4 ms·

Isn’t this practically true already? If this guy had been rear ended by an uninsured motorist in a ‘92 Beetle with $500 to their name, it’d be the Rivian owner

by mwint 3y ago

Isn’t this practically true already? If this guy had been rear ended by an uninsured motorist in a ‘92 Beetle with $500 to their name, it’d be the Rivian owner and their insurance on the hook (if they have UM coverage!) Sure, you can sue the person who hit you civilly, but it’s not going to be worth it, because you aren’t going to get blood from a stone.

clnq 3y ago
The problem is more so if I have $42k (in cash or other assets) but would rather not spend it on someone else’s truck bumper. Which I think is a common sense stance. Minor accidents happen to everyone. They should not be life-ending/cause total devastation in life.
- fooker 3y ago
  That's why insurance exists. But there has to be a better way to handle this.
- TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
  In Europe it is covered by mandatory insurance. When you hit somebody (and it is your fault), your mandatory insurance covers the cost for repair for his car, but not for yours. If somebody hits you, his mandatory insurance covers your damages. Mandatory insurance is legally mandated to be used by every motorists and it is illegal to drive without it, which makes it pretty cheap.
  - eliaspro 3y ago
    This still externalizes the costs for expensive cars onto the the general population, as the rates for the mandatory insurance will then increase to cover the ever increasing costs of such minor accidents. Cars were a failure and I believe we'd all be better off if they'd never been invented or at least hadn't been met with the enthusiasm of petrol-financed politicians that turned our cities, infrastructure, housing policies and everyday life into something that largely depends on cars. Looking at cities like Paris, Barcelona or Amsterdam that broke the dominance of cars makes it clear, that the quality of our lives drastically improves by not leaning into a car-centric design.
    - Canada 3y ago
      Only if everyone pays the same rate. Age, the type of vehicle, driver experience, and drivers previous accidents are factors. It's probably going to get very expensive to insure a Rivian.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Isn't this already the case if you hit an exotic spots car?
  - anonuser123456 3y ago
    It is a problem… and it’s why I personally have the highest liability + a giant umbrella policy. I live and work near Newport Beach CA. It’s not uncommon to be driving behind / around a Ferrari or 3. But why should the average roadway user be liable because someone wants to drive a piece of art? It makes more sense that the Ferrari owner pay for the excess liability since it’s their choice to put it at risk. What if I chose to drive around with a Picasso in my trunk. Should I get to sue for its cost if someone crashes into my car and ruins it? It’s bonkers that the law doesn’t limit liability in this way.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Driving is not a right but a privilege so it makes sense. Obviously if folks were guaranteed the ability to drive around, then the liability system wouldn't make sense.

by mwint 3y ago

clnq 3y ago

The problem is more so if I have $42k (in cash or other assets) but would rather not spend it on someone else’s truck bumper. Which I think is a common sense stance. Minor accidents happen to everyone. They should not be life-ending/cause total devastation in life.

fooker 3y ago
That's why insurance exists. But there has to be a better way to handle this.
TheLoafOfBread 3y ago
In Europe it is covered by mandatory insurance. When you hit somebody (and it is your fault), your mandatory insurance covers the cost for repair for his car, but not for yours. If somebody hits you, his mandatory insurance covers your damages. Mandatory insurance is legally mandated to be used by every motorists and it is illegal to drive without it, which makes it pretty cheap.
- eliaspro 3y ago
  This still externalizes the costs for expensive cars onto the the general population, as the rates for the mandatory insurance will then increase to cover the ever increasing costs of such minor accidents. Cars were a failure and I believe we'd all be better off if they'd never been invented or at least hadn't been met with the enthusiasm of petrol-financed politicians that turned our cities, infrastructure, housing policies and everyday life into something that largely depends on cars. Looking at cities like Paris, Barcelona or Amsterdam that broke the dominance of cars makes it clear, that the quality of our lives drastically improves by not leaning into a car-centric design.
  - Canada 3y ago
    Only if everyone pays the same rate. Age, the type of vehicle, driver experience, and drivers previous accidents are factors. It's probably going to get very expensive to insure a Rivian.
MichaelZuo 3y ago
Isn't this already the case if you hit an exotic spots car?
- anonuser123456 3y ago
  It is a problem… and it’s why I personally have the highest liability + a giant umbrella policy. I live and work near Newport Beach CA. It’s not uncommon to be driving behind / around a Ferrari or 3. But why should the average roadway user be liable because someone wants to drive a piece of art? It makes more sense that the Ferrari owner pay for the excess liability since it’s their choice to put it at risk. What if I chose to drive around with a Picasso in my trunk. Should I get to sue for its cost if someone crashes into my car and ruins it? It’s bonkers that the law doesn’t limit liability in this way.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Driving is not a right but a privilege so it makes sense. Obviously if folks were guaranteed the ability to drive around, then the liability system wouldn't make sense.