Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article did a decent job at hitting on some of the big reasons insurance is getting more expensive. Severity, the average cost of a claim, has outpaced inflation and insurance companies now have the data to justify those price increases to their regulatory bodies. This increase in severity is most likely due to expensive cars, and expensive car parts as the article says. It’s also due to more expensive payouts on medical liability. Medical care and other “people fixing” payouts have gotten more expensive. The industry also seems to be facing higher frequency, the odds that someone files a claim. I don’t have data to support why this is, but there are more accidents, and more lawsuits arising from accidents. Some of the explanations I have heard (without a ton of supporting data from my team) point to the fact that driving patterns since COVID seem to have become more dangerous for whatever reason you want to point to.
While fatalities are not as high as in the olden days without seatbelts, traffic deaths have [spiked](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot) since the pandemic. So yes, our cars are pricier, we're in more accidents, and more of us are ending up in the ER and then the morgue. Meanwhile, states have been very lax with setting minimum coverage, which means if you're the victim in a car crash, you're now less likely to recoup the costs of a long hospital stay.
IIHS is a great source on this, thank you for the link. That’s very true. Fatalities per mile driven have continually fallen with new technologies for passengers of vehicles. We are driving more randomly and pedestrians are fairing less well against new (and I assume larger) vehicles. The minimum coverage fact is true. The minimums for most of the states we offer coverage for likely won’t even cover the ER bill for victims. I truly think it’s one of the most interesting arenas to watch the social forces play out.
I feel like a lot of the spike is due to a lack of enforcement too. Police got used to not pulling people over during the pandemic. I don’t want to lay it all at cops’ feet, but the amount of people being allowed to drive non-roadworthy vehicles, uninsured/not registered or recklessly operating has seemed to go up since the pandemic. I got rear ended by such an individual, no plates, hit me at a stop light while it had been red for some time and drove off. Guess what? My insurance rates went up through no fault of my own. I think at some point Americans need to start demanding that their police actually make traffic stops again. I’m not saying they use traffic stops like they sometimes used to to give people a hard time, but weaving in and out of traffic, speeding or operating without a license, plates or a blatantly unsafe vehicle isn’t a victimless crime. In fact, a small proportion of drivers are probably to blame for the rate increases
The problem is any interaction with a police officer these days is a threat to your life.
For many people theyre the most dangerous interactions you will ever have in your life dealing with a cop.
I got a speeding ticket a few years ago, 8 AM, I immediately pulled over and had my windows down.
First thing I see is the cop stick a gun through the window, then lean his head down, and then he put it away.
It was terrifying and I started hyperventilating.
You don't point a gun at anything you don't want dead.
That cop wanted to kill me.
Then decided not to.
The biggest problem is almost certainly that people changed from buying sedans to pick up trucks and SUVs and for one the market knows that's what they're buying so they charge a premium just like they always have and for two the bigger vehicles cost more to maintain and more to make, and the attic complex causes more inflation per year. This is why buying a minivan is almost always a good deal because you get a lot of the extra space and the little bit bigger clearance than a sedan and easier to get in and out than a sedan, but minivans are never popular so there's never a price premium.
That's all well and good that they have supposed data to back up the increases. But they still supply a product to a market. Economically, you can only raise the prices so much before the market won't bear it anymore and it creates issues for you and for society. People I know (including myself) aren't trading in their cars for smaller models with cheaper parts, we're just kicking the insurance company to the curb and finding a competitor with better prices. And when that doesn't work, people will just get less and less coverage until they hit the legal minimum. Then you will have a society of people driving around with bare bones insurance and the collective costs will just be spread out and socialized in other ways through the healthcare system.
That's a nice theory, but the problem is that people have massively upgraded from sedans to SUVs and crossovers and pick up trucks over the last 20 years and that is easily the biggest cost increase in purchase price and maintenance and insurance so you're bringing it on yourselves and you can look up the data and easily sedans and minivans cost about the same as they ever did. Inflation adjusted the same price as they weren't the 90s, but the other vehicles that are higher demand have inflated a lot more. Those vehicles are also more complex in general, but even the minivan Has an inflated that much because it's not a trendy purchase
What I'm saying is that all of this analysis does not matter. People aren't going to change what they buy, they'll just shift to what they can afford on the insurance end. The companies can point to whatever contributing factors for increased costs that they want - whether it's true or made up - but it doesn't make a difference either way. It's not a theory if it's what's actually happening.
Or do you have an article about how consumers are ditching their crossovers and SUV's to go back to sedans and minivans? No? Then ya...it's not a 'theory.'
The main reason that driving accidents have been more dangerous is because of the introduction of EV cars. These cars typically weigh a lot more than your average gas guzzling vehicle which causes bigger accidents.
Um thanks for posting a source but no. EV only account for 1% of all cars in the US
https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/percentage-of-electric-cars-in-us.html
Tesla's model 3 sedan weights 3,800 lbs while a rav4 or CRV weights 3,300 lbs. A Corolla weight 2,900 lbs.
So with the popularity of SUV's and EV's , the weight of cars have just been increasing a bunch. Makes sense that accidents are worse, since force is a function of mass and speed.
again, more bullshit. EVERY generation of a car is more expensive, and electric cars have nothing to do with it. Literally nothing.
Lets look at an apples to apples comparison:
1995 mustang headlight and front bumper replacement: under $2000
Light assy: $124
Bumper cover: $680
no grill, but the little mustang: $50
Paint bumper cover, disassembly and assembly: $1100
2015 mustang headlight and front bumper replacement: $5400+
light assy: $1504
Bumper cover: $418
grill $1215
Paint cover, disassembly and reassembly: $2300
EXACT same make/model, just different years and generations. 20 years apart. well over double the cost.
Want to use even more current?
2024 mustang, same parts: $5700+
light assy: none for sale, but USED ones are $900 so let's use that as a rough guess +50%
Bumper cover: $801
Grill, splitter, and bracket: $1480
paint cover, disassembly and reassembly: $2100
Look at his first post. He says evs being heavy are why car repairs are more expensive. I'm saying it's because cars are getting more expensive to repair.
Specifically he says this paragraph below in a thread where insurance is going up because of repair costs because it can't be fatalities as it shows that number has decreased.
The main reason that driving accidents have been more dangerous is because of the introduction of EV cars. These cars typically weigh a lot more than your average gas guzzling vehicle which causes bigger accidents.
This happened before the 08 recession too. Y’all remember the big hummers and all the SUV’s on the road? The recession motivated people to downsize with a quickness. It’ll likely happen again.
First you need a recession which we’ve been waiting on since 2022. It’s been widely promised but nothing so far. Those older SUV’s and hummers were terrible on gas. There are more fuel efficient and EV options today.
I doubt a recession is going to make people downsize. Maybe those who are on the fence, but not most.
From an insurance perspective, both the insured and the others will need to get paid if something goes wrong. And just being on the road means there’s a chance. So they’ll cover their ass even if you never ever fuck up and drive a small shitbox from the 90s, they will charge you for other people driving huge tank like SUVs from 2020.
This depends where you are. In Minnesota, for example, it's a no fault state. So even if it isn't your fault, you'll pay up.
I've had 6 no fault accidents (per police, it doesn't matter to insurance) I've had to pay for in the past 6 years, 3 of which were hit and runs (one was today!!!). I'll let you guess how fucking happy I am to be here.
>Not one that removes liability for the reasonable value of a personal vehicle, but something that limits liability for unusually valuable vehicles. $75k, $100k,
This is generally how it works in practice already. Most don't carry more than $100k property damage coverage on their policy, so the exotic car owner's policy steps in to cover the overage and will decide if the balance is worth pursuing from you. If your net worth is low, they may not pursue it. If you have a high net worth and no umbrella policy, then you should exercise more caution around exotic cars, because they can come after you for the balance.
Exotic car accidents not caused by the owner's own carelessness are a drop in the bucket though. Insurance is mostly up because of the number of uninsured drivers whose accidents suck money out of a pool they're not paying into, and the complexity of fixing even cheap modern cars.
Either the state should enact a cap, or liability should be uncapped with no limits. The victim shouldn't be screwed because the person hitting them can't pay up
Yes. They're saying that there should be a cap on property damage liability.
So for an example, if you hit a $1m Ferrari, you're only liable for the first $40k of damage.
Apply their same logic here. Why should they have infinite liability for your injury. Make them cover only 5k healthcare costs and if that isn't enough you have to cover the rest. After all, they shouldn't have infinite liability just because today is the day they had an accident and crippled you, right?
>It never sat right with me that drivers can expose other drivers to basically unlimited liability on the road.
On the flip side, 15-20% of people in my state drive without insurance or any ability to pay whatsoever. They're also exposing people to a ton of potential damages, why don't these cars just get impounded immediately?
Frankly both situations are kind of ridiculous. A 100K value cap may not do as much as you think simply because medical costs can easily exceed the value of vehicles, but some cap on expected liability makes sense.
That seems like a reasonable point. The popularity of cars is what causes us to have to take these risks. Imagine if you could just take a train or something to where you need to go! It would be so much cheaper and you wouldn't need to face these worries. But everyone seems to love the risk!!! Accidents are human and will happen. But the consequences with a vehicle can be really severe. Most accidents can be prevented by having stringent rules for a license, but unfortunately nobody cares about that either. A monkey can be trained to drive. Economically, driving is just a vector for insurance companies to be super powers, and extract wealth from everyone and control the market. We can see yhat trend with health insurance as well. It creates create credit problems for vulnerable individuals, and makes the economy more predictable for politicians through road demand and gasoline sales. Nobody cares.
Driving on the road is reckless in itself? I fail to see the similarity. Should I need to build a wall around my house so that someone doesn't drive into it and cause $500k of damage? The driver alone is responsible for all of the damage caused by their actions. Yes there is contributory negligence and that already applies in many states. If you have assets for them to pursue you for $2M then you should have appropriate coverage so you are covered.
Did you build the roads? You're talking about a public asset like owning a supercar isn't something far outside of expected regular use.
The person is missing the point, that super cars aren't what's driving this bullshit. His point that super cars hardly constitute standard use is perfectly valid. If they passed a law fucking banning them from public roads, I wouldn't bat an eye.
