A Question for Our LEO members...

[Aries]

Again, nothing needs to change for you to cover your own rear all you want. It's a good idea. I recommend it.

All I can do to your questions is repeat what I've already said.

But let me give you another scenario and see how your proposal deals with it. Let's say I have an older car worth $1000, but it runs and I need it to get to work. I could pay $600 or so a year for full coverage, but they won't pay off more than that if it's wrecked. I can decide to accept that risk and not buy full coverage and I come out ahead unless I screw up and wreck it.

But someone else rear ends me at a stop light. I did nothing wrong, THEY screwed up. If they don't have insurance, I'm just out a car. But all I did was stop at a red light and suffer from THEIR screw up. Why does that seem fair to you?

 

[Fyrtwuck]

I do not recall, it was 39 years ago, but I do recall my behind being incredibly chapped because even though he was wrong about my tag being delinquent, he still wrote me a citation.

I don’t remember how I got a new sticker either. It couldn’t have been that big of a PITA or I would remember it too. I do recall that when the boss confirmed my tag was in fact current, the original officer asked me to remove one of my contacts along side the road in about a 25 mph wind because I had a 1 restriction and didn’t have on my glasses. He just insisted that I prove I was wearing corrective lenses until the boss again said that wasn’t necessary, and then he wrote me for failure to display. One of those dudes that should have never been hired as a LEO at any agency. Complete idiot. I was just a dumb wet behind the ears punk, but I could see he was an idiot from a long, long way off.

Removing the contact is not necessary. All you need to to is open your eyes wide and look straight ahead. You can clearly see the outline of the contact lens on the eye when you look at the eye from the side.

 

[jakeman]

Removing the contact is not necessary. All you need to to is open your eyes wide and look straight ahead. You can clearly see the outline of the contact lens on the eye when you look at the eye from the side.

I know that. I wore them from 7th grade until I had surgery when I was about 40. I also tried that with him. He wanted me to take it out. Because he was an ass hole

 

[jakeman]

Uninsured motorist covers your medical expenses if the other driver doesn't have liability insurance. It doesn't cover damage to your vehicle. At least that's what my insurance agent said.

Comprehensive would I assume...

Your insurance agent is correct. You also only need it on one vehicle if you have multiple vehicles insured.

Comprehensive covers things that aren't a collision. An easy understood example of that is theft or vandalism.

*edited to add another reason to carry comprehensive in places like Oklahoma, hail. Hail damage is covered by comprehensive.

 

[Aries]

So if you're involved in a hit and run, your comprehensive insurance wouldn't cover damage to your car? Or really what I mean, is if you have "full" coverage, are you covered for that?

 

[jakeman]

So if you're involved in a hit and run, your comprehensive insurance wouldn't cover damage to your car? Or really what I mean, is if you have "full" coverage, are you covered for that?

Yes, but not under the comprehensive portion of the policy. That’s a collision. Your collision insurance would cover it.

Again, but I know it’s wasted breath on some (not you), there is noting that prevents anyone from insuring themselves to the hilt. If you want and are so inclined, you can get liability only. You can add collision if you like. You can also add comprehensive, but you don’t have to if you don’t want. You can up the limits as well if you think you need to do so. Nothing to prevent that. I carry a $1,000,000 umbrella policy. Not because I’m required, but because I think it’s a good idea. Liability insurance is cheap. Kinda like a term life insurance policy.

The issue is, some in this thread believe nobody should be responsible for their own reckless behavior, and that is just one of the two stupidest things I’ve heard all week. Removing people’s responsibility for their own reckless actions, sometimes dangerously so, is a really horrible idea, and I have a hard time wrapping my head around anyone being stupid enough to think it’s a good idea. Civil liability is pretty important.

Let’s just take that another step. Let eliminate the need for doctors and other professionals to have malpractice/liability insurance. Not the dr’s fault he screwed up your surgery and you are now permanently paralyzed and confined to a hospital bed in an assisted care facility for the remainder of your miserable life. You should have taken out insurance to cover you for your doctors reckless, irresponsible actions. You should have known.

Had an engineer build you a giant building, and it fell down during construction because of a design flaw. Killed a bunch of construction works and destroyed the property next door. Too bad. Not the designer’s responsibility to make everyone whole. Your building, you should have purchased insurance to protect your self from the incompetence of the licensed engineer you hired.

Horrible idea. Not a bad idea; a horrible, ridiculously stupid idea.

 

[Aries]

I understand what he's arguing... he's suggesting a "no fault" system. I think that's been done somewhere but I can't remember the details... California? Nevada maybe? I may be remembering something completely different, but it seems like I've heard of it. If it was very successful, you'd think it would be more common.

So I get it (I think). I think the difference in our arguments is he's saying you shouldn't expect someone else to take care of you... (but again, you don't have to, as we've both said you can buy all the insurance you want). I'm saying if you cause the damage, you should have to pay to fix the damage.

But I don't have all the answers for how to get people to do that. It is a problem. But his proposed solution is already available now, on his part.

We just disagree, that's all...

 

[TedKennedy]

Again, nothing needs to change for you to cover your own rear all you want. It's a good idea. I recommend it.

All I can do to your questions is repeat what I've already said.

But let me give you another scenario and see how your proposal deals with it. Let's say I have an older car worth $1000, but it runs and I need it to get to work. I could pay $600 or so a year for full coverage, but they won't pay off more than that if it's wrecked. I can decide to accept that risk and not buy full coverage and I come out ahead unless I screw up and wreck it.

But someone else rear ends me at a stop light. I did nothing wrong, THEY screwed up. If they don't have insurance, I'm just out a car. But all I did was stop at a red light and suffer from THEIR screw up. Why does that seem fair to you?

If it's only worth 1000 bucks, get coverage up to that amount. Once insurance companies aren't protected by the law (forced participation by drivers), look for competitive/innovative plans offered.

Right now the guy with a 1000 beater is severely limited in scope of purchase. Why? Forced participation, baby. It's all about freedom.

 

[jakeman]

I understand what he's arguing... he's suggesting a "no fault" system. I think that's been done somewhere but I can't remember the details... California? Nevada maybe? I may be remembering something completely different, but it seems like I've heard of it. If it was very successful, you'd think it would be more common.

There is no state in the United States that does not require "something". Every state requires either liability insurance, a fee paid to the state that is intentionally generally higher than the minimum coverage would be, a cash bond or deposit equal to the minimum generally required, or the ability to demonstrate the financial capability to pay for damage caused by them in the event of an accident. That is going to require most people to buy liability insurance to cover damages caused to others by them. That's a good thing. It just needs to be enforced more stringently. We are a nation of laws. Laws exist to prevent anichary and ensure our rights as citizens against abuses by others, including the government.

If there was in fact a "no fault" or more aptly called a "no responsibility" system, there would be nothing to prevent the streets and highways from becoming a demolition derby every time someone got cut off in traffic and had a little road rage. I don't think most people want to live & drive in a Mad Max type world, but then again, maybe some do.

 

[DavidMcmillan]

Most of our laws and regulations came about due to the basic human failings in self control and common sense.