Uber Drivers Forum banner
1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
In California, all adults must wear a seatbelt when in a moving car.. This , also, includes the back seat. This is a California state law..
Both Uber and Lyft mention in their driver instruction manuals that all passengers, whether in the front or back seat, must wear a seatbelt, but it is only mentioned a couple of times..

This is the danger for rideshare drivers.. All passengers are covered by a $1,000,000 insurance policy during the trip.. If the driver has a wreck and the passenger is injured but not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company , most likely, will not pay the injury claim.. What happens next ?? The passenger hires an attorney and sues the rideshare driver..

Uber and Lyft cover their financial butts by vaguely mentioning this requirement .. They expect the driver to be aware of all driving laws .. It actually is to their advantage to have the insurance company payout on few policies.. We all know that insurance companies will look for ways to not pay..

I am a driver and a passenger.. I have never had a Uber or Lyft driver ask me to fasten my seat belt.. When driving , my car does not move until the belt is fastened by the pax.. Many passengers tell me that I am the only driver they have ever had that requires this safety act.

Big mistake, drivers. Check with your state and if backseat passengers must wear a seatbelt, it is to YOUR advantage to ask passengers to buckle up..

I look at it this way.. Uber and Lyft think that drivers are too stupid to understand the importance of this simple requirement. Another way that they screw drivers over and keep their operating cost down. Uber and Lyfts defense to the insurance company, " Instructions to the drivers are clearly written that all adult occupants of a moving car, must wear a seat belt.. This driver is not following company safety guidelines and, also, breaking the law. "

Another reason, in case your do not know, is the driver and the passenger will get a ticket if the backseat paxs are not buckled up..

States vary in this requirement.. For your protection, check and see what your state requirements are for backseat passengers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
If the driver has a wreck and the passenger is injured but not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company , most likely, will not pay the injury claim.
What do you base that statement on?

I realize that insurance will grab any excuse they can. That's not my question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
The only ratings I've received that are not 5 star are from pax who either didn't want to buckle up or mask up, I wear it like a badge of honour.
I've had some rides where the pax buckles up the seatbelt BEHIND their person so as to silence the car's seatbelt beep warning system.
After some education most people eventually realize the importance of the belt, but some people are very against it and have told me that they think it's pointless to EVER buckle up in the backseat, but they're 100% for belts in the front seats.
I chalk it up to long covid having partially melted their brain.
Keep fighting the good fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
What do you base that statement on?

I realize that insurance will grab any excuse they can. That's not my question.
Of course every region's laws and different insurance companies and their respective policies may differ, and this is purely anecdotal but I had a lady rider who said her husband was in that situation.
Basically the husband and his friends were in an Uber and an accident occurred, he wasn't buckled but his friends were. Based on injuries it was clear who was strapped in and who wasn't, so the friends got a juicy settlement while the husband only got a fraction.
This is the story I share and it usually shuts people up.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
Seatbelt laws are govt. over reach.
Yes, absolutely they are.

But if you can figure out a way to keep my auto insurance premiums down, that would be a help. As it stands now, part of those premiums goes to pay for the injuries of people who refuse to wear them.

Making it a legal requirement to wear them helps with that issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The only ratings I've received that are not 5 star are from pax who either didn't want to buckle up or mask up, I wear it like a badge of honour.
I've had some rides where the pax buckles up the seatbelt BEHIND their person so as to silence the car's seatbelt beep warning system.
After some education most people eventually realize the importance of the belt, but some people are very against it and have told me that they think it's pointless to EVER buckle up in the backseat, but they're 100% for belts in the front seats.
I chalk it up to long covid having partially melted their brain.
Keep fighting the good fight.
--------------------------
Your car has a warning when the belt is not fastened for the back seat ??
I wish mine did..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,199 Posts
Yes, absolutely they are.

But if you can figure out a way to keep my auto insurance premiums down, that would be a help. As it stands now, part of those premiums goes to pay for the injuries of people who refuse to wear them.

