Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Nix compulsory insurance laws?

  1. #1
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    23,037

    Nix compulsory insurance laws?

    A reader wrote in response to an article I did on the tyranny of mandatory insurance laws. He had been hit while on his motorcycle - and crippled for life - by an oblivious driver who ran a light. He told me he believes that not only should insurance be mandatory but that all drivers should be required by law to have*at least*$250k in liability insurance - or about*twice*the current maximums required in many states.*

    There is a saying, "hard cases make bad law."

    It means an emotional*desire, in the wake of a horrible incident, to "do something" about it. This often takes the form of pushing for a new law to more severely punish those responsible for causing harm/damage - and also (so it's argued) to deter future such events from occurring at all by making it clear there will be serious consequences, etc.

    The problem as regards mandatory insurance - and specifically, mandatory "high coverage" insurance such as my reader wants, is that it assumes we're all dangerous/reckless/inept - and makes us pay through the nose accordingly.*

    But why should responsible drivers who*do*pay attention to their driving, who*are*skilled and attentive and who never get into at-fault accidents (millions of such people exist) be compelled to pay big bucks for insurance coverage that is massively expensive precisely because it is compulsory and forces them into the same risk pool with the irresponsible few such as the person who hit the guy in my example?

    Granted, there is always some risk an accident or injury*may*occur - no matter how good the driver - anytime a person gets behind the wheel. But is it*reasonable*to base law on the exception rather than the rule? To require that people - everyone - insure against*any*conceivable risk, and to an extent that assumes the absolute "worst case" scenario?*

    Most of us have to strike a balance between our means and what we spend on various things. Many people would probably prefer to throw say an extra $50 each month at their mortgage balance (or the family food budget) rather than literally throw it away on an over-priced, compulsory insurance policy they will probably never need.*

    If, that is, they were allowed to do so.

    The amount of money we are forced to spend on insurance - car insurance, health insurance, life insurance, home insurance, etc. -**is enormous - and historically unprecedented.

    It's no wonder people are broke and in debt up to their eyeballs.*

    My argument, however is not with insurance*per se*but rather with it being*compulsory*as this is what has been driving the cost of premiums to ridiculous levels - even for good drivers with no history of at-fault accidents.*

    Personal anecdote: Even though I haven't had an accident in more than 20 years and have a "clean" driving record I still pay out more than $500 annually to insure my two trucks, plus another $300 or so for my three motorcycles. Compared to what some people are paying, it's not much - but over time, the cost is still high. If I could do so legally, I'd opt not to carry insurance for at least two of my motorcycles, which I rarely ride - and for one of my trucks, which mostly just sits in the garage. I judge the risk that I will have an accident with any of these vehicles to be very low, given that none of them sees more than 2,000 miles of road time each year and given that I am demonstrably a "good driver," based on my accident-free driving record.

    But I'm forced to pay anyhow - just like everyone else.

    With mandatory insurance, there is no incentive for the insurance industry (which has largely become a cartel) to price policies fairly or competitively because we're all forced to buy. Insurers can jack up our premiums over things like "speeding" tickets (often the result of deliberately under-posted speed limits) or even our credit rating that arguably bears no correlation to our driving skills or the likelihood we will cause an accident.*

    How many of us have been hit with a "surcharge" on top of our already high annual premium (which can easily be $1,000 or more per year for the average person with a late model car) merely because we had the misfortune to run afoul of a radar gun in a speed trap?*
    We*know*it's a scam.

    And there is only one way to cut the legs out from under it:*

    By allowing good drivers to say, "no thanks" to overpriced insurance coverage, insurance companies would be forced to offer more competitively priced policies to good drivers. Policies based on actual risk as determined by the driver's record of at-fault accidents. Not trumped-up "speeding" tickets.*

    And the bad drivers? They should pay according to*their*risk profile.

    And uninsured bad drivers?

