Car insurance and registration- why?

In My Humble Opinion
21

While I understand your anger, you aren’t seeing the whole situation. I now have insurance. I am glad to have insurance. I had to save for three months and then wait for my tax return to get the coverage started because the initial premium was so high- and I haven’t had an accident since the first month I had my license, several years ago.

How about no job? How about no job over the Christmas holidays and even the local Wal-Marts weren’t hiring. We checked on a weekly basis. How about no job, and the last job was a long-term contract job so no unemployment, and this for three months. What would you choose? Drive super-carefully to a promising job interview, or stay home and hope the birthday check from your mom clears today because the baby is on his last diaper? This situation actually happened.

But we’re straying from the point.
This may have to go into Great debates…

Why does the state care who pays for a car being totaled or a person being injured?
Some people say it’s because otherwise the state would have to pay for the medical expenses incurred by people who can’t pay for them. I can see that. However, people do all sorts of dangerous things that they are not required to have insurance for, such as climbing stairs, hiking in the woods, and swimming in the ocean. I bet there are more sprained ankles each year than car accidents. The car accident is more likely to be serious, however the amounts spent do add up.
I could see if it were another way to tax people.
I could see it if you paid money into a fund that was set aside for paying expenses for the injured, especially if the amount you paid was related to how many accidents you had gotten into.
I could see setting up a dedicated escrow, especially where the money was there but you could still get interest off it.
I don’t see where paying large amounts to an insurance company is in the public good.
HennaDancer

22

I think any General Questions here have been answered. Off now to Great Debates.

23

Fear Itself, ever heard of a bus?

Good GOD!!! I don’t drive-I don’t have a license, and if I have to get somewhere, I catch the bus.

:rolleyes:

I have no sympathy for the OP if she’s going to insist on driving uninsured against the law.

24

Lucky you that you live somewhere with a decent public transportation system. Not everyone does- in fact, I’d guess that the vast majority do not. That’s obviously the best answer- when it is available.
Here, the buses only run to major shopping areas, and only during daylight, weekday hours. We tried to find something on a busline. All the jobs my husband interviewed for started at 6 or 7 AM, which is before the buses run, and all wanted rotating work weeks so he’d be working some Sundays, when buses do not run at all. Also, except in one case, they didn’t drop off closer than three miles to the job site.
I don’t believe there are any city buses in New Hampshire. Certainly not in the areas we lived in. Our baby’s doctor was ten miles away. My husband’s job was twenty. Not having a car was not an option- but then, the insurance thing wasn’t an issue there.
So if you have no sympathy, do you have any solutions for someone to get a job without transportation? Assume the only place you can find that’s hiring, you can’t get to without a car. What do you do to prevent the second eviction notice?

But again, this is not the topic I want to discuss. Why is it the state’s business to interfere in strictly financial interpersonal dealings, such as the possible event of a car accident?
HennaDancer

25

>> Why is it the state’s business to interfere in strictly financial interpersonal dealings, such as the possible event of a car accident?

Because the majority have decided they do not want people driving uninsured and causing damages they cannot pay for.

And all that crap about not being able to afford insurance is not anyboy else’s fault. MAybe you need to organize your life and priorities a bit better. The fact that you cannot afford a car does not entitle you to steall one and the fact that you cannot afford to cover the risk of your driving does not entitle you to make others bear that risk.

26

In Michigan before no-fault, if you were a “good driver”, you could have gotten AAA insurance which was super low, and you got a rebate each year. Back then, AAA paid out very little claims, so they could afford to give good drivers super low rates. No claims, low rates. You didnt have to sue anyone back then, AAA did it for you. AAA only insured good drivers, if you had a bad record, AAA would not insure you, since they didnt want to raise rates on their own customers.

The system prior to nofault was very bad for bad drivers, and was discriminating-bad drivers had to pay much higher rates, while good drivers paid almost nothing for car insurance, which is why the law was eventually changed. If you wanted to sue someone, you could sue for all you wanted/deserved, no limit back then to recover the damages caused by others. /Today in Michigan, a bad driver never has to pay out more than $500 for totalling your car.

