4 ms·
This is my perspective, I exclusively bike to get around. We can play out the premise described by the OP, and it just doesn't add up. If some schmuck with Cal
by an_opabinia 6y ago
This is my perspective, I exclusively bike to get around. We can play out the premise described by the OP, and it just doesn't add up.
If some schmuck with California's minimum $15,000 per person injury insurance disables you, what would you do? Sue them for their additional median $97,300 net worth? Which might be less than $10,000 liquidated? That is you'd expect to get, somewhere between $25,000 and $112,300, for your lifetime injury. Perfect enforcement with 100% liability legal system would get you $25,000-$112,300 in my estimate, for the rest of your life. If you're permanently disabled, it's peanuts.
It's a shitty outcome. The problem is in part, clearly, that people are really poor.
And then suppose it's a totally recoverable injury. Out of $112,300 you recover $25,000, realistically, and the driver is bankrupted. You could put a whole family on the street. It's not Europe, they will go on the street! Is that justice? They're all completely broke dude. They have nothing besides their car.
People are living paycheck to paycheck, and you're comparing European countries where neither disability nor bankruptcy condemns you to a life of poverty. 20% of Americans claim some disability. 20% of Americans have zero or negative net worth, which is 4x the EU + UK's 5%. You have a 1 in 5 chance of getting hit by someone in their car, and recovering a maximum of $15,000, or $0 if they're uninsured.
The simplest answer is that only people who are rich enough to pay the remedies of death by vehicle accidents should drive. That can be as simple as either requiring self-insurance (i.e., you must have a net worth more comparable to death settlements, or $500k-1m), or at least an insurance that covers that kind of injury (which poor would not be able to afford). I don't think that sounds like justice either, think how disruptive it would be if you had to be that rich to drive? It would certainly impact rich people too, because they'd be underwriting their nannies, cooks and, checking my notes, teachers, firemen, nurses, etc. to get to work.
It's pretty crazy too, the degree of wrong in the comments to this. At least bring some facts to this discussion. People are just trying to survive, of course they are going to go with the cheapest possible lowest coverage insurance. On top of that, "about 15% of California drivers have no insurance, according to the Insurance Research Council." (1) Like what do you think those people with negative net worth (20% of Americans) are doing? Buying $2,000/yr auto insurance policies? It boggles the mind.
(1) https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/state/california/ https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/state/californi...
- fnbr 6y agoDamn, those numbers are wild. In Canada, my insurance company won’t provide less than $1m liability insurance, and the gov’t requires a minimum of $200k in coverage.
- Scoundreller 6y agoI’m unsure if anyone in the US actually has policies that go so low either. The minimums might get thrown around a lot to convince you to help sell you under-insured insurance coverage. But you always do need to worry about completely uninsured motorists. Depending on your province, it’s gotten a lot harder to claim much for soft injuries or even income replacement if you’re injured in an MVA.
- xrikcus 6y agoI was confused about this for a long time. In the UK liability coverage seems to be intended to pay for the harm, so my last UK insurance had 12M GBP of cover if I remember correctly (and after that limits were removed I believe). In the US it is intended to cover your net worth so if you are sued you don't lose anything so when I first moved here and opted for $1Mn they told me I was over insured.
- numtel 6y agoI'd say that the simplest answer is to have a no-fault program for anyone involved in an accident like they do in New Zealand. https://www.acc.co.nz/ https://www.acc.co.nz/
- 0xB31B1B 6y agoThis is a bad way to look at the numbers. In urban areas, cycles are on average below median income, and drivers are above to far above median income. Yes, there are poor americans, they are by and large not driving cars in urban areas, wealthy folks are on balance driving cars, and the poor people are riding bikes. Laws that shift monetary risk from bicyclists to cars are progressive policy.
- warkdarrior 6y ago