5 ms·

The Economist had an interesting recent article suggesting that, at least in America, part of the problem is that car insurance is way too cheap, so owning a ca

The Economist had an interesting recent article suggesting that, at least in America, part of the problem is that car insurance is way too cheap, so owning a car and driving like a moron is too easy: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/18/why-car-insurance-in-america-is-actually-too-cheap https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/01/18/why-car-i.... > According to the Insurance Research Council (irc), an industry data group, 29% of claims nationally (and over 50% in several states) involve people insured at the state minimums [in the tens of thousands of dollars]. Few policies go beyond a few hundred thousand dollars of liability. The cost of a serious crash “is never going to be covered by that”, says Dale Porfilio, of the irc. By contrast, in Germany drivers are required to have €7.5m ($8.2m) of bodily-injury coverage, and in Britain liability is unlimited. I don't have a car, but I acknowledge that most Americans live in places where not having a car would make their lives much harder. Still, it seems reasonable for me to raise insurance requirements on enormous SUVs. They're 50-100% more dangerous to pedestrians, so this would reflect a higher actual cost inflicted on other people. If you don't want to pay that cost, and you still need the transportation of a personal car, buy the smaller and less dangerous vehicle.

o_1 3y ago
SUVs are not the problem. it's literally what the article said, mininums are too low. Most SUVs are family's traveling. You should look up the statistics for uninsured motorists in Florida, it's staggering. People simply will not follow the law, it's an enforcement problem. The sheer miles of roadways to police is extremely vast, it's very difficult to remove dangerous uninsured drivers. Hence why most people by big SUVs to protect themselves from collisions.
- cognaitiv 3y ago
  Research indicates that SUVs are indeed more dangerous to pedestrians compared to other vehicle types in the United States. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) highlighted that late-model SUVs are more likely to cause fatalities to pedestrians than cars. This is attributed to the higher front profile of SUVs, which tends to result in more severe injuries upon impact. The study found that at speeds greater than 19 mph, SUVs caused more serious injuries and were more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities compared to cars. Specifically, at speeds of 20-39 mph, 30% of crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 23% for cars. At speeds of 40 mph and above, all crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 54% with cars. This indicates a significant increase in the risk posed by SUVs at higher speeds[0]. Further research supports these findings, showing that trucks and SUVs with hood heights greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than shorter vehicles with sloped hoods. The study, also by the IIHS, used data from nearly 18,000 crashes and noted that tall, squared-up hoods, characteristic of many best-selling SUVs and trucks, contribute significantly to the risk. The number of pedestrian deaths has significantly increased, with pedestrian fatalities jumping 13% to 7,342 in 2021, marking the highest number since 1981. This rise in pedestrian deaths has outpaced the increase in overall U.S. traffic deaths, highlighting a growing crisis in road safety related to larger vehicles[1]. These findings underscore the need for vehicle design changes to improve pedestrian safety, particularly as the proportion of SUVs on U.S. roads continues to rise. Despite advancements in vehicle safety that have reduced overall motor vehicle crash fatalities, the increased lethality of SUVs to pedestrians poses a significant challenge that requires attention from both manufacturers and regulatory bodies. [0] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s... [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-dea... (ChatGPT 4)
  - CalRobert 3y ago
    Good summary. Something ChatGPT missed is that SUV's are taller, and that tends to increase speed, because _perceived_ speed is lower the farther you are from the ground