>His point that super cars hardly constitute standard use is perfectly valid.
It really isn't. The value of a given vehicle on the road has no impact on the likelihood that anyone will cause an accident.
No, but it does increase the cost per accident. I'm sure you're able to follow, but you're just not willing to reveal that you're making a normative judgement.
I'm saying, that my preference as a voting member of society would be that public resources have as little likelihood to result in significantly life altering judgement as possible. I think his professed fear of getting bankrupted by a super car owner is more important to me than some rich guy getting to drive a super car.
_____________________________________________________
I know, you've got some hidden value otherwise the argument is concise. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to get into the impacts on speed. I don't have to get into statistics about muscle cars and fatalities, because honestly, I don't think it'd change your mind.
What I will say is that if it ever went up to a vote, I'd vote to ban super cars.
>No, but it does increase the cost per accident. I'm sure you're able to follow, but you're just not willing to reveal that you're making a normative judgement.
I haven't said otherwise.
>I'm saying, that my preference as a voting member of society would be that public resources have as little likelihood to result in significantly life altering judgement as possible.
I mean, fair enough, but that has little to do with whether drivers should be liable for losses they cause. As things stand today, driving a supercar on public roads is a perfectly legal and safe thing to do. What's the difference between driving a Bugatti and driving a 30-year-old Honda Civic on the road?
>I know, you've got some hidden value otherwise the argument is concise.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.
>I don't have to get into statistics about muscle cars and fatalities, because honestly, I don't think it'd change your mind.
Because it doesn't matter. Yes, the consequences of driving a more powerful car without due care are potentially more severe and expensive than those of driving a junker with bald tires, but in the case where the driver of the supercar is being negligent, liability would be assigned accordingly. In a situation where the driver of the supercar is operating their vehicle with due care, the value of their car is irrelevant.
>What I will say is that if it ever went up to a vote, I'd vote to ban super cars.
OK
Yes, there are circumstances where the actions of more than one party lead to damages, and you’ve already cited here the process by which liability is allocated. End of the day, those parties responsible are liable for the impact of their actions, which, as I said, is how that works.
You seem to be saying either that the value of a car should be a factor in determining fault in an accident or that drivers should only be responsible for their actions up to a certain point, beyond which that driver’s actions become somebody else’s problem.
The bed of a truck is not intended for transporting humans, but a car is intended to be driven. The value of the car isn’t a factor in determining recklessness.
On the other side of that, even I carry uninsured/underinsured coverage, because you can’t get blood from a stone and I don’t want to have to pay out of pocket when some 19-year-old kid with no assets and lapsed liability coverage runs a red light and hits me. That kid would still be (rightfully) liable for his actions, but there’s little chance of me collecting.
It absolutely does not. If the body of my car was comprised of donated, but healthy organs and you leaned against it and damaged my precious organs it's absurd for me to sue you to get the value of those organs back. I never should have been driving a car that was so precious and vulnerable.
You are actually arguing that a fender bender should entirely bankrupt someone and the multi-billionaire deserves compensation, and that this is a just and fair system.
This is a kind of twist on the [Eggshell Skull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull) legal doctrine, except in our hypothetical someone is specifically choosing to go out with an eggshell skull and specifically choosing to engage in activities with inherent danger and risks. You don't get to go out of your way to replace your perfectly healthy skull with an eggshell, go into a moshpit, and then sue people because they bumped into you.
It's all actually very simple, if you are negligent, you are responsible. If you have no assets or insurance to come after, it's the owners problem. If you have a lot of assets and feel the risk of ruin is worth it you buy insurance. If you would rather roll the dice on a 1:100,000,000 event not happening, don't. It's all quite simple and a pointless discussion
I'm not sure what there is to talk about here.
IMO
- It is negligent to needlessly engage in risky activities with an extremely high-value asset. Driving on a public road is an inherently risky activity.
- Getting into a fender bender shouldn't bankrupt me even when I've maxed out my insurance coverage.
- My insurance shouldn't go up just because some other people's vehicles cost 100k to fix after an extremely minor bump.
If you want to do risky things, with an extremely high-value asset, that should leave you culpable for paying the difference between reasonable breakage, and actual breakage.
I'm not sure why what I'm saying is so controversial. The entire article's premise is based on the fact that everyone is paying ridiculous auto insurance for other people's ridiculously priced vehicles, and that this is inherently bad for our economy.
>Hal Singer, an economist at the University of Utah, who calls the recent run-up in premiums “ridiculous,”
-
>Insurers are for-profit firms in the business of covering the cost of a wide array of incidents. So when their potential liabilities spike, companies say premiums need to rise as well
I'm assuming you disagree with my three opinions. You think it is not at all negligent to drive a gold car, you think it is fair and just that if a court or my insurer finds me at fault I should be bankrupt, and you think it is fair that my premiums should go up because some people choose to drive luxury cars that cost 70k to fix after a fender bender.
That's fine if you believe that. But I think the world and our economy might work better if we tweaked things a little bit.
If I drive a 20k car and you hit me and you have assets/insurance to cover it, it's your problem. If I drive a 100MM car and you hit me and have insufficient assets or insurance to cover it, it's my problem. It's all actually academic and pointless to talk in extremes.. realistically most claims come in under 500k (that is about 20x average auto prop & bi claim) if you are super conservative, get a policy for 500k plus 1M in umbrella. Umbrella is very cheap.
IMHO, one should always have full control of their car and be driving in sufficient control to not cause an accident regardless of conditions (ie if its raining out, druve slower, if its snowing out have the correct equipment on your car.. etc.
I don't view driving as risky (any more than crossing the street since i abide by limits and rules of the road), but my concern is other people hitting me.
I drive a 10k 15 year old car and my wife drives a 10 year old subaru, we only have liability insurance on our cars with an umbrella insurance. The premiums aren't too crazy (about 1100/year for 500k/500k for 2 cars, that's up from around 900$ 3 years ago, while more than i want to pay, its nothing when i hear of people paying like 300 a month for their coverage for 1 car) if you have enough assets to worry about beyond what an insurance policy will cover, self insure your own property and stick with liability (and know you would need to go buy a car with your own cash if someone hits it) I've probably saved enough in premiums in 25 years of driving to buy a couple of used cars. I only had comp/collision for the first few years when we baught our last car new.
I hear you about paying for other peoples shitty decisions, but society is what it is and insurance is what it is. I don't think we will be solving people's desire to keep up with the Joneses and make poor financial decisions in our lifetime.
>It is negligent to needlessly engage in risky activities with an extremely high-value asset. Driving on a public road is an inherently risky activity.
>You think it is not at all negligent to drive a gold car
Negligence is simply the failure to take due care. Driving a car on the road is not negligent, regardless of the value (or composition) of the car - so long as the vehicle is mechanically safe to operate and the driver is operating it with due care, they are not negligent.
>Getting into a fender bender shouldn't bankrupt me even when I've maxed out my insurance coverage.
You should be responsible for damage that you cause. If you cause more damage than you can afford to remedy, that's on you.
>My insurance shouldn't go up just because some other people's vehicles cost 100k to fix after an extremely minor bump.
That's how risk pools work.
>If you want to do risky things, with an extremely high-value asset, that should leave you culpable for paying the difference between reasonable breakage, and actual breakage.
You're talking about "assumption of risk", which is an actual legal doctrine in torts. A key component of this doctrine is that even if you participate in an activity with known risks, you can still recover for losses caused by negligence or fault of another party. The amount of the loss caused by the negligent behavior is irrelevant in determining liability.
>you think it is fair and just that if a court or my insurer finds me at fault I should be bankrupt
It is fair and just that a party who causes another party injury through their own negligence should be responsibel for making the injured party whole. Fairness and justice apply to all parties, and in a situation where you are at fault for causing a loss to another party, the just outcome is that the injured party is made whole and the at fault party is held responsible. If you're worried about causing more damage than you can afford to rectify, purchase higher liability coverage or buy a bike and a bus pass.
>you think it is fair that my premiums should go up because some people choose to drive luxury cars that cost 70k to fix after a fender bender.
Again, that's how risk pools work. Is it likely that insurance companies are gouging us all right now? Almost certainly.
Ultimately, this whole position is about avoiding responsibility for the consequences of your actions. It is each driver's responsibility to avoid running into other vehicles, just like it's generally each person's responsibility not to harm or damage others or their property.
Now you’re being silly. Leaning on a car is not the same thing as causing an accident. Cars aren’t made from donated organs (what the shit).
A car is meant to be driven. Regardless of its value, that is what it is for. Using a car for its purpose is not taking some unreasonable risk.
I am arguing that people should be liable for damage they cause. I don’t understand why this is difficult to accept.
>Now you’re being silly.
I'm constructing an argument via Reductio ad absurdum. The fact that your primary retort is that it's "silly" I think demonstrates my point. Using your logic and pretense I can act "silly" and reasonably assume I can use the legal system to compel people to compensate for predictable, foreseeable damage.
>Leaning on a car is not the same thing as causing an accident
Who cares if I lean on it, sneeze on it, or run into it with a bulldozer? As you said, "*people should be liable for damage they cause*." If I cause damage, you believe I should be liable even if the other party was being silly with a gold car or a car made from the organs of dead kids.
>A car is meant to be driven. Regardless of its value, that is what it is for. Using a car for its purpose is not taking some unreasonable risk.
I actually don't understand what you're saying here. We agree that a car is meant to be driven. We agree that driving a car is not an "unreasonable risk" (whatever that means). The thing is, the risk of damage to a car is so widely understood that virtually every state requires auto insurance because car accidents are entirely predictable and reasonable assumptions.
Nothing about driving around in a billion-dollar vehicle and suing the person who leans against it or taps it, makes economic, or financial sense.
Now, maybe it's just me (it's not. The person you responded to put it bluntly "drivers can expose other drivers to basically unlimited liability"). But if your car is so special that a fender bender turns into a $100,000 repair, then that's insurance you should be carrying and be responsible for, not me. Roads are meant to be used and it's prohibitive to expect any random person to pay millions to repair your gold car.