Making it a legal requirement to wear them helps with that issue.


If you was right, how come my ins. premiums keep going up? We got 2 with primary laws here & 1 with a secondary, but my ins. ain't gone down never.

So you gotta be wrong. As usual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
What do you base that statement on?

I realize that insurance will grab any excuse they can. That's not my question.
-------------------------

I am really surprised at that question, Christine.
First, I wrote MOST LIKELY
Second, it would be logical, in todays lawsuit happy world, that would be the chain of events.. Do you actually believe that an insurance company would pay out $20,000+ injury lawsuit if they do not have to.. When a person breaks the law and gets seriously injured, the insurance company is going to say, Sorry, but we are not going to pay for your medical expenses. JMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I posted this because I want drivers to be aware of WHAT CAN HAPPEN if certain laws are not followed..
It is a simple way to avoid a huge problem ..
As for me, I want backseat passengers buckled up.. If I have a wreck I do not want a 160 lb person flying into my back, neck and head from the backseat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
426 Posts
Seatbelt laws, like helmet laws, defeat Darwin’s principle. We want to weed those types from the breeding pool.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,964 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Seatbelt laws are govt. over reach.
--------------------
I think that it is amazing how everything safety related suggested or required by the state or Federal government is considered an encroachment into ones life and liberties..
Seat belts save lives - proven fact.
The issue here is to prevent rideshare drivers from getting slapped with a lawsuit that can be easily prevented.. Most drivers do not know that it is a California state law..
Like it or not..
 

·
Read Only
Joined
·
58 Posts
In California, all adults must wear a seatbelt when in a moving car.. This , also, includes the back seat. This is a California state law..
Both Uber and Lyft mention in their driver instruction manuals that all passengers, whether in the front or back seat, must wear a seatbelt, but it is only mentioned a couple of times..

This is the danger for rideshare drivers.. All passengers are covered by a $1,000,000 insurance policy during the trip.. If the driver has a wreck and the passenger is injured but not wearing a seatbelt, the insurance company , most likely, will not pay the injury claim.. What happens next ?? The passenger hires an attorney and sues the rideshare driver..

Uber and Lyft cover their financial butts by vaguely mentioning this requirement .. They expect the driver to be aware of all driving laws .. It actually is to their advantage to have the insurance company payout on few policies.. We all know that insurance companies will look for ways to not pay..

I am a driver and a passenger.. I have never had a Uber or Lyft driver ask me to fasten my seat belt.. When driving , my car does not move until the belt is fastened by the pax.. Many passengers tell me that I am the only driver they have ever had that requires this safety act.

Big mistake, drivers. Check with your state and if backseat passengers must wear a seatbelt, it is to YOUR advantage to ask passengers to buckle up..

I look at it this way.. Uber and Lyft think that drivers are too stupid to understand the importance of this simple requirement. Another way that they screw drivers over and keep their operating cost down. Uber and Lyfts defense to the insurance company, " Instructions to the drivers are clearly written that all adult occupants of a moving car, must wear a seat belt.. This driver is not following company safety guidelines and, also, breaking the law. "

Another reason, in case your do not know, is the driver and the passenger will get a ticket if the backseat paxs are not buckled up..

States vary in this requirement.. For your protection, check and see what your state requirements are for backseat passengers.

You and I might be the only 2 drivers who do this. I did 17k rides in 3 yrs and on all but 3, the car didn't move until the seatbelt clicked. The 3 that I let slide were too obese to buckle up.
I confirm the pax name (they tell ME!), confirm destination, confirm seatbelt is buckled.
No kids under 8 w/o a car seat.

Imagine being surd by Uber/Lyft trash pax and paying for YEARS, or being forced to mortgage your house, bc you were too stupid or lazy as a driver to require back seat seatbelt use! And I saw it all the time when I dorve. "You're the only driver that ever required that" Uh-huh.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
If you was right, how come my ins. premiums keep going up? We got 2 with primary laws here & 1 with a secondary, but my ins. ain't gone down never.

