Martin Shell wrote:
I always wear my PFD. I always wear seatbelts in a car. The personal
freedom argument against regulation is appealing, to a point. Part of
the cost of my auto, health and life insurance is the cost of risk
pooling because others are going to be "benefitting" from their
stupidity, at everyone's expense. Rescue resources, and insurance
benefits come out of everyone's pocket. If we don't mandate, let's
formalize the notion that if you suffer harm because of the lack of
seatbelt, PFD, etc. you lose (all, most, some?) of your insurance
coverage.

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept. If you want to ride a motorcycle without a
helmet, drive a car without wearing seatbelts, or paddle without a PFD,
you should be willing to pay for the increased risk you pose to an
insurer. This is already done with some factors, premiums being based on
age, physical condition and whether a person smokes or not. Why
shouldn't use of safety equipment be part of the equation? If someone
lies in order to get a lower rate, the insurance company should not have
to pay if they get hurt or die, or at least they should be allowed to
pay a reduced benefit. Fair is fair.

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept.


My father and older brother work in insurance, and so did I for a while. I
hate to tell you this, but insurance is ALL about statistics. And the current
statistics DO NOT support mandatory use of a pfd in a sea kayak.
Besides, if the insurance company did have that kind of power then what
would be next? They may decide, based on the statistics, that every paddler
must wear a drysuit. Now your paddling in Florida and the air temp is 110
degrees and the water is 80 degrees. To have to wear a drysuit would be
ludicrous! But you get into trouble and need assistance. To bad! Your insurance
is canceled because you didn't have on a drysuit at the time as dictated by the
insurance company. Is that really what you want?

Scott
So.Cal.

On 08 Apr 2004 12:49:51 GMT, (Ki Ayker) wrote:

Absolutely. I'm all for insurance companies having a freer hand to
dictate coverage terms and to price coverage according to what terms the
insured is willing to accept.


My father and older brother work in insurance, and so did I for a while. I
hate to tell you this, but insurance is ALL about statistics. And the current
statistics DO NOT support mandatory use of a pfd in a sea kayak.
Besides, if the insurance company did have that kind of power then what
would be next? They may decide, based on the statistics, that every paddler
must wear a drysuit. Now your paddling in Florida and the air temp is 110
degrees and the water is 80 degrees. To have to wear a drysuit would be
ludicrous! But you get into trouble and need assistance. To bad! Your insurance
is canceled because you didn't have on a drysuit at the time as dictated by the
insurance company. Is that really what you want?

Just as a useless data point, I live in Florida and I'm pretty sure we
didn't break into triple digit temperatures all last year. Sure, the
humidity gets pretty high, and the temperatures in the summer are in the
high 90s, but it seems to get the really high temperatures you have to go
someplace like Kansas or New York. That was one thing I noticed after
moving here, that it gets real humid, the bugs get bad and it feels hot,
but it doesn't get beastly hot here, not like in Texas or Arizona anyway.

Galen Hekhuis NpD, JFR, GWA
We are the CroMagnon of the future