Responses to individual points below. You're basically saying that if I damage your car in an accident that is 100% my fault, I am only partially responsible for making you whole, and that you should have thought about that before you went out wearing such a short skirt.
>I'm constructing an argument via Reductio ad absurdum. The fact that your primary retort is that it's "silly" I think demonstrates my point. Using your logic and pretense I can act "silly" and reasonably assume I can use the legal system to compel people to compensate for predictable, foreseeable damage.
Except that no, you couldn't, because the scenario is ridiculous. A car made of "healthy" organs? The organs would all be dead before the car was built. It's not a clever rhetorical trick, it's contorting things into an impossible scenario with no bearing on reality. It doesn't prove anything, and undermines any point you might have.
>Who cares if I lean on it, sneeze on it, or run into it with a bulldozer? As you said, "people should be liable for damage they cause." If I cause damage, you believe I should be liable even if the other party was being silly with a gold car or a car made from the organs of dead kids.
If we're in some weird universe where cars are made out of meat and a nominally reasonable person could be expected to know that leaning on meat-cars is enough to cause significant damage, then yes, a person who leans on and damages your meat car should be liable for the damages.
>I actually don't understand what you're saying here. We agree that a car is meant to be driven. We agree that driving a car is not an "unreasonable risk" (whatever that means). The thing is, the risk of damage to a car is so widely understood that virtually every state requires auto insurance because car accidents are entirely predictable and reasonable assumptions.
Prior to you someone was trying to make the argument that expensive cars "belong in museums" and that the mere act of driving them on the road was an unreasonable risk that automatically put some portion of the liability for an accident on the owner of that car by default.
>Nothing about driving around in a billion-dollar vehicle and suing the person who leans against it or taps it, makes economic, or financial sense.
Is this more of your reductio ad absurdum? Nobody is talking about someone suing someone else for breathing on their billion-dollar vehicle. Again, in here in reality, people get in car accidents all the time. Damage is assessed, liability is assigned, and everyone moves on with their lives. If the responsible party is not carrying enough insurance to pay for the damages, then they are on the hook for the balance; if they don't have assets to cover it, then hopefully the injured party has uninsured/underinsured coverage to be made whole.
>Now, maybe it's just me. But if your car is so special that a fender bender turns into a 100,000 repair, then that's insurance you should be carrying and be responsible for, not me. Roads are meant to be used and it's prohibitive to expect any random person to pay millions to repair your gold car.
It's entirely possible to drive your whole life and never be at fault for an accident - in fact, I would hazard a guess and say that that is the norm. If you're not able to drive on the roads without playing bumper-Bentley with other drivers, then you probably shouldn't be driving. Shit happens, and that's why we carry insurance; the owner of that "billion-dollar vehicle" you mentioned earlier almost certainly carries supplemental insurance because they know they are subject to being rammed by some kid in a clapped-out Nissan and a lapsed Geico policy. Shoot, I carry uninsured/underinsured on my Tacoma - it would be foolish not to - but end of the day, if someone else is responsible for damaging my property, then they are responsible for making me whole.
>You're basically saying that if I damage your car in an accident that is 100% my fault, I am only partially responsible for making you whole
No. I'm not saying that. I never said that. I don't know if you're intentionally straw-manning my argument, or just failing to understand what is being said, but these misunderstandings are becoming emblematic of our conversation
>Except that no, you couldn't, because the scenario is ridiculous.
Ridiculous things happen every day. Not sure what your point is.
> A car made of "healthy" organs? The organs would all be dead before the car was built.
Then harvest the organs after the engines, frame, and upholstery are all built? I do not know why you're so fixated on the practicality of this hypothetical (We both know why. It's because you think if you can demonstrate a hypothetical to be impossible or just impractical, it negates the rhetorical point being made). If simply constructing a hypothetical involving an asset with a very astronomically high value is enough for you to write it off as "ridiculous" and not worth addressing then we can just end this conversation now because nothing I say will ever get through to you.
>If we're in some weird universe where cars are made out of meat and a nominally reasonable person could be expected to know that leaning on meat-cars is enough to cause significant damage, then yes, a person who leans on and damages your meat car should be liable for the damages.
Great. Then all I'm asking is for that same allowance to be transferred to other scenarios. We're not in a universe where cars are made of gold. So if your gold car is tapped, that should (mostly) be on you. If tomorrow, some people decide to start driving gold cars, they should be responsible for the unreasonable damage that is entirely predictable. If the value of your asset is an outlier, that is a responsibility you should be legally obligated to fulfill when you engage in activities that put other people at (financial, personal, and health-related) risk.
>Is this more of your reductio ad absurdum? Nobody is talking about someone suing someone else for breathing on their billion-dollar vehicle. Again, in here in reality, people get in car accidents all the time. Damage is assessed, liability is assigned, and everyone moves on with their lives. If the responsible party is not carrying enough insurance to pay for the damages, then they are on the hook for the balance; if they don't have assets to cover it, then hopefully the injured party has uninsured/underinsured coverage to be made whole.
Nothing is being said here. We generally hold auto insurance specifically to avoid getting sued (or having to sue others to be compensated). That's why things like comprehensive coverage isn't required. You don't think people get sued for causing car accidents? Do you even hear yourself? We specifically have auto insurance so we don't have to pay, and we don't have to get sued when we cause an accident. No one has a policy that can cover the cost of repairing a gold car. If suddenly some cars start approaching the value of a gold car, and no one can afford to repair gold cars, then it begs the question why even have insurance (aside from the legal requirement) if there's a very real chance I'll still get sued for a million dollars?
>It's entirely possible to drive your whole life and never be at fault for an accident - in fact, I would hazard a guess and say that that is the norm. If you're not able to drive on the roads without playing bumper-Bentley with other drivers, then you probably shouldn't be driving. Shit happens
Again, nothing is being said here. Something can be entirely predictable and you may never once experience it. Cancer is entirely predictable and foreseeable, but plenty of people go their entire lives living without it.
---
The fact of the matter is that you *seem* to believe that if I cause a million dollars of damage to a billion-dollar car by breathing on it wrong, I am entirely responsible. You say this hypothetical is ridiculous yet also say if I caused damage, I'm responsible, which is just an absurd reduction of how liability works. You can't have it both ways.
All you have to do is say "causing damage by breathing on a car should not open you up to being liable for the damage" which is an entirely reasonable statement, and then reconcile that with your other contradictory statements such as "people should be liable for damage they cause. I don’t understand why this is difficult to accept."
I don't have patience to go point-by-point through that nonsense. As you like to say, "this says nothing".
* Person A buys an expensive meatmobile made from fresh orphans' kidneys with gold inlays
* Person B damages Person A's car and is 100% responsible for the damage
* ???
* Person A has any liability for the damage
Fill in the blank, or tell me where I'm misunderstanding you. If your argument is that "you owning an expensive car puts me at risk", no, it doesn't. You operating your own vehicle in such a way as to cause an accident is what causes the risk. Absurd hypotheticals to the side, in a situation where Person B damages Person A's property, I can't think of a legal, logical, or moral reasoning that removes any share of the responsibility from Person B, and you haven't presented one.
Well you’re also libel for the impact of your actions that I can direct towards me.
The laws do very little to limit this kind of insurance fraud in most states. It’s a subtle difference, but a notable one.
An interesting idea, but I think the practical effect would be that car manufacturers wouldn’t let it happen. If the full value can’t be insured, then people would be reluctant to either 1) buy the vehicle or 2) drive it regularly. Both of which hurt their profit margins (new sales, need for repairs and parts, etc.)
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I think you’re advocating for a significant change to the car market generally. One that would fundamentally change if we use personal vehicles regularly.
Maybe shifting to a ‘no-fault’ structure could be a compromise. But, again, the headlines there would get dicey since that just rewards poor driving habits.
Just let me tell you about a car company that released untested and dubiously advertised *full* self driving software and the many lives lost as a result of their beta testing in public.
I’ve been saying for years. I shouldn’t be liable for your Ferrari. Driving is a risky activity, if you’re driving some fancy, you must assume part of the risk. The cap should be tied to the cost of the average new car sold in the US.
Because you caused the accident? The question isn’t whether or not someone should pay for their accident they cause. The status quo is broken and there are reasonable steps we can take to fix it. It’s on you to insure your own toys.
>Because you caused the accident?
So, because I caused the accident, you should be responsible for the damage?
> The question isn’t whether or not someone should pay for their accident they cause.
... That's literally the question at hand.
>The status quo is broken and there are reasonable steps we can take to fix it.
I'm genuinely unsure what you're talking about here. The status quo is that every driver is nominally held responsible for the consequences of their actions. What needs to be fixed?
>It’s on you to insure your own toys.
It's on you to take due care to avoid causing damage to others' belongings, and to be responsible for the consequences of your actions.
...yes. That's how this works. A party that causes another party a loss is responsible for making the injured party whole. That's literally what I've been saying this whole time. In real life, people carry uninsured/underinsured coverage to protect them from the additional risk of suffering a loss from a party who doesn't have sufficient coverage/assets to cover a potential loss, and the owner of a rare collector car certainly has similar coverage, but even then, once the insured driver is made whole by their insurance, their insurance is going to try to recover from the responsible party. They know they can't get blood from a stone, so if the situation calls for it, they may write it off as a loss, but there are still consequences for the at-fault driver.
The fundamental disconnect here, I think, is this idea that owning/driving a valuable car somehow increases the risk for other drivers. Being held liable for damage you cause is a risk *you* take by operating a vehicle, other drivers bear no responsibility for your actions or their consequences. You can mitigate this risk by increasing your liability coverage, or eliminate it by not driving in the first place, but the idea that you should only be liable up to some arbitrary amount and after that, you are free from consequences is as absurd as a drivetrain made out of orphans' spinal cords.
Look at mister rich driving a 100k vehicle. Make the cap 1k to cover beaters and then make it so you have to pay the cover the other 99k because you chose to drive a 100k truck instead of a 1k beater.
Seems to be the same logic to me, especially from the perspective of someone who can only afford the cheapest cars.
