5 ms·

So what if the shoe's on the other foot? A driver hits someone. The driver doesn't have insurance. He's now liable for the other person's medical bills, but

by frio 14y ago

So what if the shoe's on the other foot? A driver hits someone. The driver doesn't have insurance. He's now liable for the other person's medical bills, but can't afford them. He's now massively in debt over some random accident. No matter the moral judgment ("he shouldn't be driving without insurance"), the underlying point was that random debt does happen :).

philwelch 14y ago
Not only should he not be driving without insurance, but he's almost certainly at fault for hitting the pedestrian. We put some debtors into prison for lesser forms of irresponsibility.
- frio 14y ago
  The point is: unexpected debt happens. Arguing semantics over a hypothetical case is not a meaningful tangent :).
  - greedo 14y ago
    You set up a strawman, and then change the point. Defending irresponsible behavior won't do much to improve things.
- elemenohpee 14y ago
  That's great, unless he needs to drive to get to work in order to get a paycheck and keep his head above water for another week. Do people really not understand that there are people who do not have the luxury of a risk-free life?
  - greedo 14y ago
    Teaching someone to measure risk is part of parenting, and a good sign of maturity. Driving without insurance is strike one in that calculus, and then hitting a pedestrian is strike two. Helping them out of debt is merely enabling strike three in this scenario. Take a look at your local newspapers mugshot section. Ours publishes them online, and when bored, it's a fun diversion. The majority of the arrests are for DUI, or driving on a suspended license from a prior DUI. A great cross section of people who don't even care about their impact upon others.
    - elemenohpee 14y ago
      Not sure what DUIs have to do with this. I'm thinking about the guy who lost his job, and the closest position he could find was 50 miles away from his home, which he can't move out of without losing a lot of money. He's exhausted from the long commute each day and the stress of being up to his neck in debt, which is what he's distracted by when he doesn't see the pedestrian step out from behind a parked car. It's got nothing to do with maturity or whatever, it's about doing what is necessary to survive and provide for your family. It's pretty callous and insulting to tell someone in this situation that they deserve to be crushed under debt because you don't want to "enable" their behavior.
      - greedo 14y ago
        As a society, we expect people to follow norms of behavior; we usually call them laws. Driving without insurance is breaking the law. Driving impaired in the case of alcohol is against the law. Driving impaired because you're tired and exhausted and stressed about life and then striking a pedestrian is usually going to result in either criminal charges or civil charges at the minimum. You might even have to wear a sign... http://fxn.ws/SwNfY1 http://fxn.ws/SwNfY1 EDIT: Here's a link for people who think that anything coming from Fox should be dismissed out of hand immediately: http://security-today.com/Blogs/REACTION/2012/11/Woman-Sentenced-to-Wear-Idiot-Sign.aspx http://security-today.com/Blogs/REACTION/2012/11/Woman-Sente...
        mkr-hn 14y ago
        Patronizing someone and linking to fox news to support a nonsense narrative isn't helping your case. Edit on your edit: Selecting a single extraordinary instance to support your case isn't helping your case. This is no different from someone looking at the idiotic things on Fox News' prime time shows and saying they represent all conservatives. I know many decent conservatives who think Fox News is for idiots, just as I know many poor people who are completely responsible and still struggle.
        greedo 14y ago

by frio 14y ago

philwelch 14y ago

Not only should he not be driving without insurance, but he's almost certainly at fault for hitting the pedestrian. We put some debtors into prison for lesser forms of irresponsibility.

frio 14y ago
The point is: unexpected debt happens. Arguing semantics over a hypothetical case is not a meaningful tangent :).
- greedo 14y ago
  You set up a strawman, and then change the point. Defending irresponsible behavior won't do much to improve things.
elemenohpee 14y ago
That's great, unless he needs to drive to get to work in order to get a paycheck and keep his head above water for another week. Do people really not understand that there are people who do not have the luxury of a risk-free life?
- greedo 14y ago
  Teaching someone to measure risk is part of parenting, and a good sign of maturity. Driving without insurance is strike one in that calculus, and then hitting a pedestrian is strike two. Helping them out of debt is merely enabling strike three in this scenario. Take a look at your local newspapers mugshot section. Ours publishes them online, and when bored, it's a fun diversion. The majority of the arrests are for DUI, or driving on a suspended license from a prior DUI. A great cross section of people who don't even care about their impact upon others.
  - elemenohpee 14y ago
    Not sure what DUIs have to do with this. I'm thinking about the guy who lost his job, and the closest position he could find was 50 miles away from his home, which he can't move out of without losing a lot of money. He's exhausted from the long commute each day and the stress of being up to his neck in debt, which is what he's distracted by when he doesn't see the pedestrian step out from behind a parked car. It's got nothing to do with maturity or whatever, it's about doing what is necessary to survive and provide for your family. It's pretty callous and insulting to tell someone in this situation that they deserve to be crushed under debt because you don't want to "enable" their behavior.
    - greedo 14y ago
      As a society, we expect people to follow norms of behavior; we usually call them laws. Driving without insurance is breaking the law. Driving impaired in the case of alcohol is against the law. Driving impaired because you're tired and exhausted and stressed about life and then striking a pedestrian is usually going to result in either criminal charges or civil charges at the minimum. You might even have to wear a sign... http://fxn.ws/SwNfY1 http://fxn.ws/SwNfY1 EDIT: Here's a link for people who think that anything coming from Fox should be dismissed out of hand immediately: http://security-today.com/Blogs/REACTION/2012/11/Woman-Sentenced-to-Wear-Idiot-Sign.aspx http://security-today.com/Blogs/REACTION/2012/11/Woman-Sente...
      - mkr-hn 14y ago
        Patronizing someone and linking to fox news to support a nonsense narrative isn't helping your case. Edit on your edit: Selecting a single extraordinary instance to support your case isn't helping your case. This is no different from someone looking at the idiotic things on Fox News' prime time shows and saying they represent all conservatives. I know many decent conservatives who think Fox News is for idiots, just as I know many poor people who are completely responsible and still struggle.
        greedo 14y ago