If you think this is better, than we know what kind of driver you are.

27

Because it’s not the state. It’s me. The majority of the people told the state that we want to restrict this PRIVILEGE to people with insurance and the state did. That’s why it’s the state’s business.

28

You don’t get it, sailor. Until we find a way to make car insurance more affordable, you are going to pay for it anyway, in increased rates and unpaid damage. Shaking your fist and grumbling, “throw the jerks in jail!” does nothing to reduce the 14% of drivers that are uninsured. If one in seven people who drive to work suddenly stayed home, what do you think would happen to the economy? You would be out of work too, and then how would you pay for your insurance? Your “us against them” attitude does nothing to solve the problem, and only serves to increase your rates and enrich the insurance companies.

29

Look, I’m not a huge fan of insurance companies, but there has to be a solution to this problem that isn’t illegal? I’m sure there are options out there-there have to be.

30

The state owns the roads, and operating a vehicle on them is not a right, but a privelege granted by the state. As such, the state can regulate that privelege to whatever degree it sees fit, that doesn’t raise the ire of the body politic to a point that threatens the regulators.

Most states feel that potential financial devastation (not to mention carnage) one reckless driver can cause behooves them to require financial responsibility from drivers. How else can they do that? If you snooze through a red liight and total a new Merceds, how long will it take you to pay off $80,000?

So, how much will liability insurance cost you?

31

I have seen this argument used too many times and it is just NOT so. The government cannot deny you a license for no reason at all. The government cannot require you to submit to illegal things before they grant you a license. Fo example, they cannot require you to agree to submit to searches for no reason. The government can only deny you a license to drive based on laws and regulations and for good reason. The fact that the government owns the roads does not mean they can act like a private person who owns property and discriminate as they please.

The unfortunate phrase “driving is a privilege, not a right” has been hammered into too many high school kids but it is just not true. Driving is a right regulated by laws just like many other rights.

32

That’s the point I’ve made three times, Susanann, I don’t necessarily know that it’s better; that’s why I’ve asked twice now for how those people live that don’t have no-fault insurance. It makes perfect sense to me. Being a good driver with a perfect credit record, my insurance is dirt cheap for full coverage on a late model luxury car. My company is AAA, by the way. I don’t get rebates, though. My loser brother carries PL/PD on his P.O.S. 1986 car and it’s not substantially less than my own rates. He’s not a good driver and has the record to prove it.

I’ll stress that your personal attack wasn’t very appropriate. I didn’t say our system was better necessarily (again, I don’t know). But I have absolutely no problem with our system because (1) it’s cheap for a good, non-loser driver; (2) I know I’m protecting my own property and don’t have to depend on some other jackass to have insurance. If someone murders you, do you need to make sure he has life insurance first, or isn’t it just better that you have you own life insurance?

33

Should drivers have to pay for the ignorance of others?

You’re operating a machine on public roads where accidents commonly occour, so what do you do?

A. Obtain a cheap, easily replaceable vehicle.
B. Spend as much money as possible on something you know stands a chance of getting totally wrecked.

Say I’m driving an old car worth about $300. Someone else bought an $80,000 car, but since that wasn’t expensive enough for them, they gold plated it and covered it with diamonds.

Now if I bump their car and knock off a few diamonds, I owe them $10,000. If they total my car, they owe me $300. How’s that fair, I just barely touched them.

No fault is good for a reason. It makes drivers pay for the risk that they’re taking. You can have your $500,000 gold plated diamond car if you want, but you’re the one paying for it, not me. It’s not my fault you’re a moron.

As for medical bills, it’s the same deal. Drive a car with no seat belt, air bags, and sharp metal objects on the dash, and that’s your problem. Someone else has a car with 50 air bags that’s constructed of cast iron, and they’re pretty safe.

People know that they’re taking a risk when they drive, but they’d rather deny it and pretend that nothing bad is going to happen, and expect everyone else to pay for the risks they’re taking, wether they’re taking reasonable precations and using common sense or not.