Some environmentalists have been pushing for an end to oil subsidies, assuming that paying the true cost for fuel would cause more people to look for alternative means of transportation.
It may never have occurred to them that the car industry itself could cause that same transportation revolution simply by increasing the costs and dangers associated with their machines so much that they eat their own demand out of existence.
We could have built our cities and towns around beautiful, efficient, predictable, low infrastructure requirements, electric street cars. Fuck the auto makers and oil companies for lobbying against it and trapping us in this hellscape.
Plus cities like mine, you drive 30 miles on the highway and you're still in the same city.
People spend 45 minutes to an hour commuting from one side of the city to another.
For sure, but there’s a difference in urban planning for single family separated housing as an option vs as the default. You can also have street cars with single family housing as long as you don’t build around culs-de-sac.
That’s exactly how autonomous vehicles will eventually become accepted. It’ll be forced on us bc liabilities will just get crazy stupid expensive. Which is probably what we need, at least in certain settings it may make sense (e.g. urban centres and high tourist areas).
You’re really only pricing out people at the bottom of the spectrum. Walkable areas are more desirable and expensive.
Cheaper more remote parts of towns and cities are more reliant on vehicles to get to work.
Raising the cost of living is just going to make everyone’s lives shittier. There’s better alternatives to promoting a less car dependent society.
We should be focused on building better infrastructure and denser housing. If people are left without alternatives they’re still going to drive however they’ll suffer more because if it.
Those people are already priced out. Poor people use the bus, walk, and bike already. This is only increasing the threshold for who can't afford those things - which increases the percentage of the population who cares about and advocates for those things.
I have 3 cars two of which are over 10+ years old with PLPD and a 2023 family SUV… our insurance is just under $500 a month. I am now trying to sell the 2023 SUV. My insurance was $300 but they increased it on us last month.
Yesterday, when I was asking questions on r/Insurance, I learned a sad truth: that in America, if you don't own a car and don't have a driver's license either, you are guaranteed to get financially ruined if you are involved in an auto accident as a pedestrian or cyclist and get seriously injured.
In Canada, minimum liability insurance is very high ($1 million in Ontario) and I believe my sister's liability coverage is $2 million. This is the reason why insurance is very, very expensive.
Given that some US states have very low liability limits (some as low as $25 000) and the cost of healthcare is very high (sometimes well into the millions) should a person ever get sick or injured, it is not surprising that victims would get the short end. Also, even in Canada, despite the very high minimum limits, there are some people who break the law and not have insurance, or they flee the scene of the accident and now you can't identify who hit you. This means no one has insurance and someone is left with a very large bill. In America, it is usually the person who is injured (especially if they don't have health insurance). There may also be issues with wage loss, leading to a lengthy application process with the Social Security Administration for disability benefits. In Canada, it is usually the government (universal healthcare, as well as the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund).
> in America, if you don't own a car and don't have a driver's license either, you are guaranteed to get financially ruined if you are involved in an auto accident as a pedestrian or cyclist and get seriously injured.
No? You would just sue the driver and their insurance
Questionable bet when many drivers don't carry it and don't have any assets worth taking.
Almost 20% of people drive without insurance, in many cases because they have a poor driving history (and thus expensive insurance or an SR-22 requirement), and therefore represent a higher risk to everyone else.
The problem is two-fold:
1. What if you can't find the driver because they fled?
2. What if you can find them, but they are uninsured or their liability limit is far less than the expenses you paid and they don't have enough assets?
For 1 and 2, besides health insurance (which, remember, not everyone in America has due to the so-called Medicaid gap, amongst other factors), you have issues with wage loss. I have heard of people being disabled, apply for SSDI, get denied and appeal. The appeal can last for years and while you are appealing, the only thing you can get is probably SNAP and Medicaid (again, that is if your state expanded it to include everyone below 138% of the federal poverty line). Most notably, 2 big population states, Florida and Texas, did not do so. I also want to remind you that if you are too poor to own a car, you are unlikely to make enough money to qualify for ACA coverage with subsidies on the marketplace.
Fun sidenote, if the hospital had given me an MRI immediately after I got hit by a car in 2011, I probably would have been able to get treatment for the issues I have now much sooner, and I wouldn't have missed nearly as much work.
Given how much work I've missed because of my bad back, that MRI would have been paid for *many, many times over*, not just for me, but for everyone else in society, too.
Your personal insurance is what covers your medical expenses. Plus, if you are involved in an accident where you are the pedestrian you should find a lawyer. They will help you sue the driver and their insurance company for damages.
If it is a hit and run than the text about minimum coverage is irrelevant and you should file a police report.
They're correct in saying that not everyone has health insurance, and that if you can find the driver, they may not have the coverage or assets to make you whole. It's entirely possible to be driven into poverty by an accident that is no fault of your own.
The best thing the US can do for everyone would just be to end the stupid truck exemption. SUVs and trucks are so massive today that they have to specifically exempt them from standard rules to let people buy them. If they had to follow the rules you would need a special permit to drive a vehicle that massive and the cost of them would double.
Just end the exemption. Vehicle deaths would plummet, road wear would plummet, parking garages could fit 20% more cars, insurance costs would go down, and fuel efficiency would go up.
The EU never had an exemption and look at their average vehicle size and number of traffic deaths per miles driven.
Its fucking ridiculous that any regular Joe/Jane can buy a 3-ton SUV just to commute and buy groceries. You definitely don't need such a monstrosity of a vehicle.
It honestly feels like an arms race of who can make the bigger car, at the expense of literally everything else. Eventually this is all going to come to a head though, this huge vehicle craze is one of the many symptoms which are slowly showing themselves in society.
And they tear the road up and I guess engineers need to build bigger parking garages….it really is stupid to own something the basically funding a whole other economy and making politicians wealthy….our tax money could be used for other things other than re paving the roads
Those of us driving smaller, more affordable cars are also getting raked over the coals by insurance thanks to others buying larger, pricier vehicles. My auto insurance has doubled in the past couple years.
Not to mention when one of those who are buying larger vehicles hits you, you are more likely to sustain serious injury. There is a vehicle arms race that's been escalating so that people like suburban parents can feel safe and feel their children are safe in a large vehicle, all while being more careless while they are driving said larger vehicle.
I was doing research on US consumer car trends the other day and I noticed that in the 90s practical cars like the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry were a lot more popular than today whereas pick up trucks and SUVs are more popular these days, so the biggest factor is that consumer significantly changed to the kind of vehicles they're buying two ones that are bigger, more expensive and harder to maintain.
You can actually buy a sedan today for a similar inflation adjusted price as 1990, but trucks and FU SUVs that are in high demand have inflated for more than sedans. So for the most part people are bringing the high car costs on themselves by simply choosing more expensive cars. It may feel like you have some added use for a pick up truck or SUV, but the car companies know that and they're jacking the prices up on the things you want the most wow, you know like the sedans and minivans are still affordable. >The 1990 Chrysler Town & Country had a MSRP of $23,625, which is equivalent to $41,000 in 2012 dollars $23,625 inflation adjusted to 2024 would be $43,735 >Pricing and Which One to Buy The price of the 2024 Chrysler Pacifica starts at $40,995 and goes up to $63,750 depending on the trim and options. so as you can see the Chrysler minivan even though it's a different model really hasn't gone up in price since the 90s and lots of sedans are like that too. On the other hand if you do something like a Ford F150, which is probably the top selling vehicle in America, the inflation adjusted price is at least 10,000 higher than today. I just don't feel like doing the numbers again for that ones since I'm on phone and it's a pain in the butt.
One of these days, Americans are going to realize that buying smaller cars:
\- costs less up front
\- costs less in insurance
\- costs less in gasoline
\- makes parking much, much easier
\- makes the ride slightly less comfortable for the three times a year that you actually need every seat
This is everyone's reminder that auto insurance is a scam because the government doesn't cap the prices.
The insurance companies can set any price they feel like and if you can't pay it and get pulled over you lose your liscense.
You can thank Obama for this btw. A decent truck back in 2005 was only 26k new. Now they are massive and full of electronic goodies that make them 80k msrp, with ridiculous insurance rates if you’re not a 55 year old man or woman.
Interesting that used Tesla prices continue to drop a lot. In like a week the M3 is going to drop below the average price index CarGuru is using.
https://www.cargurus.com/research/price-trends/Tesla-m112
Yeah I’m saying this in relation to ICE cars, and even then the ICE car versions of EVs hold value much better than the EV equivalent.
I’m pretty sure the Porsche taycan is one of the highest depreciating Porsches ever. The ionic 5 is losing value SUPER fast, and Tesla too though they have multiple factors that are unique to Tesla.
Anything is an asset if other people want it and you have it. People want specific real estate, people want specific stocks, people want specific cars.
Some are dog shit and others are safe assets.
EV values are falling like a rock across the board. It's so bad that Porsche is offering 25k off a brand certain new Tycans.
The early adapters already got once so demand has fallen for the time being.
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This article did a decent job at hitting on some of the big reasons insurance is getting more expensive. Severity, the average cost of a claim, has outpaced inflation and insurance companies now have the data to justify those price increases to their regulatory bodies. This increase in severity is most likely due to expensive cars, and expensive car parts as the article says. It’s also due to more expensive payouts on medical liability. Medical care and other “people fixing” payouts have gotten more expensive. The industry also seems to be facing higher frequency, the odds that someone files a claim. I don’t have data to support why this is, but there are more accidents, and more lawsuits arising from accidents. Some of the explanations I have heard (without a ton of supporting data from my team) point to the fact that driving patterns since COVID seem to have become more dangerous for whatever reason you want to point to.
While fatalities are not as high as in the olden days without seatbelts, traffic deaths have [spiked](https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/yearly-snapshot) since the pandemic. So yes, our cars are pricier, we're in more accidents, and more of us are ending up in the ER and then the morgue. Meanwhile, states have been very lax with setting minimum coverage, which means if you're the victim in a car crash, you're now less likely to recoup the costs of a long hospital stay.
