4 ms·

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

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.
    - ryandrake 3y ago
      Some say "accidentally" but I say "negligently." Society is way to light on people who injure others while using their cars. How does the saying go? If you want to kill someone and reduce the chances you are punished, just accidentally kill them with your car!
      - e40 3y ago
        Just to reinforce this, Freakonomics did a "The Perfect Crime" podcast which talks about this very issue: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/ IIRC, a VERY low percentage of people who kill a pedestrian are ever even charged (like 3%) with anything. In the vast majority of cases, there is negligence involved and everyone is just like "ok, you killed someone though your own negligences, but turns out there are no consequences for that"???
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    uninsured/underinsured motorists is a business risk for insurance companies, one they mitigated by convincing our government to make it required but they did so at the expense of placing an undue burden on the poor. My stance here is that if you're going to make it required by law, someone needs to subsidize it and I believe it should be the insurance companies. The low minimums you're complaining about exist specifically because the law is trying to split the difference between requiring insurance and not causing too much harm to those that can't afford it, or can barely afford it. Here's how insurance works. I purchase insurance. Someone hits me. My insurance company pays to repair the vehicle and the medical coverage needed (per my insurance policy). They then sue the other party to recoup the money. If it's another insurance company they're typically guaranteed 2 things. 1. The company can afford to pay out 2. The company doesn't want to go to court so gentleman's agreements are made between the insurance company to minimize overhead costs. If the other party is uninsured they're typically forced to eat the cost because the chances of getting money out of someone who can't afford insurance isn't worth the overhead of even trying. This is why it's a business risk that the insurance companies have mitigated by getting it required by law.
    - krisoft 3y ago
      > This is why it's a business risk that the insurance companies have mitigated by getting it required by law. How did they mitigate it if as said the punishment for not having insurance is not too severe and many people are driving without an insurance? (again as per said above, I have no independent confirmation of this)
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        are you telling me it's not clear to you how requiring insurance by law guarantees more people carry insurance which guarantees more accidents have an entity worth suing for compensation?
        krisoft 3y ago
        > are you telling me it's not clear to you Yes, you are reading my message correctly. It was not clear to me. Now that I am reading your answer I am realising that you did not mean “completely mitigate”, just increase the chances of someone having insurance. That was the core of my misunderstanding. Thank you for the clarification.
myself248 3y ago
The poor are more likely to be driving Civics than Escalades anyway. Increasing insurance on the larger, heavier, taller, more dangerous vehicles is exactly the right thing. Doubly so if they have "badass offroad cosplay" mods like welded bumpers and lightbars. Yes okay maybe you need that out in the dunes, but if you're playing at that level you should be trailering the warmachine to the dunes and towing it behind something with better visibility. If that tank touches pavement, it should pay the insurance risk commensurate with its armor.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  a poor person will purchase a rundown $2k escalade before they purchase a $20k+ new civic. A poor person won't be purchasing a newer vehicle but that has no bearing on the make and model they end up driving.
  - mycologos 3y ago
    There's an implicit claim here that it's easier to buy a cheap big used vehicle than a cheap small used one. That doesn't seem true, as even now at the height of SUV popularity, most new cars are not SUVs. A significant majority of used cars should therefore be small cars, no?
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      you're not thinking this through, vehicles cost differing amounts of money based on many things, including how well they're doing mechanically. An SUV with the floor rusted out and leaking oil and no A/C is going to be cheaper to purchase than a used corolla with under 50k miles on it and everything generally working decently. 20-30 y/o SUV's exist, 0 year old corolla's exist. It turns out the size of the vehicle isn't nearly the largest determinant of price for vehicles.
epistasis 3y ago
The poor aren't buying oversized vehicles, because those vehicles are the more expensive option already.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Depends on what your definition of poor is, because if you go to street view in poorer areas of LA you do not miss out on seeing the SUVs.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    it turns out SUV's can be purchased used as well.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      A big part of the problem is that the used market is controlled by new car buyers (from the past) - if nobody is buying new compact/cheap cars (for whatever reason) then they're not available for used buyers. And you can get what has happened multiple times - when gas prices rise substantially, low-mpg vehicles get dumped on the used market, so you have poor people and kids driving massive boats (the hotrodding scene from the 70s is a direct result of this).
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        vehicles can be repaired and sold and many people make good money doing exactly that.
stetrain 3y ago
Building a society where you need to pay for a car, license, fuel, and insurance to just to function increases harm to the poor.
- mycologos 3y ago
  That's why I'm suggesting that we target very large vehicles first. I am skeptical that poor people absolutely need very large vehicles, which are more expensive to run anyway.
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    > I am skeptical that poor people absolutely need very large vehicles and I'm skeptical that you're a moral human being. Apparently poor people with families don't need larger vehicles the way middle class people with families do. Your idea is stupid and untenable, let it go.
    - mycologos 3y ago
      > and I'm skeptical that you're a moral human being Hm, surely we don't need to go that far. This is an internet discussion, we're supposed to be nice to each other! > Apparently poor people with families don't need larger vehicles the way middle class people with families do. Maybe I don't understand what claim you're making: is it 1) vans/SUVs must not become any more expensive (via higher insurance requirements), or else poor people will be priced out of owning a car entirely, or 2) owning a van/SUV is almost a human right, and raising the barrier to it is immoral? I've tried looking at listings and I don't see evidence of the claim that somehow poor people are forced to buy SUVs because they're cheaper. There appear to be many big and small cars at every price range. For 2), huge cars have only been widespread for a decade or two. The idea that they're somehow necessary for a meaningful human life is hard for me to grok.
      - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
        One of my biggest criticisms of HN in general is that dang, et al, have created a safe space for heinous opinions where pushing back on them too hard will get YOU moderated. You're on a crusade against larger vehicles and you think that crusade is more important than avoiding more harm to poor people, to the point that you said they have no need of larger vehicles (with a straight face) so it's ok to place a tax on them that will mean the poor will be forced to forego something as simple as a minivan for their family due to the extra taxes on them. that's an immoral stance, one that you can only have gotten to because poor people is an abstract idea to you, you don't attribute any humanity to that abstract idea. What makes it even worse is that you're so far gone you thought my issue with your statement was because I think owning a van or SUV is a human right rather than your entirely cavalier dismissal of the poor as being people. rethink your strategy, the harm from your current strategy means it will never be implemented. Also, minivans and vans have been around since the 1930's. Get your facts right.

