Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
Welcome, Guest
Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
-
Top Participants
-
Feeds
Advertisements
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
-
Now that my car is paid off, I'm looking more fully into New York State's car insurance laws. There's a good chance I'm dropping almost all of my coverage now that I'm legally free to do so.
I'll likely keep comprehensive coverage (with the highest possible deductible) due to the fact that I often park in somewhat dodgy parts of the Bronx (and the fact that it's about $10 a month).
The part I had to be sure about was that I would still have the ability to sue anyone who causes an accident that damages my car for compensation from their insurance. Luckily, I found the answer. So long as I call the police immediately if someone hits me and gather witnesses, I'll be all right ^_^ -
You pay $10/month for car insurance?
-
For comprehensive with a $1000 deductible.
I pay another $40 for collision with a $500 deductible. All told, it comes to about $100 a month for everything including the legally mandated no-fault coverage. It'll come down to about $60 if I drop the useless collision coverage, which only helps if -I- cause an accident.
Despite how rampantly and flagrantly I speed, I have zero speeding tickets. I'm also just beyond the age of still being considered a "punk kid" by the insurance companies. I have excellent credit, a clean driving record, and a loyalty discount for having used Geico for so long. -
-
CommentAuthorbaltmatrix
- CommentTimeAug 18th 2006
With my old car all I had was liability. Seriously. It was only worth $800 according to Kelly Blue Book. -
-
Most car insurance companies offer a discount once you reach age 25. Whoohoo! And some insurers give you discounts based on your history with them as Rym mentioned.
Remember that part of the cost of having insurance is how much hassle you have to go through to make a claim. There is the deductible which you shoulder all the time, even if you make a claim higher than the deductible - you still pay the full deductible.
I have heard bad stories about Progressive and how they handle their customers making claims. One of the best sources (free) for car insurance is to talk to a mechanic or body work person at a dealership or body shop. They will give you free advice on how much a pain in the ass the different insurance companies are when making claims.
Today on the highway I saw a guy with a truck and his tailgate was a replacement painted white. On the tailgate he had professionally printed letters in a large font spelling out (and I'm paraphrasing here since I don't recall it entirely):
"This is how Allstate handles a hit and run. After all the hassles they gave me a check for $138.57. I returned the check and told them to shove it." And I have heard similarly bad complaints about State Farm.
I guess I'm just saying that in terms of car insurance: cheapest != best -
Cheapest does equal best in my case. I don't want any form of car insurance whatsoever. I'm forced to have it by law. Thus, I get the cheapest possible. I don't plan to ever make a claim, and I would simply sue for damages anyone who hit my car.
-
-
CommentAuthorLa Petit (ciel)mort
- CommentTimeAug 18th 2006
Agreed. -
-
Posted By: RymI don't plan to ever make a claim, and I would simply sue for damages anyone who hit my car.
Suing isn't exactly cheap. And if you represent yourself... well... you know the saying. -
Posted By: kilarneySuing isn't exactly cheap. And if you represent yourself... well... you know the saying.
It's not so bad when your company gives you access to a lawyer on retainer. Sweet gig if you can swing it. -
Yes. The fact that my employer does indeed provide a lawyer on retainer weighed heavily in the decision.
It also helps that in matters like there, a simple police report coupled with a witness or two and a citation for a traffic violation on the opposing party is generally more than enough to make a quick case. -
This sounds like an awesome plan for you but I've got more or less the exact opposite problem. I'm not yet 25, I'm male and I have been at fault in an accident. I just inherrited a new-to-me vehicle from the 'rents (a 2000 Toyota Sienna, I've got a party barge people!) and need to get it insured. Any recommendations on where a "high-risk" client like myself can not get ass raped every month?
-
Posted By: RymYes. The fact that my employer does indeed provide a lawyer on retainer weighed heavily in the decision.
That makes a big difference.It also helps that in matters like there, a simple police report coupled with a witness or two and a citation for a traffic violation on the opposing party is generally more than enough to make a quick case.
In small claims court, yes. Without getting into details, I've already spotted some evidentiary problems if you are in regular court. The risk is that anything involving lots of money will not be in small claims court. Having said that, the savings from a few months without insurance coverage goes a long way towards paying a lawyer. -
Posted By: kilarney
That assumes Rym doesn't spend that money on audio equipment, books, video games, anime, art, a motorcycle or fancy dinners.Posted By: RymYes. The fact that my employer does indeed provide a lawyer on retainer weighed heavily in the decision.
