3 ms·

> Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident Your insurance company will happ

> Start making sure that insurance companies have no payouts if the driver's phone was on X amount of time before the accident Your insurance company will happily sue you for the payout and more if you were acting tortuously at the time of the accident. The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident ("There's money and you'll get it"). > Require all vehicles to install cell phone tethers that have the driver's registered sim card in it I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver? > Almost ALL problems have a technical/legislative solution for them. The only real problem is that no one has either the resolve, balls, lawyers, political backing, or money to implement/require those technical/legislative solutions. So all we get are half-asses solutions with selective (and sometimes biased) enforcement by the police/courts. Yeah, let's try totalitarianism again. This time we'll have the balls to get it right.

zo1 13y ago
"The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident" Well, first of all. It depends on what kind of insurance, and who got it. What I'm saying is that all of the insurance that the reckless driver has, whether for himself, or for third-party damage, should be denied. That way it's ALL out-of-pocket for him, assuming the law finds him reckless and owes damages to the victims. Now, of course. The victim should have their own insurance, if they're smart. So they are covered whether or not the reckless driver was insured, or his insurance pays out third parties for damage. Of course, as one of the other posters mentioned above. "Poor reckless drivers won't be able to pay the victim, and this will hurt the victim." Well, I'm not an advocate of more-state, but if that's what tickles your fancy, then mandate insurance. Like, I asssume, they already do for third-party damage? I don't live in the US so I don't know about that. "I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver?" Well you're an exception. And if you think that's a reasonable argument against my solution, then you obviously didn't read it in its entirety, or you didn't understand it. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry I failed you. My point is that no one really wants to fix this problem, they just want to appear to fix it. Because if they really wanted to fix it, it would be fixed with whatever draconian/weird/unique/ballsy solution works.

zo1 13y ago

"The purpose of insurance isn't to protect the driver, it's to protect the victim of an accident" Well, first of all. It depends on what kind of insurance, and who got it. What I'm saying is that all of the insurance that the reckless driver has, whether for himself, or for third-party damage, should be denied. That way it's ALL out-of-pocket for him, assuming the law finds him reckless and owes damages to the victims. Now, of course. The victim should have their own insurance, if they're smart. So they are covered whether or not the reckless driver was insured, or his insurance pays out third parties for damage. Of course, as one of the other posters mentioned above. "Poor reckless drivers won't be able to pay the victim, and this will hurt the victim." Well, I'm not an advocate of more-state, but if that's what tickles your fancy, then mandate insurance. Like, I asssume, they already do for third-party damage? I don't live in the US so I don't know about that. "I have 1-3 mobile phones on me most times and share around 7 SIM cards between them. Also, what about cars with more than one driver?" Well you're an exception. And if you think that's a reasonable argument against my solution, then you obviously didn't read it in its entirety, or you didn't understand it. If it's the latter, then I'm sorry I failed you. My point is that no one really wants to fix this problem, they just want to appear to fix it. Because if they really wanted to fix it, it would be fixed with whatever draconian/weird/unique/ballsy solution works.