, who become easier to steer in particular directions as their PERSONAL INCAPACITY INCREASES. And only so is it possible for THE REAL WIRE-PULLER to remain always cautiously in the background WITHOUT EVER BEING PERSONALLY CALLED TO ACCOUNT. And so all practical responsibility disappears, for it can exist only in the obligation of an individual, and not in a PARLIAMENTARY WINDBAG ASSOCIATION.
joebear
The regulators will tell you that 38,000 people die on highways every year. That’s 10-12 9/11’s worth of deaths every year. And look at the overreaction to 9/11.
And you’re bitching about headrests? Be happy that’s all they’re forcing on us.
The fundamental problem is that they’re looking for magic technology that will make up for the shortcomings of the average driver. Or, more correctly, the total lack of driver training and certification. A “safer” car also allows them to continue to build the same poor quality roads, using political power as the criteria for new construction (bridges to nowhere, “Interstate” 99, etc) instead of real need. And if there’s a big newsworthy accident? Well there’s always the option to lower speed limits. Signs are cheap compared to improving the roads.
> Signs are cheap compared to improving the roads.
Yeah, and besides that, improving the roads isn’t “sexy.”
Civil engineering, the oldest branch of engineering, doesn’t get much respect in the U.S. these days, sad to say. But, that will change…
I wonder what it would look like Eric if you wrote up one of your articles in a satire using all the Leftâs buzzwords. Like concerned, sharing, reaching out, stakeholders, sustainable, equitable etc. etc..!
Reminds me of the people who wrote a “dog rape epidemic in dog parks” paper that won accolades from lefties until they found out it was satire.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fake-news-comes-to-academia-1538520950
>dog rape epidemic
The visuals are too grotesque to imagine.
Sorry, Philo, you have grossed me out. đ
‘Canine sexual misconduct’ is the perfect riposte to those who anthropomorphize their beloved pets:
‘The journal in questionâGender, Place & Cultureâpublished a paper online in May whose author claimed to have spent a year observing canine sexual misconduct in Portland, Ore., parks.
‘The author admits that âmy own anthropocentric frameâ makes it difficult to judge animal consent. Still, the paper claims dog parks are âpetri dishes for canine ârape cultureâ â and issues âa call for awareness into the different ways dogs are treated on the basis of their gender and queering behaviors, and the chronic and perennial rape emergency dog parks pose to female dogs.â’
Dogs dicking around in leftist Portland, quite possibly high on shrooms — is anyone surprised by this depravity?
RS,
How about this for answering a question from the woke public with their own buzzwords:
âOur policy makers and leadership teams are working hard on these issues, and we expect to incorporate the current standards and regulations related to emissions related to and affecting overburdened communities to be part of comprehensive plan which we are awaiting revisions from forthcoming from the Clean Air Summit. Climate action framework addresses emissions and greenhouse gases reduction targets. Implementation measures with these goals has not been published and codified into land use agreements at this time.”
Can’t see bc of the headrests & the large pillars. Add a camera. Lawyers add a message that says don’t trust the camera, turn your head and look. But I can’t look because of the headrests and large pillars. It’s a like an unfunny Monty Python bit.
‘the insurance mafia … âclarifiesâ the âimportance of a properly adjusted car seat head restraint.â’ — eric
What if it can’t be properly adjusted?
I drove a friend’s Nissan Rogue on a couple of 4-hour round trips. Within 30 seconds of setting out, it became apparent that NO position of the headrest was tolerable. Down low, it dug into my shoulders and back. Raised higher, it forced my head into a nodding position. The only solution was to pull it out and stow it behind the driver’s seat.
Big Gov mandates headrests, but takes no responsibility when a manufacturer such as Nissan flubs their ergonomic design, making them intrusive and useless.
Meanwhile, nanny Marcy says ‘headrest’ is wrong. I don’t care. Crimespeak is truth, bitch. Don’t make me restrain you.
Rear impact crashes are the most common, mama Marcy lectures in the video. Big Gov has taken note. It has big plans for us — AEB (Automatic Emergency Braking), now mandated in 2029.
AEB, like ‘self driving,’ is algorithmic. Unlike humans, an algorithm’s attention never wanders. It is a very limited, very stupid little pea brain which spends its entire existence focused obsessively on one task — slamming on the brakes when something (real or not) triggers its one-trick-pony moment to shine.
There’s just one little problem: the transition period during the forced adoption of AEB, which follows an S-curve logistic function. Its midpoint, where half of vehicles have AEB and half don’t, will be at least several years out — say 2034, the year Social Insecurity’s trust [sic] fund is slated to hit zero, after cockroach Congress Clowns filched it all.
For every AEB-equipped vehicle that slams on its brakes and avoids whacking something in front, a following human-driven vehicle becomes more likely, in turn, to plow into it from behind. Depending on the lag in the AEB algorithm — and whether it will even permit tailgating — a chain reaction crash of AEB vehicles is also conceivable.
Human psychology is another factor. Having spent a lifetime in full control of our vehicles, it will come as a profound shock when a leisurely cruise is suddenly interrupted by a 3-second jolt to a dead stop because a squirrel ran into the road.
After that, one will never again feel secure in an AEB-equipped vehicle. Even the smoothest, most contemplative ride can come to a rude, jouncing stop without warning. Big Gov, we can infer, likes to keep its human lab rats perpetually on edge.
It’s not enough just to flirt with nuclear destruction via its mad-dog ukronazis and zionazis. Now even vehicles and household appliances can jump at us and yell ‘BOO!’ A few sensitive souls will cardiac infarct on the spot — mere collateral damage, you see, in service of the greater good of keeping the rest of us saaaaaaaaaaaaafe. đ
it will come as a profound shock when a leisurely cruise is suddenly interrupted by a 3-second jolt to a dead stop because a squirrel ran into the road.
Oh, it won’t trigger on a squirrel. However it will trigger on Sun glare, someone jumping lanes into your space cushion, and someone far ahead of you braking as they approach the off ramp. And it will suddenly cut off when the mag chloride covers the sensor (which is conveniently placed in the lower part of the bumper where it gets all the backsplash). So when you might expect it to work, it won’t.
Oh, theyâll mandate washers and wipers and self tests which enforce a limp mode when they fail. Itâs so much easier to make rules than to think.
> a chain reaction crash of AEB vehicles is also conceivable.
We already have those in the central valley of California.
The precipitating event is called “fog.”
More specifically, “Tule fog.”
Forty car pileups are not unheard of, sad to say.
Canât wait to see the results of an âautomatic brakingâ car in front of a semi on the highway; might be enough left of said car to sweep into a trash can.
We all will become comfortably numb.
All in all, its just another brick in the wall.
A few sensitive souls will cardiac infarct on the spot â mere collateral damage, you see, in service of the greater good of keeping the rest of us saaaaaaaaaaaaafe.
LOL. đ
ITLR, which for purposes of this discussion I define to be 40 years (+/-), reality will take over, and the opinions of of those with degrees in “sociology” will not matter.