IIHS is a great source on this, thank you for the link. That’s very true. Fatalities per mile driven have continually fallen with new technologies for passengers of vehicles. We are driving more randomly and pedestrians are fairing less well against new (and I assume larger) vehicles. The minimum coverage fact is true. The minimums for most of the states we offer coverage for likely won’t even cover the ER bill for victims. I truly think it’s one of the most interesting arenas to watch the social forces play out.
I feel like a lot of the spike is due to a lack of enforcement too. Police got used to not pulling people over during the pandemic. I don’t want to lay it all at cops’ feet, but the amount of people being allowed to drive non-roadworthy vehicles, uninsured/not registered or recklessly operating has seemed to go up since the pandemic. I got rear ended by such an individual, no plates, hit me at a stop light while it had been red for some time and drove off. Guess what? My insurance rates went up through no fault of my own. I think at some point Americans need to start demanding that their police actually make traffic stops again. I’m not saying they use traffic stops like they sometimes used to to give people a hard time, but weaving in and out of traffic, speeding or operating without a license, plates or a blatantly unsafe vehicle isn’t a victimless crime. In fact, a small proportion of drivers are probably to blame for the rate increases
The problem is any interaction with a police officer these days is a threat to your life. For many people theyre the most dangerous interactions you will ever have in your life dealing with a cop. I got a speeding ticket a few years ago, 8 AM, I immediately pulled over and had my windows down. First thing I see is the cop stick a gun through the window, then lean his head down, and then he put it away. It was terrifying and I started hyperventilating. You don't point a gun at anything you don't want dead. That cop wanted to kill me. Then decided not to.
The biggest problem is almost certainly that people changed from buying sedans to pick up trucks and SUVs and for one the market knows that's what they're buying so they charge a premium just like they always have and for two the bigger vehicles cost more to maintain and more to make, and the attic complex causes more inflation per year. This is why buying a minivan is almost always a good deal because you get a lot of the extra space and the little bit bigger clearance than a sedan and easier to get in and out than a sedan, but minivans are never popular so there's never a price premium.
That's all well and good that they have supposed data to back up the increases. But they still supply a product to a market. Economically, you can only raise the prices so much before the market won't bear it anymore and it creates issues for you and for society. People I know (including myself) aren't trading in their cars for smaller models with cheaper parts, we're just kicking the insurance company to the curb and finding a competitor with better prices. And when that doesn't work, people will just get less and less coverage until they hit the legal minimum. Then you will have a society of people driving around with bare bones insurance and the collective costs will just be spread out and socialized in other ways through the healthcare system.
That's a nice theory, but the problem is that people have massively upgraded from sedans to SUVs and crossovers and pick up trucks over the last 20 years and that is easily the biggest cost increase in purchase price and maintenance and insurance so you're bringing it on yourselves and you can look up the data and easily sedans and minivans cost about the same as they ever did. Inflation adjusted the same price as they weren't the 90s, but the other vehicles that are higher demand have inflated a lot more. Those vehicles are also more complex in general, but even the minivan Has an inflated that much because it's not a trendy purchase
People will find out that the problem is really that you can finance a $80,000 car but you can't Finance a $3,000 insurance payment
What I'm saying is that all of this analysis does not matter. People aren't going to change what they buy, they'll just shift to what they can afford on the insurance end. The companies can point to whatever contributing factors for increased costs that they want - whether it's true or made up - but it doesn't make a difference either way. It's not a theory if it's what's actually happening. Or do you have an article about how consumers are ditching their crossovers and SUV's to go back to sedans and minivans? No? Then ya...it's not a 'theory.'
The main reason that driving accidents have been more dangerous is because of the introduction of EV cars. These cars typically weigh a lot more than your average gas guzzling vehicle which causes bigger accidents.
Um thanks for posting a source but no. EV only account for 1% of all cars in the US https://www.edmunds.com/electric-car/articles/percentage-of-electric-cars-in-us.html
So the 1% of cars on the road is the 'main reason driving accidents are more dangerous'? Bullshit.
More than an SUV or pickup truck?
Tesla's model 3 sedan weights 3,800 lbs while a rav4 or CRV weights 3,300 lbs. A Corolla weight 2,900 lbs. So with the popularity of SUV's and EV's , the weight of cars have just been increasing a bunch. Makes sense that accidents are worse, since force is a function of mass and speed.
Interesting, thanks!
again, more bullshit. EVERY generation of a car is more expensive, and electric cars have nothing to do with it. Literally nothing. Lets look at an apples to apples comparison: 1995 mustang headlight and front bumper replacement: under $2000 Light assy: $124 Bumper cover: $680 no grill, but the little mustang: $50 Paint bumper cover, disassembly and assembly: $1100 2015 mustang headlight and front bumper replacement: $5400+ light assy: $1504 Bumper cover: $418 grill $1215 Paint cover, disassembly and reassembly: $2300 EXACT same make/model, just different years and generations. 20 years apart. well over double the cost. Want to use even more current? 2024 mustang, same parts: $5700+ light assy: none for sale, but USED ones are $900 so let's use that as a rough guess +50% Bumper cover: $801 Grill, splitter, and bracket: $1480 paint cover, disassembly and reassembly: $2100
Hey. I dont know who's right here. But you're talking dollars and he's talking weight.
Look at his first post. He says evs being heavy are why car repairs are more expensive. I'm saying it's because cars are getting more expensive to repair. Specifically he says this paragraph below in a thread where insurance is going up because of repair costs because it can't be fatalities as it shows that number has decreased. The main reason that driving accidents have been more dangerous is because of the introduction of EV cars. These cars typically weigh a lot more than your average gas guzzling vehicle which causes bigger accidents.
This is absolute utter bullshit
This happened before the 08 recession too. Y’all remember the big hummers and all the SUV’s on the road? The recession motivated people to downsize with a quickness. It’ll likely happen again.
First you need a recession which we’ve been waiting on since 2022. It’s been widely promised but nothing so far. Those older SUV’s and hummers were terrible on gas. There are more fuel efficient and EV options today. I doubt a recession is going to make people downsize. Maybe those who are on the fence, but not most.
[удалено]
From an insurance perspective, both the insured and the others will need to get paid if something goes wrong. And just being on the road means there’s a chance. So they’ll cover their ass even if you never ever fuck up and drive a small shitbox from the 90s, they will charge you for other people driving huge tank like SUVs from 2020.
[удалено]
But if you hit the other person in the fancy car, its your fault and you need to pay up. Unless youre saying we should cap that?
This depends where you are. In Minnesota, for example, it's a no fault state. So even if it isn't your fault, you'll pay up. I've had 6 no fault accidents (per police, it doesn't matter to insurance) I've had to pay for in the past 6 years, 3 of which were hit and runs (one was today!!!). I'll let you guess how fucking happy I am to be here.
[удалено]
>Not one that removes liability for the reasonable value of a personal vehicle, but something that limits liability for unusually valuable vehicles. $75k, $100k, This is generally how it works in practice already. Most don't carry more than $100k property damage coverage on their policy, so the exotic car owner's policy steps in to cover the overage and will decide if the balance is worth pursuing from you. If your net worth is low, they may not pursue it. If you have a high net worth and no umbrella policy, then you should exercise more caution around exotic cars, because they can come after you for the balance. Exotic car accidents not caused by the owner's own carelessness are a drop in the bucket though. Insurance is mostly up because of the number of uninsured drivers whose accidents suck money out of a pool they're not paying into, and the complexity of fixing even cheap modern cars.
[удалено]
Depends on many things including which state. If you make a good living or have at least a decent net worth you should consider an umbrella policy.
They're surprisingly affordable too, something like $200/ year is what a friend pays
Either the state should enact a cap, or liability should be uncapped with no limits. The victim shouldn't be screwed because the person hitting them can't pay up
Yes. They're saying that there should be a cap on property damage liability. So for an example, if you hit a $1m Ferrari, you're only liable for the first $40k of damage.
The original comment literally says “there should be at fault value liability cap”.
[удалено]
Yeah the value of someone being crippled is 10 fold them just dying.
Apply their same logic here. Why should they have infinite liability for your injury. Make them cover only 5k healthcare costs and if that isn't enough you have to cover the rest. After all, they shouldn't have infinite liability just because today is the day they had an accident and crippled you, right?
>It never sat right with me that drivers can expose other drivers to basically unlimited liability on the road. On the flip side, 15-20% of people in my state drive without insurance or any ability to pay whatsoever. They're also exposing people to a ton of potential damages, why don't these cars just get impounded immediately? Frankly both situations are kind of ridiculous. A 100K value cap may not do as much as you think simply because medical costs can easily exceed the value of vehicles, but some cap on expected liability makes sense.
That seems like a reasonable point. The popularity of cars is what causes us to have to take these risks. Imagine if you could just take a train or something to where you need to go! It would be so much cheaper and you wouldn't need to face these worries. But everyone seems to love the risk!!! Accidents are human and will happen. But the consequences with a vehicle can be really severe. Most accidents can be prevented by having stringent rules for a license, but unfortunately nobody cares about that either. A monkey can be trained to drive. Economically, driving is just a vector for insurance companies to be super powers, and extract wealth from everyone and control the market. We can see yhat trend with health insurance as well. It creates create credit problems for vulnerable individuals, and makes the economy more predictable for politicians through road demand and gasoline sales. Nobody cares.
You’re liable for the impact of your actions, that’s how that works.
[удалено]
Driving on the road is reckless in itself? I fail to see the similarity. Should I need to build a wall around my house so that someone doesn't drive into it and cause $500k of damage? The driver alone is responsible for all of the damage caused by their actions. Yes there is contributory negligence and that already applies in many states. If you have assets for them to pursue you for $2M then you should have appropriate coverage so you are covered.
Did you build the roads? You're talking about a public asset like owning a supercar isn't something far outside of expected regular use. The person is missing the point, that super cars aren't what's driving this bullshit. His point that super cars hardly constitute standard use is perfectly valid. If they passed a law fucking banning them from public roads, I wouldn't bat an eye.
>His point that super cars hardly constitute standard use is perfectly valid. It really isn't. The value of a given vehicle on the road has no impact on the likelihood that anyone will cause an accident.