That makes a big difference.It also helps that in matters like there, a simple police report coupled with a witness or two and a citation for a traffic violation on the opposing party is generally more than enough to make a quick case.
In small claims court, yes. Without getting into details, I've already spotted some evidentiary problems if you are in regular court. The risk is that anything involving lots of money will not be in small claims court. Having said that, the savings from a few months without insurance coverage goes a long way towards paying a lawyer. -
Since it is highly likely that Rym will eventually accumulate substantial assets, at that point he'll probably want to get an umbrella policy to protect those assets from rare disaster. For example, an umbrella policy would help if he drove into a car full of lawyers who all experience economic losses that exceed No-Fault benefits and who allege much pain and suffering for their "serious injuries."
-
Also, Rym has to buy a new PC eventually since the Mac didn't work out.
-
Ahh, but one cannot sue a deer, fallen tree, or an unidentified hit-and-run perp or vandal.
Insurance in general is an a$$-rape for those of us that actually drive responsibly. Especially when your rates go up after ANY claim you make, fault or not. -
There's a good chance we'll get an umbrella policy for GeekNights in the coming years. The more popular we get, the more open to copyright/slander lawsuits we become, not to mention liability at events we "sponsor."
-
I wouldn't be without my insurance, there are too many crazy people on the roads, also in carparks where people will hit you and then drive away.
-
My problem with insurance is not that it exists. If you want to get insurance, that's your perogative. My problem with insurance is that it's mandatory gambling. If I want to transport myself in a motor vehicle I should not be forced to bet that something bad will happen. I think it's a bit hypocritical for a state to make gambling illegal but insurance mandatory.
-
Posted By: AprecheMy problem with insurance is not that it exists. If you want to get insurance, that's your perogative. My problem with insurance is that it's mandatory gambling.
I think an equally valid argument can be made that insurance is not gambling. Driving around without insurance is gambling. -
The cost of insurance makes it a bad bet. If the average American added up what they pay for car insurance, and had instead put that into a savings account, they'd be much better off. Car insurance is basically gambling. By purchasing it, you're betting that you'll be involved in an auto accident for which you will be liable, and that the damages you will cause will be more than the premiums you pay.
Considering that the average expenditure for car insurance in the US approaches $2500 a year, that's quite a heady bet. If you own a car for 5 years, you're telling the world that you expect to do more than $12,500 in damages in that time. Add to that the interest (or opportunity cost) the money would otherwise have provided, as well as the average cost of deductibles in the event of claims.
Now, comprehensive auto insurance, which covers non-collision damages (stolen car, damage in car park, etc...), costs on average an order of magnitude less, and is in general a much better bet. It covers all the sorts of damage for which no one could easily be held liable. Interestingly, this sort of insurance is NOT required by law.
The worst part about insurance laws in many parts of the US is the "no-fault" requirement. So many people are such poor drivers that it was expedient to pass laws forcing everyone to have insurance that covers everyone no matter who was at fault, effectively removing much of the liability for collisions. As a result, -I- am forced to subsidize idiots who cause the accidents that delay -me- on my commute every morning...
I have in general very little sympathy for people who are involved in auto accidents. Numerous studies have shown that the vast majority are fully avoidable and are caused soley by driver error. If it weren't for the total lack of non-car transportation in the US, I'd be in favour of severely restricting the ability of poor drivers to use and operate cars on public roads, as well as imposing heady penalties on anyone who can be shown as having caused a collision through their own poor decisions or lack of skill.
(The only exceptions to my lack of sympathy arise from the rare accidents where one party truly held zero responsibility: someone runs a red light and T-bones another car, someone's drunk and driving, etc...). -
I think an equally valid argument can be made that insurance is not gambling. Driving around without insurance is gambling.
One is active, the other is passive. By your logic, not walking into a casino is also gambling. While a pedantic argument could be used to show this, it removes any value in having the word "gambling" in our discussion.
The point is that I am forced to pay large sums of money that I will never make use of in order to subsidize idiots who cause car accidents. -
Posted By: RymThe cost of insurance makes it a bad bet.
