So the way I see it, that something "might" happen more often doesn't make it more expensive when it does happen. If somebody runs into my car at night or during the day, the cost to repair will be the same. Medical bills for being hit by a car will be the same if the driver is drunk, or distracted, or completely sober and attentive. Increasing the insurance bill arbitrarily in the way the OP refers to is just shitty. I could maybe be okay with it if the person normally drove at night doing something where an accident would be more costly as insurance rates are already adjusted according to your self reported estimate of who many miles a day/week you drive, but unless we're talking about a semi truck carrying hazardous materials an accident isn't going to cost more.
Trying to increase insurance rates as a punitive way to reduce a driver getting into an accident seems shitty as it going to do lots of financial harm to people who will never be in an accident. Its just mass punishment whose only justification is to maximize profits.
Realistic answer is to nationalize auto insurance. There's only one insurance pool so the drivers that aren't in accidents are paying for the ones that are in accidents. No profit motive required that will see insurance rates increase year on year no matter how responsible a driver you are. Treat it like Obamacare treated health insurance, where those who paid insurance premiums but didn't use the insurance would get some of their money back. If there is an actual concern about paying for accidents that happen at night, or with drivers who have long commutes, or anything else that would encourage an increase in insurance rates but none of those things happen then just give the money back to the insured.
Utopian answer is to have planned cities with proper free to use public transit to reduce traffic in cities and some on highways (I imagine some commuters just go to work and don't need to do extra stops before going back home), proper walk-able cities, proper bike-able cities, jobs organized around having workers on the roads fewer days a week to reduce traffic on the roads, maybe adjusting work hours to reduce/avoid people who drive driving into the early morning sun/evening sunset, universal health care so it doesn't matter who pays for what if an accident causes harm to people, reducing a negative effect of "car culture" so people who just need a vehicle to do work stuff will get an appropriate vehicle to their needs instead of feeling the need to have a car they can't drive safely, as a start.
If there is an actual concern about paying for accidents that happen at night, or with drivers who have long commutes, or anything else that would encourage an increase in insurance rates but none of those things happen then just give the money back to the insured.
I mean Insurances do this now, basically. But it can't ever be more than a pittance, because if everybody got all their money back, there'd be none left to actually pay for stuff when it's needed.
My point is you can nationalize and cut out profit motives and shareholders and such, but at it's heart insurances got their game down pat on this front. At some point either we all subsidize people who drive their car a lot with insurance, which doesn't sit well with me, or you get into the nitty gritty of making people pay based on statistical data, like that driving at night is more dangerous. It doesn't really matter if the single event costs the same at day or night, it's a question of how often does it happen and what happens. You might get a lot of scraped bumpers in a daytime parking lot, but one guy crashing into a building is gonna cost a lot more, even if it happens a lot less.
I mean Insurances do this now, basically. But it can’t ever be more than a pittance, because if everybody got all their money back, there’d be none left to actually pay for stuff when it’s needed.
You might get a lot of scraped bumpers in a daytime parking lot, but one guy crashing into a building is gonna cost a lot more, even if it happens a lot less.\
Which is the point of insurance. A large pool of people, most of which WONT be driving into a building, pitching in a small amount of money so that if somebody DOES hit a building the cost to the person in the accident isn't overwhelming to the people harmed. Its like, charging a person who might get cancer higher health insurance rates their entire life (regardless of their ability to pay) even if they never get cancer.
I dunno about that. We’re only about 1/4 into the year and the US auto insurance industry has made $300 billion so far. Pretty sure that’s enough to pay for everybody’s scratched bumpers, totaled hoopties, and demolished mailboxes with lots left over. And I’ve never gotten a refund but my rates increase every year.
42.000 car inflicted deaths in the USA a year, costing about a cool million a pop according to a quick google and only looking at deaths you're at 420 billion dollars a year. Just for that, nothing else. There's absolutely garguantuan amounts of money circulacting these systems.
My point being: you can take $300 billion of profits out of the system and it'll get cheaper for everyone, sure. Doesn't solve the question though, how do you come to a conclusion how much someone should pay for car insurance? Is it a flat fee?
Which is the point of insurance. A large pool of people, most of which WONT be driving into a building, pitching in a small amount of money so that if somebody DOES hit a building the cost to the person in the accident isn’t overwhelming to the people harmed. Its like, charging a person who might get cancer higher health insurance rates their entire life (regardless of their ability to pay) even if they never get cancer.
I mean that does happen, but the crucial question here seems to me the one as to whether driving a car is a universal human right, or should it be?
It would make sense to me that the rates would increase if the auto insurance industry was paying for the 1.4$ trillion cost to society but I don't think they are footing that bill.
But if things are costing more, then everybody's insurance rates should be increasing by the fractional amount that the few would need the insurance claim filled would need to get everybody as whole as an insurance system is able to. Like, you don't charge people with a higher chance of cancer or something more money for their insurance, everybody pays a bit more. Because who knows if the person with a "higher statistical chance" of getting cancer will actually get cancer or if the person who has a low chance of cancer is the one who gets cancer. If we're actually worried about paying the bills, then society takes that seriously and pays the bills.