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.
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Some say "accidentally" but I say "negligently." Society is way to light on people who injure others while using their cars. How does the saying go? If you want to kill someone and reduce the chances you are punished, just accidentally kill them with your car!
    - e40 3y ago
      Just to reinforce this, Freakonomics did a "The Perfect Crime" podcast which talks about this very issue: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/the-perfect-crime-2/ IIRC, a VERY low percentage of people who kill a pedestrian are ever even charged (like 3%) with anything. In the vast majority of cases, there is negligence involved and everyone is just like "ok, you killed someone though your own negligences, but turns out there are no consequences for that"???
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  uninsured/underinsured motorists is a business risk for insurance companies, one they mitigated by convincing our government to make it required but they did so at the expense of placing an undue burden on the poor. My stance here is that if you're going to make it required by law, someone needs to subsidize it and I believe it should be the insurance companies. The low minimums you're complaining about exist specifically because the law is trying to split the difference between requiring insurance and not causing too much harm to those that can't afford it, or can barely afford it. Here's how insurance works. I purchase insurance. Someone hits me. My insurance company pays to repair the vehicle and the medical coverage needed (per my insurance policy). They then sue the other party to recoup the money. If it's another insurance company they're typically guaranteed 2 things. 1. The company can afford to pay out 2. The company doesn't want to go to court so gentleman's agreements are made between the insurance company to minimize overhead costs. If the other party is uninsured they're typically forced to eat the cost because the chances of getting money out of someone who can't afford insurance isn't worth the overhead of even trying. This is why it's a business risk that the insurance companies have mitigated by getting it required by law.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > This is why it's a business risk that the insurance companies have mitigated by getting it required by law. How did they mitigate it if as said the punishment for not having insurance is not too severe and many people are driving without an insurance? (again as per said above, I have no independent confirmation of this)
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      are you telling me it's not clear to you how requiring insurance by law guarantees more people carry insurance which guarantees more accidents have an entity worth suing for compensation?
      - krisoft 3y ago
        > are you telling me it's not clear to you Yes, you are reading my message correctly. It was not clear to me. Now that I am reading your answer I am realising that you did not mean “completely mitigate”, just increase the chances of someone having insurance. That was the core of my misunderstanding. Thank you for the clarification.

