As I said, I am one of those that pay for the clown\’s insurance. So, I do understand. And you are right: not the clown, nor the state has the right to hold us up. Since carriers (business community) refuse to take those drivers at acceptable TO DRIVERS rates and it is evident that those risky drivers still drive on the road, I will ask you the same question:
What does the state (as in government – civil community) do in this situation?
If I as a consumer feel that 25 cents should be the right price for a cheeseburger do you think the local burger hut should sell it at that price? Prices are dictated by the cost, not your feelings.
Arrest the bum if he drives without insurance. Auction his car if he can\’t pay the fine. Put him in prison if he keeps it up or has an accident without insurance to pay for it.
Oh ok. The \”idea\” that the clown may get arrested does not stop him/her from driving. Once those clowns kill few hundred people, we get to put them in jail! Wow – that\’s great! Makes me feel save driving in I-93 (ever drove there?)
Anyway, to some people that might worth the extra premium, to other it might not, right? HENCE the trade-off that the state administers, which is acceptable to most people (whether it\’s moral / fair / or whatever). It\’s just they currently do it in a manner that is too restictive, unfair to carriers and does not allow for competition.
Look at each state\’s mandatory liability limits. NONE of them are enough to pay for even a broken leg, much less something more serious.
In the old Uganda, before a couple of revolutions ago, the police had the authority to sumarily execute drunk drivers right there in the street.
I really don\’t think we should go that far with uninsured drivers.
A. \”Arrest the bum if he drives without insurance. Auction his car if he can\’t pay the fine. Put him in prison if he keeps it up or has an accident without insurance to pay for it.\”
B. \”In the old Uganda, before a couple of revolutions ago, the police had the authority to sumarily execute drunk drivers right there in the street. I really don\’t think we should go that far with uninsured drivers.\”
So, which is it? In either case, the first (A) alternative to ARP does not work since those laws existed before and after mandatory car insurance and we still had a large number of uninsured drivers.
The second, well, even you don\’t think that\’s a good idea. I concur. Now that we have exhausted law enforcement alternatives, perhaps the state can administer Assigned Risk Plan?
So, what to do… what to do…
Look. I agree with you that the current system sucks and unfair, so is ARP or any other \”vehicle\” to cede high-risk drivers. But the only other alternative to ARP is \”Uganda\’s way\”. For some wierd reason people have not yet considered it yet. Maybe because US is different from Uganda, maybe for other reasons. I don\’t know. I do know that, thus, we are left with the ONLY alternative available.
Well the reality is that the percentage of uninsured drivers is within a couple percentage points of the uninsured drivers before they made it mandatory.
The purpose of liability insurance is to defend the insured if he can be defended. If defense doesn\’t work or there is no defense of the accident the liability is to pay what the insured owes the other party up to thi limits of the policy limits.
With that in mind, close to indigent people have no financial concerned about being sued.
State mandated limits – none of them – are high enough to pay for pretty minor injuries.
So making them buy liability insurance is like making an 18 year old buy a medicare supplement. It doesn\’t apply to them. Therefore they see no value in it.
Someone with assets is a different picture. They have something to lose. They don\’t buy minimum state mandated limits.
Now with those perameters of ineffectiveness, mandatory liability is the most impotent set of laws ever passed in the free world.
True no-fault insurance is the answer. We have no true no-fault insurance in the US. Pass a threshhold in the US and you can still sue.
True no-fault is not populat with the legal group because they are entirely left out of the loop except in cases of breach of contract. No after-trieal party with that.
Also no revenge agaist that _ _ _ _ that ran over your family member.
So I don\’t know if there is any solution on the horizon.
I will second Yoko\’s comment since I could not have said it better. She always was quite eloquent. Assigned risk plan is a first and necessary step toward competitive business environment, which, generally, requires less regulation simply because of competition. The apparent end goal is, of course, competitive rating for personal auto, which could not exist without ARP in place given mandatory car insurance in Massachusetts.
ARP required?? In Texas auto insurance was freed up in the early 90s. Competition in the high risk auto arena forced rates down about 30% over the following decade. Refer back to my statement on not using the assigned risk auto pit for the past 20 years while writing some of the most scary drivers. A captive agent likely needs the assigned risk but an independent with an open marketplace does not need it in Texas.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
As I said, I am one of those that pay for the clown\’s insurance. So, I do understand. And you are right: not the clown, nor the state has the right to hold us up. Since carriers (business community) refuse to take those drivers at acceptable TO DRIVERS rates and it is evident that those risky drivers still drive on the road, I will ask you the same question:
What does the state (as in government – civil community) do in this situation?