Oh come on... you do understand that insurance is to protect against a known risk? The whole point of insurance is that you are not willing to gamble in the face of that risk. That's economics 101. Insurance takes away the "risk." Thus, no gambling. I understand your point that you are gambling that the insurance itself is worth it - but this is a much safer gamble than going without insurance. Otherwise, there would be no insurance industry. Insurance works because a critical mass of people think that it's safer to get screwed a little to avoid the possibility of getting screwed big time.
The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming that your life will be "average." As we all know, random elements mean that few of us will experience something that is truly "average." I agree that insurance is a rip-off, but we are insuring against random bad luck. And yes... that bad luck can happen to you. In that case, insurance would be a great deal for you.
The flip-side, however, is that the insurance company will keep raising your rates if you do have a spell of bad luck. I also agree that insurance is inefficient as it pertains to you. You are subsidizing other poor drivers and the insurance company's profits. For the "average" person, insurance is a bad deal. The problem is that you may have worse luck than the average person. That's the whole point of insurance.
Simply put, you don't have a crystal ball. Maybe insurance is a "bad bet" for you, and maybe it isn't. You can't turn yourself into the "average person," which is the foundation of your whole argument. You can say that insurance is a bad-bet for the "average person" - you just can't assume that you are that person. Major logical flaw there. -
-
CommentAuthorMarcusNoble
- CommentTimeAug 20th 2006
One thing to keep in mind is that all insurance policies, your rate is determined by a set of statistics. Many of the things they take into account are your age, gender, job, vehicle you drive, where you live, any tickets you have recieved, accidents you have been directly involved in, and probably a few other things I'm forgetting. Basically an insurance agent will plug all this information into a computer system to determine how much you will pay for the policy you get. My insurance agent told me this himself. -
-
Rym says,
(The only exceptions to my lack of sympathy arise from the rare accidents where one party truly held zero responsibility: someone runs a red light and T-bones another car, someone's drunk and driving, etc...).
That's a lot of Fucking exceptions! What's left is if you run into a parked car ^_^ -
-
CommentAuthornavelfluff
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2006
I dislike mandatory car insurance because:
- I have to pay a lot of money I desperately need for basic needs like food, clothes and computer parts.
I like mandatory car insurance because:
- It has paid for break-ins and vandalism done to my car. The police don't have resources to find the bastards and make them pay.
- Should I ever accidentally damage anyone, or cause serious damage to property, the money I have been forced to pay over the years make the insurance company pay the bill I would never be able to pay out of my own pocket.
- That applies to every idiot around me as well.
I don't like to pay for car insurance, but considering the alternative I'm not complaining. -
-
Car insurance is a bad bet for the average person because, on average, it takes in significantly more money than it pays out. I've seen figures showing that casino craps has a higher return on investment. If the payout were such that the average person benefited, then the industry wouldn't exist as it does now. It's a profitable industry. That money comes from somewhere.
Granted, some people look on insurance as protection. They pay a large sum of money in order to protect themselves from the possibility of having to pay a large sum of money...
People are free to purchase insurance if they want. The only real problem (aside from people not logically assessing their investments or considering that they'd be better protected and better off by putting that insurance premium money into a savings account) is that the coverage is mandatory by law. I pay so that other people can repair the damage they've done themselves.
If car insurance weren't mandatory, then many people would drop it. In order to remain profitable, premiums would rise. The industry couldn't likely sustain itself at anywhere near the scale it exists today. People who cause accidents would effectively be ruined economically, either through outrageous premiums or extensive damage bills. I'm all for helping people, but I also believe that "stupid should hurt."That's a lot of Fucking exceptions! What's left is if you run into a parked car ^_^
It's actually very few exceptions. Studies show that the majority of accidents are at-fault to some degree for all parties involved or were avoidable by either party. Statistically, I can deny my sympathy to most people who are involved in auto collisions and be justified.
I have a great deal of sympathy for people who are stuck by poor drivers. People who cause harm to others should always be forced to undo their harms as far as can be done. Unfortunately, most car accident stories I have heard where the person telling them claimed no fault have shown in fact clear fault on their behalf...