It remindes me of this girl I met once who had some $2000 paint job on here car. It was parked somewhere and kids were throwing rocks at eachother and one hit the car and put a little scratch in the paint. She went nuts. It was her fault. You just don’t put expensive things in places where they’re likely to get damaged and expect them to be safe.

34

People with bad driving records are continually surchaged for accidents and violations, until their insurance rates become very high. I have seen insurance premiums for $20,000 coverage costing $60,000 and even over $120,000 per year. It doesnt make much sense to pay $120,000 for $20,000 coverage.

Once your rates get high enough, you qualify for “Assigned Risk” insurance, which is a state sponsered controlled insurance, special insurance, the rates of which are much higher than normal insurance, but much lower than normal insurance with all the surcharges. It is about double to triple the rate of normal insurance.

35

Additionally, before NoFault insurance, it was the usual practice to take away the drivers license of someone who caused many accidents and/or who had many traffic violations, which also kept down insurance rates for the rest of us. The people with suspended licenses, did not need to purchase insurance if they did not drive anymore.

36

Hennadancer,

I really do sympathize with your plight. I spent a significant portion of my life dirt, DIRT poor. When I did take a job teaching college, I took a salary that was pathetically low. I then left teaching in early 30’s and didn’t get a salary that I thought was legit until a few years ago.

However…

You are trying to transfer your problems onto other people. You are trying to share your dissatisfaction. I’m sure you have a plethora of justifications for doing so, just like I did for some things. I should make more and it is unfair of society to pay me so little so therefore they can share some of my burden… They can afford it, I can’t… The insurance industry is immoral… They don’t care about my or try to help me so why should I care…

etc. etc.

However, you are shifting your burden/risk onto others who don’t want. Yes, they seem uncaring and they are. People are naturally uncaring IMO. However, when was the last time you did something to help them?

Remember my friend hit by an uninsured driver and suffering medical problems? Did the uninsured driver feel ‘real bad’ about this? Probably. Did she shoulder her responsibility and give up her life for a few years to spend every waking moment struggling to come up with the money, living in a tent with no possessions eating bread and water so she can pay for the medical damage she caused?

Nope. She still wanted a life. My friend was not a priority.

Would you give up your life for several years to make good on your damage? Or, would you insist that you need to live your life and have a family to take care of?

You are trying to make your problems other people’s problems. Can you see this?

This is why I am so harsh with you. This is why I hope your car is confiscated and possible jail time.

I hope you understand what I am saying and take it to heart.

37

Yes! Thank you. I get rankled when I hear the old mantra “driving is a privilege” to justify all state regulation.

38

And this is why your rates will continue to rise, as well your risk of loss in a collision with an uninsured motorist. It is not in society’s interest to remove 14% of the drivers from the road. The impact on the economy and the expense of incarceration outweigh the benefits of trying to achieve 100% coverage. The best you can hope for is to make an example of a few hapless Hennadancers and hope that it scares the rest into compliance. It hasn’t worked yet, but, by all means, you dream that dream as you pay ever increasing premiums. Sooner or later, you will realize that their problems are your problems, and actually do something to make it possible for all people to have insurance.

39

Fear Itself…

When was the last time you gave a darn about my problems?

You act as if I (and others) are the bad guys here. I have problems of my own without having to bear yours also.

As soon as you give a hoot about my problems, I will give a hoot about yours. Until then, crucify the people that do this.

Your argument sounds very much like the ‘you can pay me now or pay me much more later’ folks. I will always chose the ‘pay you much more later’ option. It always seems to be a long time coming.

As for addressing your problem, I will actively campaign exactly what you are asking for so long as it does not require money to be confiscated from some people and given to others (wealth redistribution).

If you have an idea that does this, let me know!

However, every idea of this ilk has behind it the premise that other people will pay for it.

40

Oh cry me a river. Look, I feel for Hennadancer, really I do.

However, what happens if she gets in an accident, and totally screws someone else?