75k is a pittance compared to the damage you could do to another person’s property or life while driving. That’s the whole point of the legally mandated liability insurance–for most people getting in an accident that results in injury to the other party would be financially devastating. And even worse would be having someone hit you and put you through 250k of medical care with no ability to pay.
Thousands of people are injured every day in car accidents in the US and about 100 are killed, so its not some kind of unicorn situation.
If you want to argue about driving being a necessity to live and work, that’s a completely separate discussion from why liability insurance is necessary.
It’s not a completely separate discussion though. If driving is necessary to live and work, and you legally have to have insurance to drive, then I believe that to be a completely reasonable connection. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a system in place to ensure people’s lives don’t get destroyed without proper compensation, I’m simply saying our current system is broken, and to try to justify it with saying you can spend what amounts to more than what the average person annually makes in the US is ridiculous.
Well that’s the thing. It’s about ensuring that there’s a legally predefined amount of money available to pay for damages you cause while driving. It’s not going to be cheap. The dmv holding it as cash is merely the alternative to insurance pooling everyone together, charging them according to risk and the cost of doing business, then paying it out whenever necessary.
The only real alternative would be forcing you to actively maintain that amount in free credit, which would probably be difficult and have a fee associated with the risk of inability to pay, especially as you’re not guaranteed to survive a crash you’re at fault in.
That’s why people get liability insurance instead,
The average new car is 50k, many cars are a lot more and medical expenses can be crazy. If you accidentally total a 100k sedan and the driver ends up with a broken bone you could be forced essentially into a life of indentured servitude with 50% of your wages garnished for life
What a shit take, “oh you can’t afford 75000 dollars, so that means you should instead also spend thousands of dollars every year for the rest of your life, and hey you are legally required to do so!”
I’d have fewer complains if driving weren’t a necessity to survive in this country, public transportation is few and far between if it even exists locally, and good luck getting any decent job without a car, or I guess you get minimum wage at the local gas station barely even being able to pay for rent. Oh, want to move? Guess what you’d need for that!
It’s a rigged system, and I despise seeing someone try to justify any part of it because “oh you could just pay $75000” ??? Fucking ridiculous.
Insurance is to cover the costs of the OTHER person if you cause an accident, so fucking yeah.
If you get in a car, that has the potential to cost someone else tens of thousands of dollars if you fuck up, you better fucking have some way in place to compensate that person, in case you do fuck up.
It’s your choice if you use insurance or capital for that, but it’s unfair to OTHER people on the road if they have to end up sitting up on (tens of) thosuands of dollars because you fucked up, and don’t have any way to compensate them.
And getting rid of insurance is not the solution to bad public transit access, and mandatory auto liability insurance isn’t a bad thing just because shit public transit forces most people into cars.
Like what alternative do you suggest ? No mandatory insurance, and crash victims just have to send up sitting on their own repair and medical costs, and that’s somehow better ?
I feel like ending up sitting on the costs of a crash you didn’t even cause is going to be more harmful to low income people than having to fork over liability insurance payments.
My suggestion is a government based insurance system that everyone puts a proportional amount into based on their wages, almost like taxes one might say, that goes towards a publicly available fund for people that have traumatic accidents/injuries.
Depends. You can also deposit so much to the DMV instead for them to hold in place of insurance. In California it’s $75k.
Ah yes, $75,000, a totally reasonable amount for the average joe to just give away.
75k is a pittance compared to the damage you could do to another person’s property or life while driving. That’s the whole point of the legally mandated liability insurance–for most people getting in an accident that results in injury to the other party would be financially devastating. And even worse would be having someone hit you and put you through 250k of medical care with no ability to pay.
Thousands of people are injured every day in car accidents in the US and about 100 are killed, so its not some kind of unicorn situation.
If you want to argue about driving being a necessity to live and work, that’s a completely separate discussion from why liability insurance is necessary.
It’s not a completely separate discussion though. If driving is necessary to live and work, and you legally have to have insurance to drive, then I believe that to be a completely reasonable connection. I’m not saying we shouldn’t have a system in place to ensure people’s lives don’t get destroyed without proper compensation, I’m simply saying our current system is broken, and to try to justify it with saying you can spend what amounts to more than what the average person annually makes in the US is ridiculous.
Well that’s the thing. It’s about ensuring that there’s a legally predefined amount of money available to pay for damages you cause while driving. It’s not going to be cheap. The dmv holding it as cash is merely the alternative to insurance pooling everyone together, charging them according to risk and the cost of doing business, then paying it out whenever necessary.
The only real alternative would be forcing you to actively maintain that amount in free credit, which would probably be difficult and have a fee associated with the risk of inability to pay, especially as you’re not guaranteed to survive a crash you’re at fault in.
That’s why people get liability insurance instead,
The average new car is 50k, many cars are a lot more and medical expenses can be crazy. If you accidentally total a 100k sedan and the driver ends up with a broken bone you could be forced essentially into a life of indentured servitude with 50% of your wages garnished for life
If you can’t afford to give away 75k, then you can’t afford to not have auto insurance, so that’s kinda a mute point.
Just in case it’s not just a spelling error
It’s actually moot point not mute point
What a shit take, “oh you can’t afford 75000 dollars, so that means you should instead also spend thousands of dollars every year for the rest of your life, and hey you are legally required to do so!”
I’d have fewer complains if driving weren’t a necessity to survive in this country, public transportation is few and far between if it even exists locally, and good luck getting any decent job without a car, or I guess you get minimum wage at the local gas station barely even being able to pay for rent. Oh, want to move? Guess what you’d need for that!
It’s a rigged system, and I despise seeing someone try to justify any part of it because “oh you could just pay $75000” ??? Fucking ridiculous.
Insurance is to cover the costs of the OTHER person if you cause an accident, so fucking yeah.
If you get in a car, that has the potential to cost someone else tens of thousands of dollars if you fuck up, you better fucking have some way in place to compensate that person, in case you do fuck up.
It’s your choice if you use insurance or capital for that, but it’s unfair to OTHER people on the road if they have to end up sitting up on (tens of) thosuands of dollars because you fucked up, and don’t have any way to compensate them.
And getting rid of insurance is not the solution to bad public transit access, and mandatory auto liability insurance isn’t a bad thing just because shit public transit forces most people into cars.
Like what alternative do you suggest ? No mandatory insurance, and crash victims just have to send up sitting on their own repair and medical costs, and that’s somehow better ?
I feel like ending up sitting on the costs of a crash you didn’t even cause is going to be more harmful to low income people than having to fork over liability insurance payments.
My suggestion is a government based insurance system that everyone puts a proportional amount into based on their wages, almost like taxes one might say, that goes towards a publicly available fund for people that have traumatic accidents/injuries.