I mean that does happen, but the crucial question here seems to me the one as to whether driving a car is a universal human right, or should it be?
In a society that was built, and doesn't seem to be changing from, a car centric commuter society any time soon. Its going to have to be a "right" until some revolution happens and fundamentally restructures the USA's society and infrastructure. Which would be super cool.
So the way I see it, that something "might" happen more often doesn't make it more expensive when it does happen. If somebody runs into my car at night or during the day, the cost to repair will be the same. Medical bills for being hit by a car will be the same if the driver is drunk, or distracted, or completely sober and attentive. Increasing the insurance bill arbitrarily in the way the OP refers to is just shitty. I could maybe be okay with it if the person normally drove at night doing something where an accident would be more costly as insurance rates are already adjusted according to your self reported estimate of who many miles a day/week you drive, but unless we're talking about a semi truck carrying hazardous materials an accident isn't going to cost more.
Trying to increase insurance rates as a punitive way to reduce a driver getting into an accident seems shitty as it going to do lots of financial harm to people who will never be in an accident. Its just mass punishment whose only justification is to maximize profits.
Realistic answer is to nationalize auto insurance. There's only one insurance pool so the drivers that aren't in accidents are paying for the ones that are in accidents. No profit motive required that will see insurance rates increase year on year no matter how responsible a driver you are. Treat it like Obamacare treated health insurance, where those who paid insurance premiums but didn't use the insurance would get some of their money back. If there is an actual concern about paying for accidents that happen at night, or with drivers who have long commutes, or anything else that would encourage an increase in insurance rates but none of those things happen then just give the money back to the insured.
Utopian answer is to have planned cities with proper free to use public transit to reduce traffic in cities and some on highways (I imagine some commuters just go to work and don't need to do extra stops before going back home), proper walk-able cities, proper bike-able cities, jobs organized around having workers on the roads fewer days a week to reduce traffic on the roads, maybe adjusting work hours to reduce/avoid people who drive driving into the early morning sun/evening sunset, universal health care so it doesn't matter who pays for what if an accident causes harm to people, reducing a negative effect of "car culture" so people who just need a vehicle to do work stuff will get an appropriate vehicle to their needs instead of feeling the need to have a car they can't drive safely, as a start.
I mean Insurances do this now, basically. But it can't ever be more than a pittance, because if everybody got all their money back, there'd be none left to actually pay for stuff when it's needed.
My point is you can nationalize and cut out profit motives and shareholders and such, but at it's heart insurances got their game down pat on this front. At some point either we all subsidize people who drive their car a lot with insurance, which doesn't sit well with me, or you get into the nitty gritty of making people pay based on statistical data, like that driving at night is more dangerous. It doesn't really matter if the single event costs the same at day or night, it's a question of how often does it happen and what happens. You might get a lot of scraped bumpers in a daytime parking lot, but one guy crashing into a building is gonna cost a lot more, even if it happens a lot less.
I dunno about that. We're only about 1/4 into the year and the US auto insurance industry has made $300 billion so far. Pretty sure that's enough to pay for everybody's scratched bumpers, totaled hoopties, and demolished mailboxes with lots left over. And I've never gotten a refund but my rates increase every year.
Which is the point of insurance. A large pool of people, most of which WONT be driving into a building, pitching in a small amount of money so that if somebody DOES hit a building the cost to the person in the accident isn't overwhelming to the people harmed. Its like, charging a person who might get cancer higher health insurance rates their entire life (regardless of their ability to pay) even if they never get cancer.
42.000 car inflicted deaths in the USA a year, costing about a cool million a pop according to a quick google and only looking at deaths you're at 420 billion dollars a year. Just for that, nothing else. There's absolutely garguantuan amounts of money circulacting these systems.
My point being: you can take $300 billion of profits out of the system and it'll get cheaper for everyone, sure. Doesn't solve the question though, how do you come to a conclusion how much someone should pay for car insurance? Is it a flat fee?
I mean that does happen, but the crucial question here seems to me the one as to whether driving a car is a universal human right, or should it be?
It would make sense to me that the rates would increase if the auto insurance industry was paying for the 1.4$ trillion cost to society but I don't think they are footing that bill.
But if things are costing more, then everybody's insurance rates should be increasing by the fractional amount that the few would need the insurance claim filled would need to get everybody as whole as an insurance system is able to. Like, you don't charge people with a higher chance of cancer or something more money for their insurance, everybody pays a bit more. Because who knows if the person with a "higher statistical chance" of getting cancer will actually get cancer or if the person who has a low chance of cancer is the one who gets cancer. If we're actually worried about paying the bills, then society takes that seriously and pays the bills.
In a society that was built, and doesn't seem to be changing from, a car centric commuter society any time soon. Its going to have to be a "right" until some revolution happens and fundamentally restructures the USA's society and infrastructure. Which would be super cool.