    If they cause damage or injury, they should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law. If they have assets, seize them. If they work, garnish their wages. If they don't work -*make*them. Nothing wrong with making deadbeats clean up trash by the side of the road or dig ditches... whatever.

    Until the debt is paid off, no matter how long that takes.*

    That's right and proper.*

    But forcing others to pay for the irresponsible actions of others isn't.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    1,429
    Quote Originally Posted by Eric View Post
    The problem as regards mandatory insurance - and specifically, mandatory "high coverage" insurance such as my reader wants, is that it assumes we're all dangerous/reckless/inept - and makes us pay through the nose accordingly.*

    But why should responsible drivers who*do*pay attention to their driving, who*are*skilled and attentive and who never get into at-fault accidents (millions of such people exist) be compelled to pay big bucks for insurance coverage that is massively expensive precisely because it is compulsory and forces them into the same risk pool with the irresponsible few such as the person who hit the guy in my example?
    A car, a motorcycle, a boat, are all heavy objects that have the ability to injure, maim, kill, or destroy property.

    In my opinion the state minimums are a joke. Here in Minnesota it is 30/60/10. That's right the max it will pay for any one injury is $30K. Needless to say a hospital stay can eat up $30k pretty quickly. I guess the innocent driver will have to pay the balance - or his health insurance. Any way you look at it - someone has to pay.

    Those who*are*skilled and attentive and who never get into at-fault accidents
    That's why they're called accidents - it can happen in a blink of an eye. Statisticly the odds of an accident must increase with miles driven, and every day that you don't have an accident.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    335
    When I started driving, in New York State, insurance was optional.
    You didn't need to be insured ... _if_ you deposited $25,000 with the State and left it there, not collecting interest, for the State to disburse in case a claim was filed against you.
    I don't think that's true anymore.
    Okay, that _was_ insurance, sort of, but you didn't have to pay it _forever_ if you didn't have an accident.
    Requiring a large deposit like that (it was a lot of money then) to drive might work, but ordinary people would then just be abused by usurers instead of insurance companies.

    Not that the present system works all that well, either.
    My 95 Camaro was totaled, by being T-Boned by a Kia Sportage, driven by a Spanish- speaking girl who produced a German drivers license. Her insurance company went into receivership the instant my claim was filed. I had to sue _my_own_ insurance company to take care of my medical bills.

  4. #4
    Vulture of The Western World Eric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    The Land of The Edentulites
    Posts
    23,037
    As recently as the '80s, you could legally drive in VA without insurance. You still can, too - if you pay a $500 (last time I checked) "uninsured motorist fee."

    A couple of points:

    Mandatory insurance laws don't keep people from driving without insurance anymore than DWI laws (or revoked licenses) keep drunks from driving. Like gun control laws, they impose restrictions and cost on people who are (mostly) not the problem.

    If you are a good driver - decent skill, drive within your limits and pay attention to the road - the risk of an at-fault (caused by you) accident is pretty low.

    If you are such a driver, it is reasonable to forgo insurance (if you could).

    Most "accidents" aren't.

    Especially the kind that are relevant as regards having insurance. That is, accidents that are your fault.

    If the accident is someone else's fault, your insurance may not help at all, especially if (like me) you only have a basic liability policy.

    In which case, you're being made to pay for coverage you may very reasonably conclude you don't need and which, accordingly, you'd prefer not to buy!

Similar Threads

  1. DUI laws - arbitrary taxation
    By doncoo in forum The Third Rail...
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-10-2011, 10:00 AM
  2. 5 Stupid Traffic Laws
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 05:39 AM
  3. Compulsory voting?
    By Eric in forum What happened to our liberty?
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-02-2010, 12:46 PM
  4. Stupid Traffic Laws
    By Eric in forum Fight Traffic Tickets/Driving Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-09-2009, 06:31 AM
  5. Helmet Laws -----
    By Jim Rose in forum On Two Wheels
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-08-2009, 03:49 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •