5 ms·

> Thankfully insurance covered all of it and I didn't pay anything out of pocket. Tesla's fragility and high repair costs are presumably increasing insurance p

• dehrmann 3y ago
  This brings up an interesting insurance debate. On one hand, you should have the right to drive around whatever expensive-to-fix car you want and be entitled to not getting hit, or at least reimbursed if you do. On the other, this doesn't set up good incentives. You have less skin in the game when it comes to repairs, so that's not a factor you look for when buying a car. The at-fault party's insurance should only be responsible for the repair cost of a median car with similar damage?
  • pests 3y ago
    That makes no sense to me either. Shitty cars could look for accidents to get above-average payouts and thrn, while this sucks, people tend to be more careful around more expensive things. Your way has everyone treating a $150,000 sports car like a 'median sedan' when it comes to caution.
    • fomine3 3y ago
      Not such case. It's expensive to repair, but it's paid by insurance. So people are okay to buy good but expensive to repair car. It's not great for society.
    • Spivak 3y ago
      That's funny, growing up in a family that drove beaters the expensive cars are the one you can bully a little because you have so much less to lose than they do. My insurance policy covers up to 500k so it's all the same to me, but that limited edition bmw hot pepper amg s-class is your baby and so what are you gonna do, hit me? It's the OG version of bully the self-driving car because they'll flinch long before you do.
      • pests 3y ago
        > are the one you can bully a little because you have so much less to lose than they do I too grew up in a family with beaters. But I have a more richer friend who has some road rage in his nicer car. I've heard him "wish they would hit me" when angry because they have full coverage and no worries of a replacement car - those with a beater and worse insurance have to be extra careful since they don't easily have a replacement.
    • nullc 3y ago
      I understood the comment to be suggesting a limit. If your damages are below the limit you'd still get actual damages. It means that you'd drive around a car which is more expensive than median at your own peril.
  • nullc 3y ago
    I also independently landed on the notion that damages liability should be capped to a median car with similar damage. Beyond that the costs are on you / your insurer. Though generally in tort you take your victim like you find them... and there are good reasons for that. A counter would i can go intentionally smash up some other rich guys fancy car and only be on the hook for the cost to fix up a median car. If I've a vindictive rich guy myself, then perhaps that's a good deal. A balancing fix would be median liability unless you can show the damage was intentional and malicious, but then that's inviting everyone to endlessly litigate about intent. There are lots of other compromises possible, e.g. only liable for x% of the amount past the median, which I think would still be strictly better than the current situation.
    • iggldiggl 3y ago
      In Germany all car models are classified based on current accident and insurance payout statistics for the last three years, and that classification is one of the factors determining how much you need to pay for your insurance. So if you drive a model of car that is expensive to fix and/or frequently involved in accidents, you need to pay more.