Bob shouldn't be, I agree. But bad driving happens.
But the system we currently have now seems to work great, right?
25% or more drivers with no insurance, sounds like you better buy insurance for yourself anyway.
Bob shouldn't be, I agree. But bad driving happens.
But the system we currently have now seems to work great, right?
25% or more drivers with no insurance, sounds like you better buy insurance for yourself anyway.
I do, and yeah, it works fine.
If you have an old beater, and only purchase liability, you can plow into a split window 'Vette, and your liability will cover it up to the limits of your policy. If you're driving a $140,000 antique around and you don't have enough coverage to make you whole in case some idiot like Bob runs into you cause he's trying to get the red cigar ash out of his crotch, then you're not too bright.
Auto insurance is just that, it is insurance, and it's a personal decision, both financial peace of mind wise. Nobody makes you buy more than liability, and if I own a $3000 car, I don't want to pay a full coverage premium that will in a very short time exceed the replacement price of the car. If someone in a $1000 POS plows into me, and he doesn't have insurance, that's the risk I decided to take when I decided not to pay for collision or comprehensive. That's my fault just as much as it is Bob's, and Bob being an idiot doesn't absolve me from my financial responsibility to myself.
If you have an old beater, and only purchase liability, you can plow into a split window 'Vette, and your liability will cover it up to the limits of your policy. If you're driving a $140,000 antique around and you don't have enough coverage to make you whole in case some idiot like Bob runs into you cause he's trying to get the red cigar ash out of his crotch, then you're not too bright.
Auto insurance is just that, it is insurance, and it's a personal decision, both financial peace of mind wise. Nobody makes you buy more than liability, and if I own a $3000 car, I don't want to pay a full coverage premium that will in a very short time exceed the replacement price of the car. If someone in a $1000 POS plows into me, and he doesn't have insurance, that's the risk I decided to take when I decided not to pay for collision or comprehensive. That's my fault just as much as it is Bob's, and Bob being an idiot doesn't absolve me from my financial responsibility to myself.
Bob's requirements are exactly what they are now. Bob must carry liability insurance, and it covers whatever Bob damages. As far as Bob's car is concerned, it is exactly what you're proposing... Bob can buy insurance, or he can not buy insurance and bear all the risk for his own car himself. If his car is financed, the finance company will require that he insure THEIR interests, because they don't want to just assume Bob is a stand up guy, but otherwise it's completely Bob's choice. Juan shouldn't have to assume Bob is a stand up guy either, but if Bob is not required to buy insurance then Juan HAS TO... not because he is willing to assume risk for what he damages, but he also has to assume all the risk for what Bob damages.
Again, if I can throw Bob in jail until he pays for the damage he caused to my car... maybe. Otherwise Bob needs to be insured, or verify that he has the means to pay for any damages (which he can currently do by law).
I don't know how to fix the system which does have some holes, but right now if you ignore the law and don't buy insurance, there are some potential penalties you have to worry about. You want to just eliminate those penalties, but not provide any protection for responsible drivers that they don't already have?
Why not require Bob to carry enough insurance to cover your 140,000 antique?
If Bob has liability, the insurance company will probably cover the $140,000 antique, although they may very well question whether the actual value of the antique is $140,000. I've never had liability insurance that said we'll cover you for totaling someone's crappy Ford Pinto but not a new Mercedes.
The problem with this whole discussion isn't really a problem of how insurance works... the REAL problem is there are too many Bob's running around who are not buying it. That's what really needs to be addressed. Telling Bob he doesn't need to bother doesn't seem like a good solution to me, the person who causes the damage should be responsible for making the other person whole, IMO.
The problem with this whole discussion isn't really a problem of how insurance works... the REAL problem is there are too many Bob's running around who are not buying it. That's what really needs to be addressed. Telling Bob he doesn't need to bother doesn't seem like a good solution to me, the person who causes the damage should be responsible for making the other person whole, IMO.
Cause that ain't the way it works, and you and I can go back and forth on this until the virus is extinct and no longer a threat, you're not gonna change my mind.
The system has holes because the law doesn't get enforced.
Just like gun laws, we don't need any new ones.
What we need is active enforcement of the laws currently on the books.
All auto coverage has limits, on almost everything. If I crash my $3000 beater into a $140,000 car, my insurance will cover that person's car up to $50,000, that's it. Then it falls to that guys insurance company to open a subrogation claim against me personally. If I ain't got it, as long as the rich fat guy driving the split window 'Vette had collision insurance, his insurance company is still going to fix his car, but all he's gonna get from my probably now cancelled policy is 50 grand.
The limits are variable, and in some instances you are required to have more than the standard 50/100/50 depending on what you're driving and where you're driving it.
What is being proposed above is ludicrous. It's just as ludicrous as saying that the looting and burning was okay, cause those business and victims of the looting and burning had insurance and the looters and arsonists should be held accountable. That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. (Well, it might not be the dumbest, but it ranks right up there among 'em)
Last edited:
So Bob should be required to carry insurance that covers MY vehicle. (except if it's really expensive, in which case personal responsibility comes in to play)
And we need to force those 25% of drivers with no insurance to buy insurance.
Seems like we could skip a bunch of red tape by insuring our own stuff to whatever limit we purchase, but I get it. Once you get comfortable forcing folks to do stuff, it's a hard habit to break.
Would you be comfortable with legislation requiring gun owners to carry liability should someone get injured with their firearm?
And we need to force those 25% of drivers with no insurance to buy insurance.
Seems like we could skip a bunch of red tape by insuring our own stuff to whatever limit we purchase, but I get it. Once you get comfortable forcing folks to do stuff, it's a hard habit to break.
Would you be comfortable with legislation requiring gun owners to carry liability should someone get injured with their firearm?
Would you be comfortable with me coming over and burning down your house and not facing any repercussions or consequences legally or financially because you have it insured?
Yes, let me know what time you'll be over. You're not allergic to latex are you?
(logic of required liability defeated, jakeman resorts to irrelevant comparisons to arson)