    - cognaitiv 3y ago
      Interesting point! It’s funny, I’m often tempted to fact check data or lookup jargon, etc. and comment to save someone else the trouble. I once did this on the seriouseats subreddit with copy paste from a relatively reliable source and met with an insane heated argument over what amounted to semantics and a flurry of downvotes. I wonder if attribution to ChatGPT increases civility towards the commenter or if HN is just generally more civilized.
    - myself248 3y ago
      'swhy Mitatas are so much freakin' fun. And they present very little risk to pedestrians as a result. You're sitting LOWER than the pedestrians. You can see a bottle-cap on the road. You don't feel superior to anyone at all.
      - CalRobert 3y ago
        Miatas are great! Also one of the few examples of a model that got _smaller_ in a later model year instead of continuing to bloat. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roadster-vs-mazda-mx-5-2015-roadster/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roa...
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
increasing insurance increases the harm to the poor. At this point it shouldn't be required by law or it should be subsidized for those for whom it represents an undue burden.
- e40 3y ago
  And will increase the number of drivers without insurance. It's already an issue now, but it will go way up if insurance is even more expensive.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Like most of this thread, this is an enforcement problem. Insurance is way too cheap, and people just ignore it way too easily. Also, the minimum required coverage (in most states) is way way way too low. In most states it's as low as $25k bodily injury per person, $50k per accident[1]! A single broken arm can cost more than that in the USA. How on earth are we allowing people to drive a 3 ton death machine around carrying only $25k of insurance??? If someone carrying the minimum insurance plows into a car full of people, there is no way $50k is going to be enough to make everyone whole. Finally, "accidents" that cause injury or death are treated way too lightly by the justice system. If you kill someone in any other way and get convicted, you're doing hard time in prison. If you kill someone with your car, you might not even get jail time if it was deemed an accident. 1: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/minimum-car-insurance-requirements https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/minimum-car-ins...
    - bombcar 3y ago
      How many other ways does the average person have available to accidentally kill someone? If vehicles are about it, then you may see light sentences for vehicles simply because it's accidental, not because is vehicular. However, the first dollars of insurance are often the most expensive; so the price to customers going from $50k to $500k may be not as much as even the first $50k was.
      - 3y ago
jobs_throwaway 3y ago
>raise insurance requirements on enormous SUVs Yep. This is enormously unpopular among suburbanites but America does too much to subsidize dangerous SUVs. Insurance should be by pound
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> part of the problem is that car insurance is way too cheap If you don't have any assets, why would you need liability insurance? The requirement to have liability insurance in order to license a car was introduced when I was young, before that, you didn't need it. I remember being in traffic court around the time they introduced it, the judge refused to enforce tickets for driving without insurance because, paraphrasing from something said decades ago, "I don't work for the insurance companies". This was in a poor area. The other alternative was, after getting a ticket for driving without insurance, to purchase one week's insurance, show proof of that to the court, after which the ticket would be dismissed. I'm not poor anymore but I still think forcing poor people to buy liability insurance is bullshit. They don't have anything to insure. If they accidentally bump into your car and cause $100 of damage, they're bankrupt. Rich people are the ones with assets to insure, rich people should pay for the insurance.