So you gotta be wrong. As usual.
Because the cost of cars keeps going up. And because the latest advances in trauma medicine keep getting more sophisticated (read: expensive)

Is that so terribly hard to understand?

And because those seat belt laws have been enforced for about the last 30 or 40 years. So you're not going to see an improvement from them right now, compared to last year.

In other words, your argument has no validity.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,816 Posts
Some statistics for 2019 from NHTSA and GHSA (Governor's Highway Safety Association)


States with the highest Traffic Fatality Rates in 2019 (per hundred million miles driven--this is the NHTSA Standard)


South Carolina-1,73/90,73% Observed Seat Belt Use/Primary law for all occupants.
Mississippi-1,56/80,5% Use//Primary-All
New Mexico-1,53%91,8% Use/Primary-All
Kentucky-1,48/89,7% Use/Primary-All
Wyoming-1,44/78,3% Use /Secondary-All


States with the lowest Traffic Fatality Rates for 2019

Massachusetts-0,51/81,6% Use/Secondary-All-RARELY enforced unless the police want to give you a break on a STOP sign, but they must get you for something.*
Minnesota-0,6/93,4% Use/Primary-All
District of Columbia-0,61/95,4% Use/Primary-All--VICIOUSLY enforced.
Vermont-0,64/89,3% Use/Secondary-All-Enforced only under circumstances similar to Massachusetts.*
New Jersey-0,71/90,2% Use/Primary front; Secondary back


States with the highest Observed Seat Belt Use

Hawaii-97,1% Use/Primary-All
California-96% Use/Primary-All--enforcement tends to vary by locality; some viciously, others not so much.**
Georgia-95,9% Use/Primary front; Secondary back
Oregon-95,7% Use/Primary-All
District of Columbia-95,4% Use/Primary-All


States with the lowest Observed Seat Belt Use

New Hampshire-70,7% Use/ ZERO seat belt law (except for juveniles) ***
South Dakota-75,2% use/Secondary-Front
Wyoming-78,3% Use/Secondary-All
Nebraska-79,9% Use/Secondary-Front
Mississippi-80,5%/Primary-All


New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law, has a NHTSA Traffic Fatality Rate of 0,73 per hundred million miles driven (NHTSA Standard)/Observed Use Rate of 70,7%***

The national average of Observed Seat belt use is 90,7%

The District of Columbia and New York assign two points for not using a seat belt. These are the only two states that assign points for this.


Items worth noting:

New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law and is among the lowest five on Observed Use has a relatively low Traffic Fatality Rate. It is only 0,02 points higher than New Jersey's which is in the Top Five for low TFR.***

While on the subject of New Jersey, for years, it had one of the highest Observed Use Rates in the country while at the same time, it was in the Top Three for highest TFR. New Jersey has improved its Traffic safety markedly while its Observed Use has dropped to just under the national average.

Massachusetts (YES, Massachusetts) has the lowest TFR in the country for 2019 and has only a secondary law that is rarely enforced.** TWICE, the Good Voters of Massachusetts repealed seat belt laws passed by the Legislature. The opponents titled the second anti-seat belt law campaign " No means 'NO!' ". Finally, after a desperate appeal from the Legislature, the Good Voters of Massachusetts gave the Commonwealth a secondary law, so that the Commonwealth could get something out of the arm-twisting from the Federales. The Legislature, mindful of the victories by the Good Voters of the Commonwealth in two referenda, submitted it as a plebiscite with three choices: ZERO law, a secondary or primary. The Legislators sponsored advertisements throughout the Commonwealth that basically asked the Good Voters of the Commonwealth at least to give them a secondary law. Massachusetts actually did pass a primary law before the Federal arm-twisting started. That was repealed in the first referendum.