myself248 3y ago

The poor are more likely to be driving Civics than Escalades anyway. Increasing insurance on the larger, heavier, taller, more dangerous vehicles is exactly the right thing. Doubly so if they have "badass offroad cosplay" mods like welded bumpers and lightbars. Yes okay maybe you need that out in the dunes, but if you're playing at that level you should be trailering the warmachine to the dunes and towing it behind something with better visibility. If that tank touches pavement, it should pay the insurance risk commensurate with its armor.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
a poor person will purchase a rundown $2k escalade before they purchase a $20k+ new civic. A poor person won't be purchasing a newer vehicle but that has no bearing on the make and model they end up driving.
- mycologos 3y ago
  There's an implicit claim here that it's easier to buy a cheap big used vehicle than a cheap small used one. That doesn't seem true, as even now at the height of SUV popularity, most new cars are not SUVs. A significant majority of used cars should therefore be small cars, no?
  - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
    you're not thinking this through, vehicles cost differing amounts of money based on many things, including how well they're doing mechanically. An SUV with the floor rusted out and leaking oil and no A/C is going to be cheaper to purchase than a used corolla with under 50k miles on it and everything generally working decently. 20-30 y/o SUV's exist, 0 year old corolla's exist. It turns out the size of the vehicle isn't nearly the largest determinant of price for vehicles.

epistasis 3y ago

The poor aren't buying oversized vehicles, because those vehicles are the more expensive option already.

bombcar 3y ago
Depends on what your definition of poor is, because if you go to street view in poorer areas of LA you do not miss out on seeing the SUVs.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  it turns out SUV's can be purchased used as well.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    A big part of the problem is that the used market is controlled by new car buyers (from the past) - if nobody is buying new compact/cheap cars (for whatever reason) then they're not available for used buyers. And you can get what has happened multiple times - when gas prices rise substantially, low-mpg vehicles get dumped on the used market, so you have poor people and kids driving massive boats (the hotrodding scene from the 70s is a direct result of this).
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      vehicles can be repaired and sold and many people make good money doing exactly that.

stetrain 3y ago

Building a society where you need to pay for a car, license, fuel, and insurance to just to function increases harm to the poor.

mycologos 3y ago
That's why I'm suggesting that we target very large vehicles first. I am skeptical that poor people absolutely need very large vehicles, which are more expensive to run anyway.
- PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
  > I am skeptical that poor people absolutely need very large vehicles and I'm skeptical that you're a moral human being. Apparently poor people with families don't need larger vehicles the way middle class people with families do. Your idea is stupid and untenable, let it go.
  - mycologos 3y ago
    > and I'm skeptical that you're a moral human being Hm, surely we don't need to go that far. This is an internet discussion, we're supposed to be nice to each other! > Apparently poor people with families don't need larger vehicles the way middle class people with families do. Maybe I don't understand what claim you're making: is it 1) vans/SUVs must not become any more expensive (via higher insurance requirements), or else poor people will be priced out of owning a car entirely, or 2) owning a van/SUV is almost a human right, and raising the barrier to it is immoral? I've tried looking at listings and I don't see evidence of the claim that somehow poor people are forced to buy SUVs because they're cheaper. There appear to be many big and small cars at every price range. For 2), huge cars have only been widespread for a decade or two. The idea that they're somehow necessary for a meaningful human life is hard for me to grok.
    - PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
      One of my biggest criticisms of HN in general is that dang, et al, have created a safe space for heinous opinions where pushing back on them too hard will get YOU moderated. You're on a crusade against larger vehicles and you think that crusade is more important than avoiding more harm to poor people, to the point that you said they have no need of larger vehicles (with a straight face) so it's ok to place a tax on them that will mean the poor will be forced to forego something as simple as a minivan for their family due to the extra taxes on them. that's an immoral stance, one that you can only have gotten to because poor people is an abstract idea to you, you don't attribute any humanity to that abstract idea. What makes it even worse is that you're so far gone you thought my issue with your statement was because I think owning a van or SUV is a human right rather than your entirely cavalier dismissal of the poor as being people. rethink your strategy, the harm from your current strategy means it will never be implemented. Also, minivans and vans have been around since the 1930's. Get your facts right.