o_1 3y ago

SUVs are not the problem. it's literally what the article said, mininums are too low. Most SUVs are family's traveling. You should look up the statistics for uninsured motorists in Florida, it's staggering. People simply will not follow the law, it's an enforcement problem. The sheer miles of roadways to police is extremely vast, it's very difficult to remove dangerous uninsured drivers. Hence why most people by big SUVs to protect themselves from collisions.

cognaitiv 3y ago
Research indicates that SUVs are indeed more dangerous to pedestrians compared to other vehicle types in the United States. A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) highlighted that late-model SUVs are more likely to cause fatalities to pedestrians than cars. This is attributed to the higher front profile of SUVs, which tends to result in more severe injuries upon impact. The study found that at speeds greater than 19 mph, SUVs caused more serious injuries and were more likely to result in pedestrian fatalities compared to cars. Specifically, at speeds of 20-39 mph, 30% of crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 23% for cars. At speeds of 40 mph and above, all crashes with SUVs resulted in pedestrian fatalities, compared to 54% with cars. This indicates a significant increase in the risk posed by SUVs at higher speeds[0]. Further research supports these findings, showing that trucks and SUVs with hood heights greater than 40 inches are about 45% more likely to cause fatalities in pedestrian crashes than shorter vehicles with sloped hoods. The study, also by the IIHS, used data from nearly 18,000 crashes and noted that tall, squared-up hoods, characteristic of many best-selling SUVs and trucks, contribute significantly to the risk. The number of pedestrian deaths has significantly increased, with pedestrian fatalities jumping 13% to 7,342 in 2021, marking the highest number since 1981. This rise in pedestrian deaths has outpaced the increase in overall U.S. traffic deaths, highlighting a growing crisis in road safety related to larger vehicles[1]. These findings underscore the need for vehicle design changes to improve pedestrian safety, particularly as the proportion of SUVs on U.S. roads continues to rise. Despite advancements in vehicle safety that have reduced overall motor vehicle crash fatalities, the increased lethality of SUVs to pedestrians poses a significant challenge that requires attention from both manufacturers and regulatory bodies. [0] https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-suvs-are-more-lethal-to-pedestrians-than-cars https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-study-suggests-todays-s... [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-deadlier-us-pedestrians-study-shows-2023-11-14/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tall-trucks-suvs-are-45-dea... (ChatGPT 4)
- CalRobert 3y ago
  Good summary. Something ChatGPT missed is that SUV's are taller, and that tends to increase speed, because _perceived_ speed is lower the farther you are from the ground
  - cognaitiv 3y ago
    Interesting point! It’s funny, I’m often tempted to fact check data or lookup jargon, etc. and comment to save someone else the trouble. I once did this on the seriouseats subreddit with copy paste from a relatively reliable source and met with an insane heated argument over what amounted to semantics and a flurry of downvotes. I wonder if attribution to ChatGPT increases civility towards the commenter or if HN is just generally more civilized.
  - myself248 3y ago
    'swhy Mitatas are so much freakin' fun. And they present very little risk to pedestrians as a result. You're sitting LOWER than the pedestrians. You can see a bottle-cap on the road. You don't feel superior to anyone at all.
    - CalRobert 3y ago
      Miatas are great! Also one of the few examples of a model that got _smaller_ in a later model year instead of continuing to bloat. https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roadster-vs-mazda-mx-5-2015-roadster/ https://www.carsized.com/en/cars/compare/mazda-mx-5-2000-roa...

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

increasing insurance increases the harm to the poor. At this point it shouldn't be required by law or it should be subsidized for those for whom it represents an undue burden.

e40 3y ago
And will increase the number of drivers without insurance. It's already an issue now, but it will go way up if insurance is even more expensive.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Like most of this thread, this is an enforcement problem. Insurance is way too cheap, and people just ignore it way too easily. Also, the minimum required coverage (in most states) is way way way too low. In most states it's as low as $25k bodily injury per person, $50k per accident[1]! A single broken arm can cost more than that in the USA. How on earth are we allowing people to drive a 3 ton death machine around carrying only $25k of insurance??? If someone carrying the minimum insurance plows into a car full of people, there is no way $50k is going to be enough to make everyone whole. Finally, "accidents" that cause injury or death are treated way too lightly by the justice system. If you kill someone in any other way and get convicted, you're doing hard time in prison. If you kill someone with your car, you might not even get jail time if it was deemed an accident. 1: https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/minimum-car-insurance-requirements https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/minimum-car-ins...
  - bombcar 3y ago
    How many other ways does the average person have available to accidentally kill someone? If vehicles are about it, then you may see light sentences for vehicles simply because it's accidental, not because is vehicular. However, the first dollars of insurance are often the most expensive; so the price to customers going from $50k to $500k may be not as much as even the first $50k was.
    - 3y ago

jobs_throwaway 3y ago

>raise insurance requirements on enormous SUVs Yep. This is enormously unpopular among suburbanites but America does too much to subsidize dangerous SUVs. Insurance should be by pound

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> part of the problem is that car insurance is way too cheap If you don't have any assets, why would you need liability insurance? The requirement to have liability insurance in order to license a car was introduced when I was young, before that, you didn't need it. I remember being in traffic court around the time they introduced it, the judge refused to enforce tickets for driving without insurance because, paraphrasing from something said decades ago, "I don't work for the insurance companies". This was in a poor area. The other alternative was, after getting a ticket for driving without insurance, to purchase one week's insurance, show proof of that to the court, after which the ticket would be dismissed. I'm not poor anymore but I still think forcing poor people to buy liability insurance is bullshit. They don't have anything to insure. If they accidentally bump into your car and cause $100 of damage, they're bankrupt. Rich people are the ones with assets to insure, rich people should pay for the insurance.