🚀 go-pugleaf

Galen Hunter  <gvhunter@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <tweekDn8pFq.18s@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (R R M Tweek) writes: 
>
>>See above.  My insurance premiums will be going up 500% (at least), not 
>>because I was in an accident, not because I have been ticketed, not 
>>because there has been an increase in motorcycle related accidents, not
>>because more motorcycle accidents lately have been the fault of the
>>motorcylist, but strictly because I now have to pay for the 
>>irresponsibility 
>>of others.  
>
>When I hear someone saying their auto (motorcycle) insurance rates will
>go up by 500% - I'm listening.
>
>You may have a good point, but, not for the reason you gave.


>Anyway, my point is - for *motorcycle* operators to satisfy the current
>law, liability by itself is only about $100 a year. If you include some
>medical for yourself and uninsured motorist coverage (which is medical
>for yourself) on your current motorcycle insurance policy - the premium
>is closer to $500.

It is Medical, but it is medical, not only for my own mistakes, but
also for the mistakes of others.  Say I'm walking down the street and
your dog bites me.  Should MY medical coverage cover the dog bite related
hospital bills, or should you and/or your homeowner's coverage?


>So, I can see your point. If your paying $100 a year now because you
>just have liability - and carry no medical insurance.  Under
>"no-fault", liability becomes history and the relatively good rate you
>have for liability (because you operate motorcycle which can cause
>relatively less damage) becomes history.  Your cost for insurance under
>no-fault increases because you have to buy, in effect, medical
>insurance for yourself - which is more expensive than liability on a
>motorcycle.

I have my own medical coverage already, thank you.  Why should I
need to aquire a second source of the same coverage?  I somehow
feel that No-Fault won't take my HMO care into consideration when
requiring that I obtain no-fault coverage?

>Wait, I think I see your point about motorcycle operators vs. auto
>operators, - because motorcycle operators are much more likely to get
>hurt (higher medical bills) compared to auto operators - the insurance
>marketplace may adjust to this by relatively higher rates for
>motorcycle no-fault policies compared to auto no-fault policies.

By that same logic, because I didn't walk down the street in a suit 
of armor, it is my fault that the dog bit me and my medical coverage
should pay for all costs associated with your dog biting me.

>Just trying to think this through.

Think it through all the way then.  We are talking "RESPONSIBILITY".
No-Fault is copping out on responsibility.  What does No-Fault and
Mandated Insurance have to do with each other?  Nothing which can't
be separated at the source.  

You seem to be of the opinion that motorcyclists are daredevils who
have placed little value on their own life.  Let me tell you, 
motorcyclists for the most part, are more aware than any other type
of driver out there on the road, of the value of their life, and are
constantly driving for the other person as well.

Many many times:

1)  I have moved out of the way of a car changing lanes because he
    was to busy talking on his car phone to see me even with his
    driver's side window.

2)  Moved out of the way of Volvo drivers who, in their safe little
    protected world, are unaware that there is a world in those
    side and rear view mirrors.

3)  Moved out of the way as Mommy in her minivan, turns around in
    her seat to feed the baby or yell at the other children, completely
    unaware that her van is drifting into another lane.

You haven't known defensive driving, until you've been on a motorcycle
in the midst of fools that shouldn't be on the road at that particular
time.  I'm already taking responsibility for these fools of the road, I
don't see why I should have to add financial responsibility for their
mistakes.