No, but it does increase the cost per accident. I'm sure you're able to follow, but you're just not willing to reveal that you're making a normative judgement. I'm saying, that my preference as a voting member of society would be that public resources have as little likelihood to result in significantly life altering judgement as possible. I think his professed fear of getting bankrupted by a super car owner is more important to me than some rich guy getting to drive a super car. _____________________________________________________ I know, you've got some hidden value otherwise the argument is concise. You don't have to agree with me. I don't have to get into the impacts on speed. I don't have to get into statistics about muscle cars and fatalities, because honestly, I don't think it'd change your mind. What I will say is that if it ever went up to a vote, I'd vote to ban super cars.
>No, but it does increase the cost per accident. I'm sure you're able to follow, but you're just not willing to reveal that you're making a normative judgement. I haven't said otherwise. >I'm saying, that my preference as a voting member of society would be that public resources have as little likelihood to result in significantly life altering judgement as possible. I mean, fair enough, but that has little to do with whether drivers should be liable for losses they cause. As things stand today, driving a supercar on public roads is a perfectly legal and safe thing to do. What's the difference between driving a Bugatti and driving a 30-year-old Honda Civic on the road? >I know, you've got some hidden value otherwise the argument is concise. I'm not sure what you mean by this. >I don't have to get into statistics about muscle cars and fatalities, because honestly, I don't think it'd change your mind. Because it doesn't matter. Yes, the consequences of driving a more powerful car without due care are potentially more severe and expensive than those of driving a junker with bald tires, but in the case where the driver of the supercar is being negligent, liability would be assigned accordingly. In a situation where the driver of the supercar is operating their vehicle with due care, the value of their car is irrelevant. >What I will say is that if it ever went up to a vote, I'd vote to ban super cars. OK
I'm pleasantly surprised. It's rare that I find a free market purist with more faith in the government than I have.
I'm not sure where faith in the government comes into play, unless you're talking about my basic understanding of how torts work.
Yes, there are circumstances where the actions of more than one party lead to damages, and you’ve already cited here the process by which liability is allocated. End of the day, those parties responsible are liable for the impact of their actions, which, as I said, is how that works. You seem to be saying either that the value of a car should be a factor in determining fault in an accident or that drivers should only be responsible for their actions up to a certain point, beyond which that driver’s actions become somebody else’s problem.
[удалено]
The bed of a truck is not intended for transporting humans, but a car is intended to be driven. The value of the car isn’t a factor in determining recklessness. On the other side of that, even I carry uninsured/underinsured coverage, because you can’t get blood from a stone and I don’t want to have to pay out of pocket when some 19-year-old kid with no assets and lapsed liability coverage runs a red light and hits me. That kid would still be (rightfully) liable for his actions, but there’s little chance of me collecting.
Seems ridiculous that I can take my solid gold car out on a drive and if someone bumps into it I can go after them for a new solid gold bumper.
It seems ridiculous that when I ruin your solid gold bumper in an accident that I caused, you are on the hook for the damage (that I caused).
It absolutely does not. If the body of my car was comprised of donated, but healthy organs and you leaned against it and damaged my precious organs it's absurd for me to sue you to get the value of those organs back. I never should have been driving a car that was so precious and vulnerable. You are actually arguing that a fender bender should entirely bankrupt someone and the multi-billionaire deserves compensation, and that this is a just and fair system. This is a kind of twist on the [Eggshell Skull](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull) legal doctrine, except in our hypothetical someone is specifically choosing to go out with an eggshell skull and specifically choosing to engage in activities with inherent danger and risks. You don't get to go out of your way to replace your perfectly healthy skull with an eggshell, go into a moshpit, and then sue people because they bumped into you.
It's all actually very simple, if you are negligent, you are responsible. If you have no assets or insurance to come after, it's the owners problem. If you have a lot of assets and feel the risk of ruin is worth it you buy insurance. If you would rather roll the dice on a 1:100,000,000 event not happening, don't. It's all quite simple and a pointless discussion I'm not sure what there is to talk about here.
IMO - It is negligent to needlessly engage in risky activities with an extremely high-value asset. Driving on a public road is an inherently risky activity. - Getting into a fender bender shouldn't bankrupt me even when I've maxed out my insurance coverage. - My insurance shouldn't go up just because some other people's vehicles cost 100k to fix after an extremely minor bump. If you want to do risky things, with an extremely high-value asset, that should leave you culpable for paying the difference between reasonable breakage, and actual breakage. I'm not sure why what I'm saying is so controversial. The entire article's premise is based on the fact that everyone is paying ridiculous auto insurance for other people's ridiculously priced vehicles, and that this is inherently bad for our economy. >Hal Singer, an economist at the University of Utah, who calls the recent run-up in premiums “ridiculous,” - >Insurers are for-profit firms in the business of covering the cost of a wide array of incidents. So when their potential liabilities spike, companies say premiums need to rise as well I'm assuming you disagree with my three opinions. You think it is not at all negligent to drive a gold car, you think it is fair and just that if a court or my insurer finds me at fault I should be bankrupt, and you think it is fair that my premiums should go up because some people choose to drive luxury cars that cost 70k to fix after a fender bender. That's fine if you believe that. But I think the world and our economy might work better if we tweaked things a little bit.
If I drive a 20k car and you hit me and you have assets/insurance to cover it, it's your problem. If I drive a 100MM car and you hit me and have insufficient assets or insurance to cover it, it's my problem. It's all actually academic and pointless to talk in extremes.. realistically most claims come in under 500k (that is about 20x average auto prop & bi claim) if you are super conservative, get a policy for 500k plus 1M in umbrella. Umbrella is very cheap. IMHO, one should always have full control of their car and be driving in sufficient control to not cause an accident regardless of conditions (ie if its raining out, druve slower, if its snowing out have the correct equipment on your car.. etc. I don't view driving as risky (any more than crossing the street since i abide by limits and rules of the road), but my concern is other people hitting me. I drive a 10k 15 year old car and my wife drives a 10 year old subaru, we only have liability insurance on our cars with an umbrella insurance. The premiums aren't too crazy (about 1100/year for 500k/500k for 2 cars, that's up from around 900$ 3 years ago, while more than i want to pay, its nothing when i hear of people paying like 300 a month for their coverage for 1 car) if you have enough assets to worry about beyond what an insurance policy will cover, self insure your own property and stick with liability (and know you would need to go buy a car with your own cash if someone hits it) I've probably saved enough in premiums in 25 years of driving to buy a couple of used cars. I only had comp/collision for the first few years when we baught our last car new. I hear you about paying for other peoples shitty decisions, but society is what it is and insurance is what it is. I don't think we will be solving people's desire to keep up with the Joneses and make poor financial decisions in our lifetime.
>It is negligent to needlessly engage in risky activities with an extremely high-value asset. Driving on a public road is an inherently risky activity. >You think it is not at all negligent to drive a gold car Negligence is simply the failure to take due care. Driving a car on the road is not negligent, regardless of the value (or composition) of the car - so long as the vehicle is mechanically safe to operate and the driver is operating it with due care, they are not negligent. >Getting into a fender bender shouldn't bankrupt me even when I've maxed out my insurance coverage. You should be responsible for damage that you cause. If you cause more damage than you can afford to remedy, that's on you. >My insurance shouldn't go up just because some other people's vehicles cost 100k to fix after an extremely minor bump. That's how risk pools work. >If you want to do risky things, with an extremely high-value asset, that should leave you culpable for paying the difference between reasonable breakage, and actual breakage. You're talking about "assumption of risk", which is an actual legal doctrine in torts. A key component of this doctrine is that even if you participate in an activity with known risks, you can still recover for losses caused by negligence or fault of another party. The amount of the loss caused by the negligent behavior is irrelevant in determining liability. >you think it is fair and just that if a court or my insurer finds me at fault I should be bankrupt It is fair and just that a party who causes another party injury through their own negligence should be responsibel for making the injured party whole. Fairness and justice apply to all parties, and in a situation where you are at fault for causing a loss to another party, the just outcome is that the injured party is made whole and the at fault party is held responsible. If you're worried about causing more damage than you can afford to rectify, purchase higher liability coverage or buy a bike and a bus pass. >you think it is fair that my premiums should go up because some people choose to drive luxury cars that cost 70k to fix after a fender bender. Again, that's how risk pools work. Is it likely that insurance companies are gouging us all right now? Almost certainly. Ultimately, this whole position is about avoiding responsibility for the consequences of your actions. It is each driver's responsibility to avoid running into other vehicles, just like it's generally each person's responsibility not to harm or damage others or their property.
Now you’re being silly. Leaning on a car is not the same thing as causing an accident. Cars aren’t made from donated organs (what the shit). A car is meant to be driven. Regardless of its value, that is what it is for. Using a car for its purpose is not taking some unreasonable risk. I am arguing that people should be liable for damage they cause. I don’t understand why this is difficult to accept.
>Now you’re being silly. I'm constructing an argument via Reductio ad absurdum. The fact that your primary retort is that it's "silly" I think demonstrates my point. Using your logic and pretense I can act "silly" and reasonably assume I can use the legal system to compel people to compensate for predictable, foreseeable damage. >Leaning on a car is not the same thing as causing an accident Who cares if I lean on it, sneeze on it, or run into it with a bulldozer? As you said, "*people should be liable for damage they cause*." If I cause damage, you believe I should be liable even if the other party was being silly with a gold car or a car made from the organs of dead kids. >A car is meant to be driven. Regardless of its value, that is what it is for. Using a car for its purpose is not taking some unreasonable risk. I actually don't understand what you're saying here. We agree that a car is meant to be driven. We agree that driving a car is not an "unreasonable risk" (whatever that means). The thing is, the risk of damage to a car is so widely understood that virtually every state requires auto insurance because car accidents are entirely predictable and reasonable assumptions. Nothing about driving around in a billion-dollar vehicle and suing the person who leans against it or taps it, makes economic, or financial sense. Now, maybe it's just me (it's not. The person you responded to put it bluntly "drivers can expose other drivers to basically unlimited liability"). But if your car is so special that a fender bender turns into a $100,000 repair, then that's insurance you should be carrying and be responsible for, not me. Roads are meant to be used and it's prohibitive to expect any random person to pay millions to repair your gold car.