Furthermore, my hitting a parked car wouldn't have anything to do with this, as I would be the one at fault. If I were to cause an accident, I would and should be obligated to pay for any and all damages I caused. I'm confident in my ability to not cause accidents, and I'm confident in my ability to recover damages from others who may cause them. -
Posted By: Rym
If car insurance weren't mandatory, then many people would drop it. In order to remain profitable, premiums would rise. The industry couldn't likely sustain itself at anywhere near the scale it exists today. People who cause accidents would effectively be ruined economically, either through outrageous premiums or extensive damage bills. I'm all for helping people, but I also believe that "stupid should hurt."
I'm confident in my ability to not cause accidents, and I'm confident in my ability to recover damages from others who may cause them.
You're missing a little data. A significant percentage of the population of this country does not have car insurance. (maybe 30%?) These people don't have the means to pay a judgment against them. Many don't even have a driver's licence. These judgment proof people also happen to cause a high percentage of accidents. They live off the financial grid, hand to mouth and under the table. There is no financial ruin for them if they destroy your property (or your life for that matter).
The only way to take these people out of society is jail and at this point no one really wants that. You don't and I certainly don't. So no fault insurance is a crappy societal compromise. -
I'd rather put the money wasted on auto insurance into mass transit. If there were an effective means of local transit aside from cars, then we would be justified in banning non-proficient drivers from the roads or imposing road taxes to limit their local use.
The issue of how to deal with indigents who have caused monetary damage is a difficult one. Mass transit could at least mitigate this in regards to car-related damages. As for the rest, perhaps indentured servitude? Government payouts funded by wage garnishing?
Debtor's prison is by far a sub-optimal solution, but indigent people still need to be held accountable for their actions. -
I think the main problem is that our society is hung-up on the idea that things need to be set back to normal. If your house burns down, you should get money to buy a new house and new things. If a tree falls on your car, you should get money to buy a new one. Most people seem to view this as a good thing, I do not.
I vew this as yet another case for the tough shit rule. Shit happens. That's life. Deal with it. If bad things happen, we need to stop whining and complaining until the government and/or insurance companies fix it. Less than a hundred years ago people were not so protected from hardship. If your farm had a bad season, or if your house burned down, you were completely screwed. Hell, it's still that way in most of the world. Sure, sometimes there is a party to blame for damages. In just society the party at fault should be made to pay for the trouble they have caused as best they can, but most of the time it's still just tough shit.
Good things happen and bad things happen, it's the way of life. We don't undo the good things to maintain status quo, why do we expect the bad to always be undone? I think that by shielding ourselves from the harsh realities of the world we have lost some of our ability to deal with, and appreciate, the seriousness of many problems. Maybe if financial ruin was the result of being at fault in a car accident people would drive more carefully and less often? Maybe if you wouldn't automatically get a new house when yours burned down, you would think a bit more about fire safety. By removing the consequences of stupidity and randomness we have created a society which is safe for wusses and idiots.
We need to make it so that when people screw up, it hurts. We need to make it so when bad things happen, it hurts. Only then, will people learn to deal with problems. Only then will people take things more seriously. Only then will people get off their asses and do something to make sure avoidable damages are avoided. You should be free to gamble your money on insurance if you want to, but I should not be forced to do so as well. I am fully prepared to deal with anything and everything that life has to throw at me. Are you? -
Posted By: RymI'd rather put the money wasted on auto insurance into mass transit.
I'm all for funding mass transit, especially alternatives to air travel.
I am making a short business trip to Washington, DC in a couple of weeks. I really wanted to take the train, since flying is becoming a royal pain in the neck - especially since you are now pretty much forced to check your bag. The train from Vermont was 11 hours. My flight to DC is just under three hours with a connection in New York. The airport is about 1 mile from the train station. (Both the airport and train station are about 60 miles from me... welcome to rural living!) Even with the hassle of security, etc - flying was by far the better option. This should not be the case for a trip that is less than 500 miles.
