I would like to see them paying for extended coverage from their insurance. For example, I am a smoker so I have to pay higher premium for my health and life insurances. I have absolutely no problem with that because that's my choice. By the same token, I don't want to have to pay for someone's choice if his/her coverage is insufficient.
I would like to see them paying for extended coverage from their insurance. For example, I am a smoker so I have to pay higher premium for my health and life insurances. I have absolutely no problem with that because that's my choice. By the same token, I don't want to have to pay for someone's choice if his/her coverage is insufficient.
I would like to see them paying for extended coverage from their insurance. For example, I am a smoker so I have to pay higher premium for my health and life insurances. I have absolutely no problem with that because that's my choice. By the same token, I don't want to have to pay for someone's choice if his/her coverage is insufficient.
I would like to see them paying for extended coverage from their insurance. For example, I am a smoker so I have to pay higher premium for my health and life insurances. I have absolutely no problem with that because that's my choice. By the same token, I don't want to have to pay for someone's choice if his/her coverage is insufficient.
I don't think there are a whole lot of systems that are 100% foolproof but police report would be a good indication. I do realize the death rate would be much higher in helmetless accidents but there are other emotional issues involved as well.
I don't think there are a whole lot of systems that are 100% foolproof but police report would be a good indication. I do realize the death rate would be much higher in helmetless accidents but there are other emotional issues involved as well.
The US National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA), one of the most influential government agencies when it comes to public safety on roadways, has stated that current school buses are among the safest forms of transportation available. After studying the results of crashes involving these buses, the NHTSA stated that there was no compelling reason to believe the use of seatbelts should be federally mandated. Most accidents were either frontal or rear collisions, which means that passengers were protected by a safety feature called compartmentalization.
Compartmentalization, a concept seen frequently on commercial airplanes, involves seating passengers in rows of padded seats with cushioned backs. The belief is that during frontal or rear impact, the most common types of wrecks involving school buses, passengers would either be pushed back into their seats or thrown forward into the padded backs of the row ahead. The use of seatbelts might require stiffer seats, which would negate the theory of compartmentalization. It is also feared that some students would receive internal injuries from the belts through a process called submarining, the tendency for a body to slide downwards during impact.
Seatbelts could also hamper rescue or evacuation efforts, as adults or older students may have to spend precious minutes unbuckling young or disoriented passengers. Unruly students could also use the heavy buckles as makeshift weapons, creating even more of a safety hazard. There is also the argument that seatbelts would only protect passengers during unusual events, such as roll-overs or flips, not other possible accidents such as fires or submersion. Considering the expense of retrofitting current school buses or replacing entire fleets with approved seat belt systems, the benefits do not currently outweigh the liabilities.
The US National Highway Transportation Administration (NHTSA), one of the most influential government agencies when it comes to public safety on roadways, has stated that current school buses are among the safest forms of transportation available. After studying the results of crashes involving these buses, the NHTSA stated that there was no compelling reason to believe the use of seatbelts should be federally mandated. Most accidents were either frontal or rear collisions, which means that passengers were protected by a safety feature called compartmentalization.
Compartmentalization, a concept seen frequently on commercial airplanes, involves seating passengers in rows of padded seats with cushioned backs. The belief is that during frontal or rear impact, the most common types of wrecks involving school buses, passengers would either be pushed back into their seats or thrown forward into the padded backs of the row ahead. The use of seatbelts might require stiffer seats, which would negate the theory of compartmentalization. It is also feared that some students would receive internal injuries from the belts through a process called submarining, the tendency for a body to slide downwards during impact.
Seatbelts could also hamper rescue or evacuation efforts, as adults or older students may have to spend precious minutes unbuckling young or disoriented passengers. Unruly students could also use the heavy buckles as makeshift weapons, creating even more of a safety hazard. There is also the argument that seatbelts would only protect passengers during unusual events, such as roll-overs or flips, not other possible accidents such as fires or submersion. Considering the expense of retrofitting current school buses or replacing entire fleets with approved seat belt systems, the benefits do not currently outweigh the liabilities.
I knew an engineer of school buses for years. This is basically what he said. Always traveling the country for court. Always said school buses were ultra safe. Never looked it up. But assumed he was right, but guess in his interest to say so.
I knew an engineer of school buses for years. This is basically what he said. Always traveling the country for court. Always said school buses were ultra safe. Never looked it up. But assumed he was right, but guess in his interest to say so.
I'd love to see the research showing that people involved in a motorcycle accident while wearing a helmet cost more than people involved in an accident while not wearing a helmet.
I'd love to see the research showing that people involved in a motorcycle accident while wearing a helmet cost more than people involved in an accident while not wearing a helmet.
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
For more than 40 years, Michigan required all motorcycle riders to wear helmets. State legislators changed the law last year so that only riders younger than 21 must wear helmets. The average insurance payment on a motorcycle injury claim was $5,410 in the two years before the law was changed, and $7,257 after it was changed — an increase of 34 percent, the study by the Highway Loss Data Institute found.
"The cost per injury claim is significantly higher after the law changed than before, which is consistent with other research that shows riding without a helmet leads to more head injuries," David Zuby, chief research officer for the data institute and an affiliated organization, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.