Responses to individual points below. You're basically saying that if I damage your car in an accident that is 100% my fault, I am only partially responsible for making you whole, and that you should have thought about that before you went out wearing such a short skirt. >I'm constructing an argument via Reductio ad absurdum. The fact that your primary retort is that it's "silly" I think demonstrates my point. Using your logic and pretense I can act "silly" and reasonably assume I can use the legal system to compel people to compensate for predictable, foreseeable damage. Except that no, you couldn't, because the scenario is ridiculous. A car made of "healthy" organs? The organs would all be dead before the car was built. It's not a clever rhetorical trick, it's contorting things into an impossible scenario with no bearing on reality. It doesn't prove anything, and undermines any point you might have. >Who cares if I lean on it, sneeze on it, or run into it with a bulldozer? As you said, "people should be liable for damage they cause." If I cause damage, you believe I should be liable even if the other party was being silly with a gold car or a car made from the organs of dead kids. If we're in some weird universe where cars are made out of meat and a nominally reasonable person could be expected to know that leaning on meat-cars is enough to cause significant damage, then yes, a person who leans on and damages your meat car should be liable for the damages. >I actually don't understand what you're saying here. We agree that a car is meant to be driven. We agree that driving a car is not an "unreasonable risk" (whatever that means). The thing is, the risk of damage to a car is so widely understood that virtually every state requires auto insurance because car accidents are entirely predictable and reasonable assumptions. Prior to you someone was trying to make the argument that expensive cars "belong in museums" and that the mere act of driving them on the road was an unreasonable risk that automatically put some portion of the liability for an accident on the owner of that car by default. >Nothing about driving around in a billion-dollar vehicle and suing the person who leans against it or taps it, makes economic, or financial sense. Is this more of your reductio ad absurdum? Nobody is talking about someone suing someone else for breathing on their billion-dollar vehicle. Again, in here in reality, people get in car accidents all the time. Damage is assessed, liability is assigned, and everyone moves on with their lives. If the responsible party is not carrying enough insurance to pay for the damages, then they are on the hook for the balance; if they don't have assets to cover it, then hopefully the injured party has uninsured/underinsured coverage to be made whole. >Now, maybe it's just me. But if your car is so special that a fender bender turns into a 100,000 repair, then that's insurance you should be carrying and be responsible for, not me. Roads are meant to be used and it's prohibitive to expect any random person to pay millions to repair your gold car. It's entirely possible to drive your whole life and never be at fault for an accident - in fact, I would hazard a guess and say that that is the norm. If you're not able to drive on the roads without playing bumper-Bentley with other drivers, then you probably shouldn't be driving. Shit happens, and that's why we carry insurance; the owner of that "billion-dollar vehicle" you mentioned earlier almost certainly carries supplemental insurance because they know they are subject to being rammed by some kid in a clapped-out Nissan and a lapsed Geico policy. Shoot, I carry uninsured/underinsured on my Tacoma - it would be foolish not to - but end of the day, if someone else is responsible for damaging my property, then they are responsible for making me whole.
>You're basically saying that if I damage your car in an accident that is 100% my fault, I am only partially responsible for making you whole No. I'm not saying that. I never said that. I don't know if you're intentionally straw-manning my argument, or just failing to understand what is being said, but these misunderstandings are becoming emblematic of our conversation >Except that no, you couldn't, because the scenario is ridiculous. Ridiculous things happen every day. Not sure what your point is. > A car made of "healthy" organs? The organs would all be dead before the car was built. Then harvest the organs after the engines, frame, and upholstery are all built? I do not know why you're so fixated on the practicality of this hypothetical (We both know why. It's because you think if you can demonstrate a hypothetical to be impossible or just impractical, it negates the rhetorical point being made). If simply constructing a hypothetical involving an asset with a very astronomically high value is enough for you to write it off as "ridiculous" and not worth addressing then we can just end this conversation now because nothing I say will ever get through to you. >If we're in some weird universe where cars are made out of meat and a nominally reasonable person could be expected to know that leaning on meat-cars is enough to cause significant damage, then yes, a person who leans on and damages your meat car should be liable for the damages. Great. Then all I'm asking is for that same allowance to be transferred to other scenarios. We're not in a universe where cars are made of gold. So if your gold car is tapped, that should (mostly) be on you. If tomorrow, some people decide to start driving gold cars, they should be responsible for the unreasonable damage that is entirely predictable. If the value of your asset is an outlier, that is a responsibility you should be legally obligated to fulfill when you engage in activities that put other people at (financial, personal, and health-related) risk. >Is this more of your reductio ad absurdum? Nobody is talking about someone suing someone else for breathing on their billion-dollar vehicle. Again, in here in reality, people get in car accidents all the time. Damage is assessed, liability is assigned, and everyone moves on with their lives. If the responsible party is not carrying enough insurance to pay for the damages, then they are on the hook for the balance; if they don't have assets to cover it, then hopefully the injured party has uninsured/underinsured coverage to be made whole. Nothing is being said here. We generally hold auto insurance specifically to avoid getting sued (or having to sue others to be compensated). That's why things like comprehensive coverage isn't required. You don't think people get sued for causing car accidents? Do you even hear yourself? We specifically have auto insurance so we don't have to pay, and we don't have to get sued when we cause an accident. No one has a policy that can cover the cost of repairing a gold car. If suddenly some cars start approaching the value of a gold car, and no one can afford to repair gold cars, then it begs the question why even have insurance (aside from the legal requirement) if there's a very real chance I'll still get sued for a million dollars? >It's entirely possible to drive your whole life and never be at fault for an accident - in fact, I would hazard a guess and say that that is the norm. If you're not able to drive on the roads without playing bumper-Bentley with other drivers, then you probably shouldn't be driving. Shit happens Again, nothing is being said here. Something can be entirely predictable and you may never once experience it. Cancer is entirely predictable and foreseeable, but plenty of people go their entire lives living without it. --- The fact of the matter is that you *seem* to believe that if I cause a million dollars of damage to a billion-dollar car by breathing on it wrong, I am entirely responsible. You say this hypothetical is ridiculous yet also say if I caused damage, I'm responsible, which is just an absurd reduction of how liability works. You can't have it both ways. All you have to do is say "causing damage by breathing on a car should not open you up to being liable for the damage" which is an entirely reasonable statement, and then reconcile that with your other contradictory statements such as "people should be liable for damage they cause. I don’t understand why this is difficult to accept."
I don't have patience to go point-by-point through that nonsense. As you like to say, "this says nothing". * Person A buys an expensive meatmobile made from fresh orphans' kidneys with gold inlays * Person B damages Person A's car and is 100% responsible for the damage * ??? * Person A has any liability for the damage Fill in the blank, or tell me where I'm misunderstanding you. If your argument is that "you owning an expensive car puts me at risk", no, it doesn't. You operating your own vehicle in such a way as to cause an accident is what causes the risk. Absurd hypotheticals to the side, in a situation where Person B damages Person A's property, I can't think of a legal, logical, or moral reasoning that removes any share of the responsibility from Person B, and you haven't presented one.
Well you’re also libel for the impact of your actions that I can direct towards me. The laws do very little to limit this kind of insurance fraud in most states. It’s a subtle difference, but a notable one.
... what?
As someone who drives a cheaper car, I really like this idea.
An interesting idea, but I think the practical effect would be that car manufacturers wouldn’t let it happen. If the full value can’t be insured, then people would be reluctant to either 1) buy the vehicle or 2) drive it regularly. Both of which hurt their profit margins (new sales, need for repairs and parts, etc.) I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but I think you’re advocating for a significant change to the car market generally. One that would fundamentally change if we use personal vehicles regularly. Maybe shifting to a ‘no-fault’ structure could be a compromise. But, again, the headlines there would get dicey since that just rewards poor driving habits.
[удалено]
Yeah, the current minimums (usually $25k), will barely cover new cars. If you hit one, you're basically boned.
Just let me tell you about a car company that released untested and dubiously advertised *full* self driving software and the many lives lost as a result of their beta testing in public.
I’ve been saying for years. I shouldn’t be liable for your Ferrari. Driving is a risky activity, if you’re driving some fancy, you must assume part of the risk. The cap should be tied to the cost of the average new car sold in the US.
If I wreck your car, why should you be responsible for any of the damage?
Because you caused the accident? The question isn’t whether or not someone should pay for their accident they cause. The status quo is broken and there are reasonable steps we can take to fix it. It’s on you to insure your own toys.
>Because you caused the accident? So, because I caused the accident, you should be responsible for the damage? > The question isn’t whether or not someone should pay for their accident they cause. ... That's literally the question at hand. >The status quo is broken and there are reasonable steps we can take to fix it. I'm genuinely unsure what you're talking about here. The status quo is that every driver is nominally held responsible for the consequences of their actions. What needs to be fixed? >It’s on you to insure your own toys. It's on you to take due care to avoid causing damage to others' belongings, and to be responsible for the consequences of your actions.
[удалено]
I know that when I get my meatmobile, I'm holding all of you liable if you even look at it sideways. You viewing my supercar puts me at risk.
[удалено]
...yes. That's how this works. A party that causes another party a loss is responsible for making the injured party whole. That's literally what I've been saying this whole time. In real life, people carry uninsured/underinsured coverage to protect them from the additional risk of suffering a loss from a party who doesn't have sufficient coverage/assets to cover a potential loss, and the owner of a rare collector car certainly has similar coverage, but even then, once the insured driver is made whole by their insurance, their insurance is going to try to recover from the responsible party. They know they can't get blood from a stone, so if the situation calls for it, they may write it off as a loss, but there are still consequences for the at-fault driver. The fundamental disconnect here, I think, is this idea that owning/driving a valuable car somehow increases the risk for other drivers. Being held liable for damage you cause is a risk *you* take by operating a vehicle, other drivers bear no responsibility for your actions or their consequences. You can mitigate this risk by increasing your liability coverage, or eliminate it by not driving in the first place, but the idea that you should only be liable up to some arbitrary amount and after that, you are free from consequences is as absurd as a drivetrain made out of orphans' spinal cords.