The airport I'm flying from is actually quite handy. It has only three flights per day using 19 seat prop planes. You can get to the airport at the last minute, since security is quite quick. Parking is free. Your tax dollars are subsidizing the airline for providing "essential air service" to this airport. Your tax dollars are paying for my ticket - since the feds are paying for my trip. Your tax dollars are giving me a $50 rebate for flying out of the airport. (They got some federal grant that gives rebates to promote use of the airport.) Fares are usually ridiculous out of this airport, so I rarely use it when I am buying a ticket with personal funds. On the other end, Reagan National airport is one of the few airports that really is downtown. So as much as I wanted to take the train, flying still made the most sense. -
-
CommentAuthornavelfluff
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2006 edited
I mostly agree with Scott on that we can't protect people from all the shit that might happen. Here in Norway this over-protection is sometimes taken to ridiculous levels. There are however a few things I believe we should protect people from - like stupid drivers.
Cars are heavy chunks of metal that goes at high speed, are potentially very dangerous, and they are everywhere. If a car causes serious damage to an innocent person, the driver is responsible for financing a large portion of the hospital bill and necessary rehabilitation. Do you disagree? If you do, I don't know what to say to you.
Let's say there is a driver with a low income who chooses not to pay insurance because he consider himself a good driver. However, one day he miscalculates his abilities, falls asleep behind the wheel and mows down 10 pedestrians that are all crippled for life. Maybe he is himself crippled and looses his ability to work. He will never be able to pay up, however much he dedicates his life to that task. In such cases everyone would be better off if he had been forced to pay insurance.
Here in Norway we have several levels of car insurance (I have no idea how this works in the US). I have the lowest and cheapest level which suits me fine, but I think there should have been a an even lower level for those who wished. I am now insured against vandalism that other people cause to my car, and the insurance company throws in a free car rescue service. That suits me just fine, but I think people should be able to get an even cheaper insurance without those options. However, I strongly believe that there should be a mandatory insurance against damage that the driver of a car causes others.
I am not so sure that letting people carry all the responsibility will make them more careful. Warnings of the dangers of driving are easily forgotten, but money talks. I believe that paying those irritating insurance bills once or twice a year is a good reminder that driving a car is dangerous, and that hazardous driving can be very, very expensive. Paying the insurance gives you an incentive to think about safety and how you drive. In this country you also get large fines for breaking safety rules like speeding and not using safety belt. People will generally ignore such rules until their wallet is threatened. Mandatory insurance is a reminder that affects you on a very real and personal level, and is thus not so easily forgotten. This is of course not the main point of insurance, and some people may not be affected in that way at all. The point I try to make is that I think the attitude of "responsibility makes careful drivers" is too simplistic. The culture of safe driving is a complex issue.
I think the fact that insurance companies are greedy and evil is a whole different discussion that has more to do with price fixing and other violations of consumer rights. -
-
Posted By: navelfluffI mostly agree with Scott on that we can't protect people from all the shit that might happen. Here in Norway this over-protection is sometimes taken to ridiculous levels. There are however a few things I believe we should protect people from - like stupid drivers.
No, I don't disagree. If you cause damage with your car, you are responsible and should pay.
Cars are heavy chunks of metal that goes at high speed, are potentially very dangerous, and they are everywhere. If a car causes serious damage to an innocent person, the driver is responsible for financing a large portion of the hospital bill and necessary rehabilitation. Do you disagree? If you do, I don't know what to say to you.Let's say there is a driver with a low income who chooses not to pay insurance because he consider himself a good driver. However, one day he miscalculates his abilities, falls asleep behind the wheel and mows down 10 pedestrians that are all crippled for life. Maybe he is himself crippled and looses his ability to work. He will never be able to pay up, however much he dedicates his life to that task. In such cases everyone would be better off he had been forced to pay insurance.
Yes, this is a basic problem, and I only have one answer. Make it very difficult to get a drivers license and make it so poor people can't drive. This solution works everywhere that has functioning and efficient mass transit. The problem is that in the US if you can't drive, your life is ruined. It is essentially impossible to transport yourself to work if you can not drive. No matter how we decide to fix this problem I see only two ways it can go. Either we leave things as is, or we go through a time where things are much worse in order to get to a place where things are much better. -
If you hit a 5 year old girl and make her a quadriplegic, you will be liable for damages in the millions of dollars. Is this likely? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. Assuming that you don't have sufficient assets to pay such a large judgment, should we ban you from the road?
