3 ms·

Realistically, the other person ends up in jail and then you still can’t get compensated for car repairs. It’s not super clear why that would be better than the

Realistically, the other person ends up in jail and then you still can’t get compensated for car repairs. It’s not super clear why that would be better than the pooling of risk that happens today that results in compensation. American society has chosen to create a built environment that is inhospitable to anything else except driving, so I don’t think this is actually a real choice. The people who are getting into crashes all the time are not the ones pushing for that built environment.

vel0city 2y ago
I'm saying they should face such extreme penalties it's not worth it anymore and have it policed so those people aren't on the roads in the first place to get in a collision. Right now you're pretty much not going to have anything happen driving without insurance unless you get into an accident that you can't escape from. If it was highly likely for someone to face judgement every time they went out you'd probably have significantly fewer uninsured drivers out there.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Then you basically just have a roving class of jobless people stuck at home. We’re not talking about the currently uninsured. We’re talking about a “hot-take” proposal to significantly increase the amount of uninsured people today, people who today can get insurance.
  - vel0city 2y ago
    Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without needing a car.
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      Using our justice system to meter out extreme punishment would mostly impact poor people, and it is not as if the US has historically been very good at listening to the suffering of poor people. The Bay Area can barely keep service workers in housing and its taken several decades of this problem to get even the slightest bit of progress.
    - akoncius 2y ago
      yeah and do you realise what you are suggesting? your proposed change will take decades to rework cities to move away from car-centric city design, to introduce public transportation, to rework current districts, to move shopping malls/restaurants closer to living districts etc. all of this just because you wanted to make stricter insurance just to make it more (by how much?) efficient for insurers, so that they would make more profit.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        No, I'm suggesting it because I don't want to pay for Bob to smash several cars a year. I'm saying it because there's lots of people who have no business being out on the road. Having Bob drive when he's a bad driver makes everyone around less safe. But I guess you'd have society pay for all the cars Bob ends up destroying. We'll subsidize him crashing cars over and over and hurting Alice but we just can't seem to find the money to add another bus line!
    - oremolten 2y ago
      How do we un-car centric design the ~60million people who live in rural USA? Should we move everyone to urban environments for public transit? How do you figure someone like me traverse the 40 miles from my 800 population rural town to my work place?
      - vel0city 2y ago
        Being frank, you shouldn't be making the 40+mile commute in a car if you can't afford all the ramifications of it. It's a failure of societal design to force people to drive 40 miles on a vehicle they can't responsibly afford to operate just to survive. In the end, they shouldn't live 40mi from where they work. It's not a good thing to force such a lifestyle. Honestly it's depressing you're suggesting we should continue to force people to spend so much of their productive lives commuting to dead-end jobs that will never lift them out of the poverty of their situation. It's sad you're continuing to argue people should live an hour+ away from where they work, and that should just be the norm and the basis for our designs. If you want to live 40+mi from your work and can afford all that involves and are willing to live with the tradeoffs, sure go ahead. Pay the tolls for the highways. Pay the congestion fees. Choose to spend more time with the insides of your car than you do spending time with your family on an average weekday. Pay the higher insurance compared to those who live close or take the train. Just quit asking for handouts and subsidies to pave over other people's homes, force bullshit parking minimums which lead to seas of empty pavement, demand other people pay for the roads you drive, etc.
  - PROMISE_237 2y ago
    [dead]

vel0city 2y ago

I'm saying they should face such extreme penalties it's not worth it anymore and have it policed so those people aren't on the roads in the first place to get in a collision. Right now you're pretty much not going to have anything happen driving without insurance unless you get into an accident that you can't escape from. If it was highly likely for someone to face judgement every time they went out you'd probably have significantly fewer uninsured drivers out there.

bobthepanda 2y ago
Then you basically just have a roving class of jobless people stuck at home. We’re not talking about the currently uninsured. We’re talking about a “hot-take” proposal to significantly increase the amount of uninsured people today, people who today can get insurance.
- vel0city 2y ago
  Or we get a stronger political will to no longer force car dependency on everyone when people actually start to understand the real costs of car-centric design. When the stores and restaurants where rich people shop can't get anyone to work there anymore without paying people the full costs of actually driving far away maybe there will be a will to change things. Lots of people around the world can go to work without needing a car.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Using our justice system to meter out extreme punishment would mostly impact poor people, and it is not as if the US has historically been very good at listening to the suffering of poor people. The Bay Area can barely keep service workers in housing and its taken several decades of this problem to get even the slightest bit of progress.
  - akoncius 2y ago
    yeah and do you realise what you are suggesting? your proposed change will take decades to rework cities to move away from car-centric city design, to introduce public transportation, to rework current districts, to move shopping malls/restaurants closer to living districts etc. all of this just because you wanted to make stricter insurance just to make it more (by how much?) efficient for insurers, so that they would make more profit.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      No, I'm suggesting it because I don't want to pay for Bob to smash several cars a year. I'm saying it because there's lots of people who have no business being out on the road. Having Bob drive when he's a bad driver makes everyone around less safe. But I guess you'd have society pay for all the cars Bob ends up destroying. We'll subsidize him crashing cars over and over and hurting Alice but we just can't seem to find the money to add another bus line!
  - oremolten 2y ago
    How do we un-car centric design the ~60million people who live in rural USA? Should we move everyone to urban environments for public transit? How do you figure someone like me traverse the 40 miles from my 800 population rural town to my work place?
    - vel0city 2y ago
      Being frank, you shouldn't be making the 40+mile commute in a car if you can't afford all the ramifications of it. It's a failure of societal design to force people to drive 40 miles on a vehicle they can't responsibly afford to operate just to survive. In the end, they shouldn't live 40mi from where they work. It's not a good thing to force such a lifestyle. Honestly it's depressing you're suggesting we should continue to force people to spend so much of their productive lives commuting to dead-end jobs that will never lift them out of the poverty of their situation. It's sad you're continuing to argue people should live an hour+ away from where they work, and that should just be the norm and the basis for our designs. If you want to live 40+mi from your work and can afford all that involves and are willing to live with the tradeoffs, sure go ahead. Pay the tolls for the highways. Pay the congestion fees. Choose to spend more time with the insides of your car than you do spending time with your family on an average weekday. Pay the higher insurance compared to those who live close or take the train. Just quit asking for handouts and subsidies to pave over other people's homes, force bullshit parking minimums which lead to seas of empty pavement, demand other people pay for the roads you drive, etc.
- PROMISE_237 2y ago
  [dead]