5 ms·

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.

by e40 3y ago

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.

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.

by 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.