Requiring someone without any meaningful assets to have insurance isn't exactly a bad idea. And no... I don't subscribe to the "stuff happens" viewpoint. Our tort system has plenty of problems, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with Scrym's argument that we need to make things "hurt" is that innocents may be hurt. Stuff happens, I agree. But some people also cause stuff to happen. In that case, any innocent derserves to be compensated.
For example, let's assume that I am 100% fire-safety minded, and some arsonist comes along and burns my house. Are you saying that I shouldn't have insurance to recover from such a thing? I'd say you never owned a house! I should also have the right to sue the arsonist. I doubt, though, that they would have sufficient assets for me to be made whole. -
The primary issue I take with mandatory "no-fault" insurance. I'd be more ok with the state requiring liability insurance for damages -caused- by me, but not damages -to- me. That insurance is actually very cheap, and while I personally don't want it, I can understand the argument for requiring it.
It's the best of both worlds. You have to have this insurance to drive. Anyone you harm is covered, but you're not forced to spend the money to protect yourself.
The real problem here is that many accidents are caused by uninsured motorists who are driving illegally in the first place. No law will remove them from the roads short of jailing them. They have no other means of transport.
Do we subsidize their ability to harm others with their poor driving skills? Do we take away their ability to travel (to work/school/training/etc...)? Do we deport them? Do we kill them? -
Posted By: kilarneyIf you hit a 5 year old girl and make her a quadriplegic, you will be liable for damages in the millions of dollars. Is this likely? No. Is it possible? Absolutely. Assuming that you don't have sufficient assets to pay such a large judgment, should we ban you from the road?
Well, there's a lot more to it than that. This is not a simple matter. It has to be determined if you are actually at fault, and if so how much fault are you liable for. For the sake or argument let's say you are indeed held liable for more than you are worth. Yes, your life should be ruined, financially speaking. At least it will serve as an example to others. You should have thought about that before you screwed up.
To understand why that is fair you must understand the definition of fault. If something is your fault that means that it happened as a result of your actions or gross negligence. If you didn't screw up in some way, it would not have happened. Therefore you deserve to pay the price of whatever harm was created because of you. If it was not because of you, it would not be your fault. And because I know there will be an inevitable argument about this topic I must say that if someone lives up to the standards of due diligence, then they should not be found negligent.Requiring someone without any meaningful assets to have insurance isn't exactly a bad idea. And no... I don't subscribe to the "stuff happens" viewpoint. Our tort system has plenty of problems, but this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The problem with Scrym's argument that we need to make things "hurt" is thatinnocentsmay be hurt. Stuff happens, I agree. But some people alsocausestuff to happen. In that case, any innocent derserves to be compensated.
Let's say you are innocently writing a paper when your faulty Dell laptop explodes and burns you. You should be compensated. Dell hurt you, therefore they must pay. Let's say you are walking out in the woods and there's a sudden unexpected thunderstorm. You get hit by lightning and spend a lot of time in the hospital. Is it anyone's fault? No. Are you innocent? Yes. Where should the money come from to pay for your medical care? Your wallet. If you chose to gamble on insurance, that's your own perogative. If you have insurance and you get hit by lightning you can feel good that you won your bet. That doesn't mean that I should not be free to bet that I won't be struck by lightning.For example, let's assume that I am 100% fire-safety minded, and some arsonist comes along and burns my house. Are you saying that I shouldn't have insurance to recover from such a thing? I'd say you never owned a house! I should also have the right to sue the arsonist. I doubt, though, that they would have sufficient assets for me to be made whole.
If an arsonist comes and burns your house, then you should be able to take everything he owns until you can pay the damages. And yes, if you bet on insurance you can pay for the damages with your "winnings". Maybe you think betting on insurance is a good idea, good for you. I should have the freedom to not bet on insurance. If I bet that my house will not be burned down by arsonists, and it is, tough shit for me.
I'm not saying insurance should exist. I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to buy insurance if you think it's a good idea. I'm saying that insurance is gambling. I personally do not want to bet that bad things will happen. I do not think it is a good investment of my money. I do not think the government should force me to gamble. The end. -
If you ever buy a house, the mortgage company will have a different opinion than you regarding insurance. No insurance= no mortgage.
