a modest proposal for uninsured and/or drunk drivers

The BBQ Pit
21

Um, freido, neither I, nor my (by extension) representative in the government give a fuck if you do or do not

** as property**. You’re quite free to take all the risk of property loss and personal injury you like.

You’re required to carry liability insurance on your property to cover damages caused to others by your use of your property.

In fact, if you just own your car but don’t drive, in my state at least you’re breaking no laws if you don’t have it registered or insured at all. You can keep it all shiny, and sit in it and make vroom vroom noises all you want, and the Man won’t make you pay an extra dime.

However if you plan to OPERATE your shiny motor vehicle on the public highways and byways next to where I’m operating my shiny motor vehicle, statistically, we’re each more likely than not to have some sort of accident sooner or later.

And if you or I do end up in the middle of a crumpled pile of not-so-shiny former motor vehicle, I (and by extension) my state has decided we don’t trust either of us to have enough ready cash…to pay for those medical bills if you or I are, say, paralyzed for life. Even with the best intentions. And you don’t trust me to do that either.

As a quadraplegic I know I’m going to want expensive luxuries like respirators and fancy shiny motorized wheelchair and an mostly sober nurses aide who won’t neglect to wipe my ass in a timely fashion.

Which is a suprisingly expensive lifestyle.

If you have a problem with that, you’re an eedjit, and eedjits are exactly what these laws are a remedy for.

22

Well SweetLucy, I agree with you…

23

And Fear Itself, how 'bout a cite for that assertion that insurance rates are based on the aggregate losses in a given area?

Sure, that’s a factor. But it’s only one of many. The operator’s driving record, the driver’s demographics, the vehicle type, the owner’s financial circumstances and coverages purchased are but a few more of the factors considered when setting insurance rates.

Also, expensive new cars generally have first-party (i.e. collision) coverage. Banks that have liens on expensive cars require them to be covered. People who own expensive cars outright sleep better at night if their cars are fully covered. I doubt that liability insurance costs go up simply because there are a lot of expensive cars in a given area, because collision and comprehensive coverages will be paying most of the bills.

One more thing… When states require liability insurance, it is usually for a set, low amount – usually from $10,000 to $25,000. This minimum limit does not change because there are a bunch of expensive cars around where you live. The insurer’s exposure is capped at a low level. Go out and total an $80K Lexus? Have minimum coverage? The insurance company pays only the $10,000 you’re required to carry. Makes absolutely no difference to them whether you hit a '94 Chevy Nova or an '02 Infiniti.

24

In my state, auto insurance is mandatory. You can’t register your vehicle without it. And yet, I find myself paying for “uninsured motorist” coverage in addition to my regular policy. In theory, every driver in my state must carry insurance. In practice, there are more than a few that don’t. And I have to pay extra premiums to provide for an instance that one of them (the uninsured) may damage me or my vehicle.

We’re not talking only about a $2000.00 transportation car vs. a luxury automobile. That’s just body shop dollars. What about horrific medical bills to the driver of a car that is damaged by a driver that has no insurance? Let’s say an uninsured driver runs a red light and T-bones my car. Let’s say that it leaves me incapacitated for a year, and requires me to have multiple surgeries and a year of rehabilitation to recover fully. Why should my insurance company pay for your mistake?

For those that choose to drive without liability insurance: what index do you use to figure your (financial) responsibility when you have an accident? How do you think the repairs will be paid? Medical bills paid? Do you feel the extent of your culpability begins/ends with the value of your vehicle?

25

Just think about all the accidents involving stolen vehicles. I suppose that would fall under the category of uninsured motorist. I know it’s necessary and I agree everyone should have it. But, goddamnit…I’ve NEVER had an accident in almost 25 years of driving and my rates are too damned high.

YET, the state says YOU GOTTA HAVE IT!!! or else.

26

Hijack: Driving (provided you own a car, gas, etc) is a right. Driving on someone else’s property (such as the govt.) is a privelage. Just so we’re clear.

27

No it isn’t. You must be licensed by the government to do so, with said license being subject to revocation with no actual cause, such as the immediate revokation of a license for refusal to submit to a breath test. Your request for a license will be denied if you do not meet the criteria specified by your particular state.

Some one may have told you driving is a right, and maybe in theory it is, but in actuality driving is a government-controlled priveledge.

28

Good lord there’s a hell of a lot of disinformation and ignorance about insurance being spewed around here.

Thanks god that there’s at least a few posters who are gamely trying to hold on to reality. Let me join them.

For the record: across the world, most legislative bodies require you by law to have third party liability insurance only. This covers the cost of damages you do to another person, both in terms of making right their property and also covering their medical expenses etc. if you injure them.

Generally speaking, there is no legal requirement to have own-damage insurance. So if you don’t want it, don’t buy it.

What is more, most regulatory regimes allow for the establishment of a separate fund that you may point to instead of having that third party liability insurance. For example, in the UK you may ringfence £1m (I think) as an alternative to the third party liability insurance. Most states in the US have a similar option. This essentially is the same restriction forced on the insurance company, making sure that the assets are there if needed. I warn you though that the waste of capital this entails should make you think twice - the insurance premium is much more efficient.

The key laws involved in care insurance are the tort laws of negligence. If you have been negligent whilst driving and cause damages, you are legally required to pay to make right those damages. Since these damages can be substantial, the state requires you to demonstrate that you have the capability of fulfilling your obligations, should the worst happen. There is nothing draconian about such a requirement, it is merely good sense.

And note that what is driving* liability rates - what is really worrying the insurers - is that you will have a multi-car pile-up on the freeway (or whatever the hell you Americans call your roads), causing loss of life, hospitalizations and serious damage to property. And worse. In the UK the other year, we had a car career off the motorway straight into the path of a train, which derailed and hit another train. The current level of losses for that one incident is about £50 million (about $80 million). How many years’ worth of your $500 premiums does that come to?

Such incidents can be caused by the dweeb in the $2k car or the double-dweeb in the $80k Lexus. And they don’t give a shit about you nicking a Lexus, causing a $1k paint job. That is so much small beer, I can’t even think about it.

So get your fucking facts straight, you bunch of morons, before you start shouting off on a topic you clearly have no fucking clue about.

pan

*oho

29

I know Beelzebubba already addressed this, but I think it’s a very important point to make. Way too many people seriously believe that driving is a right, and I think this is a dangerous attitude. Driving a car is the most dangerous thing most of us do on any given day, and we don’t think twice about how critical it is that we approach this task with the proper amount of respect and fear.

30

Oh, and I just wanted to say that kabbes is correct - Alberta requires insurance to get your plates for your car, but you are only required to have one-way insurance (coverage for the other car in an accident). Two-way coverage is optional.

31

This has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve heard. It is amazing how utterly stoopid some people can be.