Please try to asnwer this question.
If I as a consumer feel that 25 cents should be the right price for a cheeseburger do you think the local burger hut should sell it at that price? Prices are dictated by the cost, not your feelings.
Hal:
The question I asked was not about pricing or how fair it is. Frankly, at this point it is irrelevant.
AGAIN, for the 3rd time: \”What does the state (as in government – civil community) do in this situation?\”
Just need an answer. So, please… enlighted me.
Arrest the bum if he drives without insurance. Auction his car if he can\’t pay the fine. Put him in prison if he keeps it up or has an accident without insurance to pay for it.
Oh ok. The \”idea\” that the clown may get arrested does not stop him/her from driving. Once those clowns kill few hundred people, we get to put them in jail! Wow – that\’s great! Makes me feel save driving in I-93 (ever drove there?)
Anyway, to some people that might worth the extra premium, to other it might not, right? HENCE the trade-off that the state administers, which is acceptable to most people (whether it\’s moral / fair / or whatever). It\’s just they currently do it in a manner that is too restictive, unfair to carriers and does not allow for competition.
HENCE, the much needed reform!
Look at each state\’s mandatory liability limits. NONE of them are enough to pay for even a broken leg, much less something more serious.
In the old Uganda, before a couple of revolutions ago, the police had the authority to sumarily execute drunk drivers right there in the street.
I really don\’t think we should go that far with uninsured drivers.
Ok. Which one works better then? You said:
A. \”Arrest the bum if he drives without insurance. Auction his car if he can\’t pay the fine. Put him in prison if he keeps it up or has an accident without insurance to pay for it.\”
B. \”In the old Uganda, before a couple of revolutions ago, the police had the authority to sumarily execute drunk drivers right there in the street. I really don\’t think we should go that far with uninsured drivers.\”
So, which is it? In either case, the first (A) alternative to ARP does not work since those laws existed before and after mandatory car insurance and we still had a large number of uninsured drivers.
The second, well, even you don\’t think that\’s a good idea. I concur. Now that we have exhausted law enforcement alternatives, perhaps the state can administer Assigned Risk Plan?
So, what to do… what to do…
Look. I agree with you that the current system sucks and unfair, so is ARP or any other \”vehicle\” to cede high-risk drivers. But the only other alternative to ARP is \”Uganda\’s way\”. For some wierd reason people have not yet considered it yet. Maybe because US is different from Uganda, maybe for other reasons. I don\’t know. I do know that, thus, we are left with the ONLY alternative available.
Well the reality is that the percentage of uninsured drivers is within a couple percentage points of the uninsured drivers before they made it mandatory.
The purpose of liability insurance is to defend the insured if he can be defended. If defense doesn\’t work or there is no defense of the accident the liability is to pay what the insured owes the other party up to thi limits of the policy limits.
With that in mind, close to indigent people have no financial concerned about being sued.
State mandated limits – none of them – are high enough to pay for pretty minor injuries.
So making them buy liability insurance is like making an 18 year old buy a medicare supplement. It doesn\’t apply to them. Therefore they see no value in it.
Someone with assets is a different picture. They have something to lose. They don\’t buy minimum state mandated limits.
Now with those perameters of ineffectiveness, mandatory liability is the most impotent set of laws ever passed in the free world.
True no-fault insurance is the answer. We have no true no-fault insurance in the US. Pass a threshhold in the US and you can still sue.
True no-fault is not populat with the legal group because they are entirely left out of the loop except in cases of breach of contract. No after-trieal party with that.
Also no revenge agaist that _ _ _ _ that ran over your family member.
So I don\’t know if there is any solution on the horizon.
I will second Yoko\’s comment since I could not have said it better. She always was quite eloquent. Assigned risk plan is a first and necessary step toward competitive business environment, which, generally, requires less regulation simply because of competition. The apparent end goal is, of course, competitive rating for personal auto, which could not exist without ARP in place given mandatory car insurance in Massachusetts.
ARP required?? In Texas auto insurance was freed up in the early 90s. Competition in the high risk auto arena forced rates down about 30% over the following decade. Refer back to my statement on not using the assigned risk auto pit for the past 20 years while writing some of the most scary drivers. A captive agent likely needs the assigned risk but an independent with an open marketplace does not need it in Texas.