-
-
CommentAuthornavelfluff
- CommentTimeAug 21st 2006
Posted By: AprecheYes, this is a basic problem, and I only have one answer. Make it very difficult to get a drivers license and make it so poor people can't drive. This solution works everywhere that has functioning and efficient mass transit. The problem is that in the US if you can't drive, your life is ruined. It is essentially impossible to transport yourself to work if you can not drive. No matter how we decide to fix this problem I see only two ways it can go. Either we leave things as is, or we go through a time where things are much worse in order to get to a place where things are much better.
Then we agree on what the problems are, we just disagree on the solutions. As a foreigner with radical political views I vote for your last alternative, although it's practically impossible in a democracy. And what kind of changes do we want?
Just to give you another perspective on this issue, I give you a "short" description of how things are done here in little, rocky, partly socialistic and stinking rich Norway. In large areas people are completely dependent on cars as we are few people who traditionally live far apart in small settlements with lots of rocks or water in between. It is very idyllic in many ways, but of course very unpractical for modern living. I believe we have the world record of length of public road per inhabitant. It's all very expensive.
We are rich from oil production, but gasoline now costs about $4.70 per gallon because of environmental taxes. This tax money is supposed to subsidize public transport, but I believe it is mostly used on maintaining roads. Expensive gasoline is supposed to keep car usage and pollution down, and it works to some extent. There is also a tax on new cars (if you can't afford the car, you won't pollute either) which favours small cars and practical family cars with low gas consumption, and makes sports cars and SUVs very, very expensive. In addition, there is a yearly road tax at ~$200 per car. Some big roads have an additional road tax at ~$3 for each pass.
If you can afford to own and drive a car in Norway, you would probably not complain too much about paying insurance as it's peanuts in comparison to taxes.
All these taxes are of course very unpopular even though half the population are more or less social democrats who support environment friendly politics. Personally I want to double the gas price, at least in densely populated areas, and subsidize mass transit more, but I'm more lefty than most. As with the roads, maintaining railroads is expensive. Currently I pay less for gas driving alone in my old Mazda over the mountains between Oslo and Bergen (500km) than I would have to pay for a student discount ticket on the train, and that's just wrong politics in my view.
We have quite strict traffic rules and many campaigns for safer driving, and I think it works fairly well. There is always some idiot, but the traffic feels safe, and the speed limits are reasonable (mostly 80km/t ~50mph, up to 100km/t ~62mph which is suitable for our narrow and curvy roads).
I didn't tell all this for the purpose of discussing Norwegian politics here, nor do I expect USA to adopt our ways, but I want to make a few points:
1. Things can be done in different ways than you are used to. Think outside the frame.
2. Strict traffic rules and campaigns for safe driving works. You can change habits.
3. Even in a country where most people are completely dependent on cars, it is possible to keep traffic and pollution down with taxes. Those taxes can be used on many good things like public transport, but that is a socialistic viewpoint that I know is not very popular in the US. -
-
I think there should be mandatory insurance to protect other people. If someone else gets injured (not the driver of either car), then they shouldn't be stuck with huge medical bills just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, I don't think that there should be compulsory insurance for property: if you hit my car, then I can try to get money from you either from insurance or you personally, but if I don't it doesn't really matter. However, if you hit my child, it is a bit more important that I get the money.
-
We need the auto insurance industry to take some tips from the life insurance industry.
Give me a car insurance plan worth $XXX that, if I avoid needing to file a claim I can cash out the policy in the future.
What I will never understand is how insurance companies can declare a profit one year and then major losses the next. The way I see it, if someone has a $1M policy and has only paid $25K worth of premiums that policy is still in the hole by $975K, thus there is no profit! -
Ahhh... Now that my car's fully paid off and I've dropped most of my useless coverage, I have to admit that my insurance isn't the $60/month I had predicted.
It's actually $61. -
Posted By: RymAhhh... Now that my car's fully paid off and I've dropped most of my useless coverage, I have to admit that my insurance isn't the $60/month I had predicted.
It's actually $61.
So whats going on with you getting a motorcycle? I vaguely remember you mentioning your going to get one on an old episode. -
I'm still looking into it. There's a good chance I'll take some lessons this fall. With the coming winter, I can't see myself making a move to purchase one until spring.
It really depends on how gas prices go. My primary motivation is to save money on gas during my commute, but also to have a bit of fun. If gas remains relatively cheap, I might hold off.
1 to 43 of 43