Massachusetts has an observed Use rate that is far below the national average and is only 1,1% higher than Mississippi, which is Number Five on the lowest Observed Use rate table.

Of the five states with the highest TFR, four of them have a primary law. Only one, Wyoming, has a secondary law. Two of the five states have a Use rate far below the national average. One has a Use rate somewhat below the national average. One has a Use rate only slightly below the national average. One has a Use rate above the national average.

Of the states with the lowest TFR, three have primary laws, two have secondary.

Of the five states with the lowest TFR, two have a Use rate above the national average. One has a Use rate slightly below the national average. One has a Use rate somewhat below the national average. One has a use rate far below the national average.



What I am seeing here, or, in this case, not seeing, is a consistent connexion among seat belt laws, seat belt use and traffic fatality rates. I see some statistics that might suggest a connexion, but nothing consistent. This runs contrary to everything that has been programmed into people since they were in elementary school from the late 1950s forward to to-day.

In specific incidents, they will save lives, prevent injury or lessen the severity of the injury. In other cases, they can cause injuries of fatalities.

I have experience on both sides of the above. I was in a collision where I had no seat belt, was thrown from the car and walked away from it. The driver was pinned in the car and damned near died. Conversely, I was driving a car, a 1968 Chrysler Newport, at the then Forty-Mile-per Hour speed limit on this particular road. Some Rocket Scientist in a BMW (I know, redundant), pulled U turn right in front of me. I t-Boned his car. I had on a lap belt only, and walked away from it. The guy in the front seat next to me had no seat belt and his head went through the windshield. According to the ER doctors, the only reason that he was not severely injured was because he was drunk. (I was sober, which was why I was driving his car)

If seat belt laws and their vicious enforcement actually did prevent injuries or fatalities, or lessened the severity of injuries, the ambulance chasers such as Greedberg and Buildupman, Slimeball and Quirk or Assclown and Gerbil would be out of business (Greenberg and Bederman, Saiontz and Kirk, Ashcraft and Gerel, resepctively; those are the large local television law firms in this market). At the very least, they would be hghly diversified and have a far lower case load than they have. Right now, all three are going the proverbial gangbusters.

Lowered rates of fatality or injuries would mean lower payouts for insurance companies. As insurance companies would be spending less on claims, they would be spending less on claims adjusters and other personnel to service said claims, especially lawyers. These savings should translate into lower premiums. As one poster supra noted, this has not happened. If anything, premiums have increased. The only reductions have been the elimination of fifteen per-cent agency fees as many states have allowed insurance companies to sell directly, something that many states had barred, previously.

To those posters supra who would assert that you will not see "changes" or "improvement" over thirty of forty years, I can only ask the question: "Do you actually read what you post?". As for "expensive" treatments and diagnostics, there still would be fewer of those necessary as the injury rates would supposedly drop markedly. This passes over the lawyer's bargaining away most of the treatment mill bills in the settlement negotiations. It further passes over the claims adjuster's classifying most diagnostics as "gate fees", thus cutting out most of those from his initial counteroffer. Treatment mills are notorious for their "gate fees"..




I can not seem to find any NHTSA statistics, or other statistics from a reliable source, on injuries and rates thereof.






All statistics come from NHTSA except for the statistics on seat belt laws and types by the states. Those come from GHSA.



*Statements on enforcement come from my experience, only. I live in the District of Columbia. Frequently, I go to Massachusetts and Vermont. In the "tri-state" area where I live, Virginia has a secondary law and Maryland a primary. It is rare that I see either state enforce seat belt laws. Virginia will do it under circumstances similar to Massachusetts and Vermont. The police stop you for running a STOP sign, for example. The officer really does not want to hit you with the STOP sign summons, as you get a fine, possible court date, points and insurance surcharge. He did stop you and HAS TO get you for something, especially if he has a quota. He gets you for no seat belt, which in a secondary state carries a lesser fine, no points and might not subject you to an insurance surcharge.

** Statements on California come from the many people that I know out there in various parts of the state. I do not have that much driving experience in California.

***ALL HONOUR to New Hampshire for telling the Federales where they can put their dirty money and that the Civil Liberties of the Good Citizens of New Hampshire are NOT for sale.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
Some statistics for 2019 from NHTSA and GHSA (Governor's Highway Safety Association)


States with the highest Traffic Fatality Rates in 2019 (per hundred million miles driven--this is the NHTSA Standard)


South Carolina-1,73/90,73% Observed Seat Belt Use/Primary law for all occupants.
Mississippi-1,56/80,5% Use//Primary-All
New Mexico-1,53%91,8% Use/Primary-All
Kentucky-1,48/89,7% Use/Primary-All
Wyoming-1,44/78,3% Use /Secondary-All


States with the lowest Traffic Fatality Rates for 2019

Massachusetts-0,51/81,6% Use/Secondary-All-RARELY enforced unless the police want to give you a break on a STOP sign, but they must get you for something.*
Minnesota-0,6/93,4% Use/Primary-All
District of Columbia-0,61/95,4% Use/Primary-All--VICIOUSLY enforced.
Vermont-0,64/89,3% Use/Secondary-All-Enforced only under circumstances similar to Massachusetts.*
New Jersey-0,71/90,2% Use/Primary front; Secondary back


States with the highest Observed Seat Belt Use

Hawaii-97,1% Use/Primary-All
California-96% Use/Primary-All--enforcement tends to vary by locality; some viciously, others not so much.**
Georgia-95,9% Use/Primary front; Secondary back
Oregon-95,7% Use/Primary-All
District of Columbia-95,4% Use/Primary-All


States with the lowest Observed Seat Belt Use

New Hampshire-70,7% Use/ ZERO seat belt law (except for juveniles) ***
South Dakota-75,2% use/Secondary-Front
Wyoming-78,3% Use/Secondary-All
Nebraska-79,9% Use/Secondary-Front
Mississippi-80,5%/Primary-All


New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law, has a NHTSA Traffic Fatality Rate of 0,73 per hundred million miles driven (NHTSA Standard)/Observed Use Rate of 70,7%***

The national average of Observed Seat belt use is 90,7%

The District of Columbia and New York assign two points for not using a seat belt. These are the only two states that assign points for this.


Items worth noting:

New Hampshire, which has no seat belt law and is among the lowest five on Observed Use has a relatively low Traffic Fatality Rate. It is only 0,02 points higher than New Jersey's which is in the Top Five for low TFR.***

While on the subject of New Jersey, for years, it had one of the highest Observed Use Rates in the country while at the same time, it was in the Top Three for highest TFR. New Jersey has improved its Traffic safety markedly while its Observed Use has dropped to just under the national average.

Massachusetts (YES, Massachusetts) has the lowest TFR in the country for 2019 and has only a secondary law that is rarely enforced.** TWICE, the Good Voters of Massachusetts repealed seat belt laws passed by the Legislature. The opponents titled the second anti-seat belt law campaign " No means 'NO!' ". Finally, after a desperate appeal from the Legislature, the Good Voters of Massachusetts gave the Commonwealth a secondary law, so that the Commonwealth could get something out of the arm-twisting from the Federales. The Legislature, mindful of the victories by the Good Voters of the Commonwealth in two referenda, submitted it as a plebiscite with three choices: ZERO law, a secondary or primary. The Legislators sponsored advertisements throughout the Commonwealth that basically asked the Good Voters of the Commonwealth at least to give them a secondary law. Massachusetts actually did pass a primary law before the Federal arm-twisting started. That was repealed in the first referendum.

Massachusetts has an observed Use rate that is far below the national average and is only 1,1% higher than Mississippi, which is Number Five on the lowest Observed Use rate table.

Of the five states with the highest TFR, four of them have a primary law. Only one, Wyoming, has a secondary law. Two of the five states have a Use rate far below the national average. One has a Use rate somewhat below the national average. One has a Use rate only slightly below the national average. One has a Use rate above the national average.

Of the states with the lowest TFR, three have primary laws, two have secondary.

Of the five states with the lowest TFR, two have a Use rate above the national average. One has a Use rate slightly below the national average. One has a Use rate somewhat below the national average. One has a use rate far below the national average.



What I am seeing here, or, in this case, not seeing, is a consistent connexion among seat belt laws, seat belt use and traffic fatality rates. I see some statistics that might suggest a connexion, but nothing consistent. This runs contrary to everything that has been programmed into people since they were in elementary school from the late 1950s forward to to-day.

In specific incidents, they will save lives, prevent injury or lessen the severity of the injury. In other cases, they can cause injuries of fatalities.

I have experience on both sides of the above. I was in a collision where I had no seat belt, was thrown from the car and walked away from it. The driver was pinned in the car and damned near died. Conversely, I was driving a car, a 1968 Chrysler Newport, at the then Forty-Mile-per Hour speed limit on this particular road. Some Rocket Scientist in a BMW (I know, redundant), pulled U turn right in front of me. I t-Boned his car. I had on a lap belt only, and walked away from it. The guy in the front seat next to me had no seat belt and his head went through the windshield. According to the ER doctors, the only reason that he was not severely injured was because he was drunk. (I was sober, which was why I was driving his car)

If seat belt laws and their vicious enforcement actually did prevent injuries or fatalities, or lessened the severity of injuries, the ambulance chasers such as Greedberg and Buildupman, Slimeball and Quirk or Assclown and Gerbil would be out of business (Greenberg and Bederman, Saiontz and Kirk, Ashcraft and Gerel, resepctively; those are the large local television law firms in this market). At the very least, they would be hghly diversified and have a far lower case load than they have. Right now, all three are going the proverbial gangbusters.

Lowered rates of fatality or injuries would mean lower payouts for insurance companies. As insurance companies would be spending less on claims, they would be spending less on claims adjusters and other personnel to service said claims, especially lawyers. These savings should translate into lower premiums. As one poster supra noted, this has not happened. If anything, premiums have increased. The only reductions have been the elimination of fifteen per-cent agency fees as many states have allowed insurance companies to sell directly, something that many states had barred, previously.

To those posters supra who would assert that you will not see "changes" or "improvement" over thirty of forty years, I can only ask the question: "Do you actually read what you post?". As for "expensive" treatments and diagnostics, there still would be fewer of those necessary as the injury rates would supposedly drop markedly. This passes over the lawyer's bargaining away most of the treatment mill bills in the settlement negotiations. It further passes over the claims adjuster's classifying most diagnostics as "gate fees", thus cutting out most of those from his initial counteroffer. Treatment mills are notorious for their "gate fees"..




I can not seem to find any NHTSA statistics, or other statistics from a reliable source, on injuries and rates thereof.






All statistics come from NHTSA except for the statistics on seat belt laws and types by the states. Those come from GHSA.



*Statements on enforcement come from my experience, only. I live in the District of Columbia. Frequently, I go to Massachusetts and Vermont. In the "tri-state" area where I live, Virginia has a secondary law and Maryland a primary. It is rare that I see either state enforce seat belt laws. Virginia will do it under circumstances similar to Massachusetts and Vermont. The police stop you for running a STOP sign, for example. The officer really does not want to hit you with the STOP sign summons, as you get a fine, possible court date, points and insurance surcharge. He did stop you and HAS TO get you for something, especially if he has a quota. He gets you for no seat belt, which in a secondary state carries a lesser fine, no points and might not subject you to an insurance surcharge.

** Statements on California come from the many people that I know out there in various parts of the state. I do not have that much driving experience in California.

***ALL HONOUR to New Hampshire for telling the Federales where they can put their dirty money and that the Civil Liberties of the Good Citizens of New Hampshire are NOT for sale.
TL : DR
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top