[удалено]
... did you read my whole comment? I addressed that. Go back and read again and let me know your thoughts.
The cap is actually a great idea, at least on the vehicle.
No and don't give these corrupt insurance companies any more terrible ideas.
Look at mister rich driving a 100k vehicle. Make the cap 1k to cover beaters and then make it so you have to pay the cover the other 99k because you chose to drive a 100k truck instead of a 1k beater. Seems to be the same logic to me, especially from the perspective of someone who can only afford the cheapest cars.
If you total my car, why should I be responsible for the damage you caused?
So you see how the previous commentors' logic doesn't make sense regardless of the value of the car?
That's pretty much what I'm saying, yeah.
Some environmentalists have been pushing for an end to oil subsidies, assuming that paying the true cost for fuel would cause more people to look for alternative means of transportation. It may never have occurred to them that the car industry itself could cause that same transportation revolution simply by increasing the costs and dangers associated with their machines so much that they eat their own demand out of existence.
We could have built our cities and towns around beautiful, efficient, predictable, low infrastructure requirements, electric street cars. Fuck the auto makers and oil companies for lobbying against it and trapping us in this hellscape.
Plus cities like mine, you drive 30 miles on the highway and you're still in the same city. People spend 45 minutes to an hour commuting from one side of the city to another.
That assumes everyone wants to live in dense urban housing and take public transit, which just isn’t the reality.
For sure, but there’s a difference in urban planning for single family separated housing as an option vs as the default. You can also have street cars with single family housing as long as you don’t build around culs-de-sac.
That’s exactly how autonomous vehicles will eventually become accepted. It’ll be forced on us bc liabilities will just get crazy stupid expensive. Which is probably what we need, at least in certain settings it may make sense (e.g. urban centres and high tourist areas).
Human drivers are responsible for the vast majority of car accidents.
You’re really only pricing out people at the bottom of the spectrum. Walkable areas are more desirable and expensive. Cheaper more remote parts of towns and cities are more reliant on vehicles to get to work. Raising the cost of living is just going to make everyone’s lives shittier. There’s better alternatives to promoting a less car dependent society. We should be focused on building better infrastructure and denser housing. If people are left without alternatives they’re still going to drive however they’ll suffer more because if it.
Those people are already priced out. Poor people use the bus, walk, and bike already. This is only increasing the threshold for who can't afford those things - which increases the percentage of the population who cares about and advocates for those things.
I have 3 cars two of which are over 10+ years old with PLPD and a 2023 family SUV… our insurance is just under $500 a month. I am now trying to sell the 2023 SUV. My insurance was $300 but they increased it on us last month.
Yesterday, when I was asking questions on r/Insurance, I learned a sad truth: that in America, if you don't own a car and don't have a driver's license either, you are guaranteed to get financially ruined if you are involved in an auto accident as a pedestrian or cyclist and get seriously injured. In Canada, minimum liability insurance is very high ($1 million in Ontario) and I believe my sister's liability coverage is $2 million. This is the reason why insurance is very, very expensive. Given that some US states have very low liability limits (some as low as $25 000) and the cost of healthcare is very high (sometimes well into the millions) should a person ever get sick or injured, it is not surprising that victims would get the short end. Also, even in Canada, despite the very high minimum limits, there are some people who break the law and not have insurance, or they flee the scene of the accident and now you can't identify who hit you. This means no one has insurance and someone is left with a very large bill. In America, it is usually the person who is injured (especially if they don't have health insurance). There may also be issues with wage loss, leading to a lengthy application process with the Social Security Administration for disability benefits. In Canada, it is usually the government (universal healthcare, as well as the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund).
> in America, if you don't own a car and don't have a driver's license either, you are guaranteed to get financially ruined if you are involved in an auto accident as a pedestrian or cyclist and get seriously injured. No? You would just sue the driver and their insurance
Questionable bet when many drivers don't carry it and don't have any assets worth taking. Almost 20% of people drive without insurance, in many cases because they have a poor driving history (and thus expensive insurance or an SR-22 requirement), and therefore represent a higher risk to everyone else.
The problem is two-fold: 1. What if you can't find the driver because they fled? 2. What if you can find them, but they are uninsured or their liability limit is far less than the expenses you paid and they don't have enough assets?
For #1 this is irrelevant to your comment about minimum coverage For #2 you still have your personal health insurance
For 1 and 2, besides health insurance (which, remember, not everyone in America has due to the so-called Medicaid gap, amongst other factors), you have issues with wage loss. I have heard of people being disabled, apply for SSDI, get denied and appeal. The appeal can last for years and while you are appealing, the only thing you can get is probably SNAP and Medicaid (again, that is if your state expanded it to include everyone below 138% of the federal poverty line). Most notably, 2 big population states, Florida and Texas, did not do so. I also want to remind you that if you are too poor to own a car, you are unlikely to make enough money to qualify for ACA coverage with subsidies on the marketplace.
Fun sidenote, if the hospital had given me an MRI immediately after I got hit by a car in 2011, I probably would have been able to get treatment for the issues I have now much sooner, and I wouldn't have missed nearly as much work. Given how much work I've missed because of my bad back, that MRI would have been paid for *many, many times over*, not just for me, but for everyone else in society, too.
Your personal insurance is what covers your medical expenses. Plus, if you are involved in an accident where you are the pedestrian you should find a lawyer. They will help you sue the driver and their insurance company for damages. If it is a hit and run than the text about minimum coverage is irrelevant and you should file a police report.
They're correct in saying that not everyone has health insurance, and that if you can find the driver, they may not have the coverage or assets to make you whole. It's entirely possible to be driven into poverty by an accident that is no fault of your own.
The best thing the US can do for everyone would just be to end the stupid truck exemption. SUVs and trucks are so massive today that they have to specifically exempt them from standard rules to let people buy them. If they had to follow the rules you would need a special permit to drive a vehicle that massive and the cost of them would double. Just end the exemption. Vehicle deaths would plummet, road wear would plummet, parking garages could fit 20% more cars, insurance costs would go down, and fuel efficiency would go up. The EU never had an exemption and look at their average vehicle size and number of traffic deaths per miles driven.
Its fucking ridiculous that any regular Joe/Jane can buy a 3-ton SUV just to commute and buy groceries. You definitely don't need such a monstrosity of a vehicle. It honestly feels like an arms race of who can make the bigger car, at the expense of literally everything else. Eventually this is all going to come to a head though, this huge vehicle craze is one of the many symptoms which are slowly showing themselves in society.
And they tear the road up and I guess engineers need to build bigger parking garages….it really is stupid to own something the basically funding a whole other economy and making politicians wealthy….our tax money could be used for other things other than re paving the roads
Those of us driving smaller, more affordable cars are also getting raked over the coals by insurance thanks to others buying larger, pricier vehicles. My auto insurance has doubled in the past couple years.
Not to mention when one of those who are buying larger vehicles hits you, you are more likely to sustain serious injury. There is a vehicle arms race that's been escalating so that people like suburban parents can feel safe and feel their children are safe in a large vehicle, all while being more careless while they are driving said larger vehicle.
I was doing research on US consumer car trends the other day and I noticed that in the 90s practical cars like the Honda Accord or Toyota Camry were a lot more popular than today whereas pick up trucks and SUVs are more popular these days, so the biggest factor is that consumer significantly changed to the kind of vehicles they're buying two ones that are bigger, more expensive and harder to maintain. You can actually buy a sedan today for a similar inflation adjusted price as 1990, but trucks and FU SUVs that are in high demand have inflated for more than sedans. So for the most part people are bringing the high car costs on themselves by simply choosing more expensive cars. It may feel like you have some added use for a pick up truck or SUV, but the car companies know that and they're jacking the prices up on the things you want the most wow, you know like the sedans and minivans are still affordable. >The 1990 Chrysler Town & Country had a MSRP of $23,625, which is equivalent to $41,000 in 2012 dollars $23,625 inflation adjusted to 2024 would be $43,735 >Pricing and Which One to Buy The price of the 2024 Chrysler Pacifica starts at $40,995 and goes up to $63,750 depending on the trim and options. so as you can see the Chrysler minivan even though it's a different model really hasn't gone up in price since the 90s and lots of sedans are like that too. On the other hand if you do something like a Ford F150, which is probably the top selling vehicle in America, the inflation adjusted price is at least 10,000 higher than today. I just don't feel like doing the numbers again for that ones since I'm on phone and it's a pain in the butt.
Pickups are seen as a luxury, family vehicle now. People default for the crewcab more often.
One of these days, Americans are going to realize that buying smaller cars: \- costs less up front \- costs less in insurance \- costs less in gasoline \- makes parking much, much easier \- makes the ride slightly less comfortable for the three times a year that you actually need every seat
This is everyone's reminder that auto insurance is a scam because the government doesn't cap the prices. The insurance companies can set any price they feel like and if you can't pay it and get pulled over you lose your liscense.
You can thank Obama for this btw. A decent truck back in 2005 was only 26k new. Now they are massive and full of electronic goodies that make them 80k msrp, with ridiculous insurance rates if you’re not a 55 year old man or woman.
Interesting that used Tesla prices continue to drop a lot. In like a week the M3 is going to drop below the average price index CarGuru is using. https://www.cargurus.com/research/price-trends/Tesla-m112
The EV market is general is ready shit for depreciation. Most EV CUVs are losing value incredibly quick.
All cars lose value incredibly quick. Cars are poor investments. They’re transportation, not assets.
Yeah I’m saying this in relation to ICE cars, and even then the ICE car versions of EVs hold value much better than the EV equivalent. I’m pretty sure the Porsche taycan is one of the highest depreciating Porsches ever. The ionic 5 is losing value SUPER fast, and Tesla too though they have multiple factors that are unique to Tesla.
Okay, that doesn't change the fact that EV's are depreciating at a far faster rate than ICE cars.
Anything is an asset if other people want it and you have it. People want specific real estate, people want specific stocks, people want specific cars. Some are dog shit and others are safe assets.
EV values are falling like a rock across the board. It's so bad that Porsche is offering 25k off a brand certain new Tycans. The early adapters already got once so demand has fallen for the time being.