4 ms·

The purpose of your insurance is to pay for damage caused by you to other people's cars, so it's not really up to you whether you think cosmetic damage is impor

The purpose of your insurance is to pay for damage caused by you to other people's cars, so it's not really up to you whether you think cosmetic damage is important or not. (Personally, I think this is quite "regressive", in that the poor have to pay to cover potential damage to cars much more expensive than their own. It would work better if insurance was completely optional and only paid for damage to your own car, whether caused by yourself or others. That way you would have a lot more control over how much you want to pay and how much risk you want to take on).

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
krger 3y ago
> The purpose of your insurance is to pay for damage caused by you to other people's cars Liability insurance’s purpose is to pay for damage caused by you and your car to other people’s bodies and property due to your negligence. Cars damage other things beyond simply other cars. > Personally, I think this is quite "regressive", in that the poor have to pay to cover potential damage to cars much more expensive than their own. Only damage that they have been found responsible for having caused. People of any income level who make a habit of causing extensive damage to expensive cars belonging to other drivers probably should pay increased insurance rates to cover the damages they cause (or become functionally uninsurable). > It would work better if insurance was completely optional and only paid for damage to your own car, whether caused by yourself or others. That way you would have a lot more control over how much you want to pay and how much risk you want to take on). Again, that does nothing to cover the damage your car does to, for example, pedestrians, passengers in other vehicles, signs, mailboxes, or any of the other variety of things cars can damage.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  While the post you are replying to is completely wrong (as someone else pointed out they appear to never have heard of comprehensive or collision insurance), I think it's fair to have a debate about whether property damage liability should be capped on the roads. That is, if I decide to drive a car where the bumper is made of Fabergé eggs, and someone dings my bumper, why should they have to pay me a couple million to replace my couple broken Fabergé eggs? Obviously that's a fake example, but is that really much different from having to pay extreme amounts to fix someone's Lamborghini or Bugatti? It seems more rational to me to conclude that people driving insanely expensive cars on public roads are taking ill-advised risks and should need to shoulder more of that risk.
  - olliej 3y ago
    I know you’re saying it’s a fake example, but it seems perfectly reasonable as an equivalence. Especially when you discover that many super cars are actually using commodity components but then literally just charging 10x for them (I recall someone showing Lamborghini or Ferrari parts that literally had other brands stamped on them).
lazide 3y ago
Have you never heard of comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage?
olliej 3y ago
In general the legal mandatory insurance is to cover damage you cause to other cars. But many people have insurance for their vehicles to cover damage done where the culprit is uninsured, under insured, or simply can’t be found. Third party insurance leaves you out of pocket in those cases, and even if you do find the culprit if they have no assets either you can’t even use a lawsuit to reclaim the damages.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

krger 3y ago

> The purpose of your insurance is to pay for damage caused by you to other people's cars Liability insurance’s purpose is to pay for damage caused by you and your car to other people’s bodies and property due to your negligence. Cars damage other things beyond simply other cars. > Personally, I think this is quite "regressive", in that the poor have to pay to cover potential damage to cars much more expensive than their own. Only damage that they have been found responsible for having caused. People of any income level who make a habit of causing extensive damage to expensive cars belonging to other drivers probably should pay increased insurance rates to cover the damages they cause (or become functionally uninsurable). > It would work better if insurance was completely optional and only paid for damage to your own car, whether caused by yourself or others. That way you would have a lot more control over how much you want to pay and how much risk you want to take on). Again, that does nothing to cover the damage your car does to, for example, pedestrians, passengers in other vehicles, signs, mailboxes, or any of the other variety of things cars can damage.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
While the post you are replying to is completely wrong (as someone else pointed out they appear to never have heard of comprehensive or collision insurance), I think it's fair to have a debate about whether property damage liability should be capped on the roads. That is, if I decide to drive a car where the bumper is made of Fabergé eggs, and someone dings my bumper, why should they have to pay me a couple million to replace my couple broken Fabergé eggs? Obviously that's a fake example, but is that really much different from having to pay extreme amounts to fix someone's Lamborghini or Bugatti? It seems more rational to me to conclude that people driving insanely expensive cars on public roads are taking ill-advised risks and should need to shoulder more of that risk.
- olliej 3y ago
  I know you’re saying it’s a fake example, but it seems perfectly reasonable as an equivalence. Especially when you discover that many super cars are actually using commodity components but then literally just charging 10x for them (I recall someone showing Lamborghini or Ferrari parts that literally had other brands stamped on them).

lazide 3y ago

Have you never heard of comprehensive or uninsured motorist coverage?

olliej 3y ago

In general the legal mandatory insurance is to cover damage you cause to other cars. But many people have insurance for their vehicles to cover damage done where the culprit is uninsured, under insured, or simply can’t be found. Third party insurance leaves you out of pocket in those cases, and even if you do find the culprit if they have no assets either you can’t even use a lawsuit to reclaim the damages.