5 ms·
You can drive a car without insurance in the US? That sounds crazy irresponsible...
by mynewtb 10y ago
You can drive a car without insurance in the US? That sounds crazy irresponsible...
- quanticle 10y agoIt's illegal, but people do it.
- eximius 10y agoYou cannot. All cars must have liability insurance covering anyone you hit. You are not required to have coverage of your own vehicle (unless you lease or something). It sounds like he is talking about the latter.
- jpitz 10y agoThere are states where you are not required to carry insurance.
- norgie 10y agoPlease name one.
- areyousure 10y agoBased on my research (conducted now, without fact-checking), there might be one (NH) or three depending on your definition: New Hampshire: requires a driver to provide proof that they can cover 25/50/25 in standard insurance speak (after being found at fault in an accident, I think). Virginia: allows a driver to pay the state a $500/year fee instead. Mississippi: allows a driver to post cash or bond.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pre4646744 10y agoNo. I've known people arrested for that. I'll drive with an expired license, an expired registration but never without insurance. It is just such a stupid thing to do.
- DanBC 10y agoAre you insured if you don't have valid registration or licence?
- selectodude 10y agoThe VIN plate is what is insured. The rest of it builds off the insurance. You need insurance on a car to register it. You need a registered, insured car to get a drivers license. The insurance company will pay out, however you will be dropped immediately after and possibly sued.
- areyousure 10y agoMy understanding is that only one state (North Carolina) requires auto insurance to get a drivers license. I can offer the anecdote that you can get a drivers license in California by taking the exam in a rented car. Presumably you can borrow a registered, insured car (from a friend, say) in nearly every state?
- selectodude 10y agoOf course you can. And to the point, the rental car is insured by a company with no driver license.
- prawn 10y agoI think they're saying that they and their bike were not insured. The driver was insured and should have paid out given the driver as at, and admitted, fault, but that the insurer gave them a difficult time as they didn't have professional representation (lawyer or own insurer).
- cmurf 10y agoHe's saying as a bicyclist without insurance, he has no advocate with the insurance company. If he were in a car (and thus insured as required by law) then his insurance company would duke out a settlement with the other driver's insurance company. If you're just a Joe talking to someone's insurance company you're gonna get the short end.
- duskwuff 10y agodjsumdog was riding a bicycle, which does not typically have insurance associated with it.
- vertex-four 10y agoNo, but you can ride a bike without insurance, and then you have to either get a lawyer or navigate contacting the driver's insurance company yourself if you get into an accident. Since insurance companies are used to defending themselves aggressively against other insurance companies, as an individual going against them, you're in trouble.
- robterrell 10y agoNot the poster but how I read it: the car driver had insurance; he was on a bike. In the US, in the event of two-car collisions the drivers will contact their insurance carries, and the insurance companies talk to each other to negotiate the settlement. Since he had to negotiate with the insurance company himself, and he had zero leverage.