Comments on: The Cost of Car Crashes

By: Albert Lash

Albert Lash — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:23:11 +0000

I completely agree with you. In Massachusetts, where I am from, insurance is mandatory and driving without it is illegal. Also, automobiles must be thoroughly inspected every year, driving with an expired inspection certificate is punished with fines and an increase to insurance premiums. All traffic incidents result in increased insurance premiums, and only years of safe driving will reduce the rates to normalcy or below.

From what I understand, there are three types of drivers who cause the majority of car accidents: drunk drivers, young men, and the elderly.

Driving on public roadways is a privilege, not a right, and its an incredibly valuable one. Its atrocious how many deaths and serious injuries are caused in car accidents, many to innocent victims. Why isn’t there more outrage?

By: etbe

etbe — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:21:21 +0000

Dean: An insurance policy such as I suggest would have the government as a beneficiary. The way insurance works is that the policy is void if the beneficiary does something to cause the event in question, but if some other person does then it has no affect. If however a fatal crash was caused by roads that the government had not properly maintained then the insurance company might have grounds for voiding the policy.

As for voiding a policy in the case of an unroadworthy vehicle, I’m sure that’s somewhere in the fine print of all policies. One issue is proving it after the fact (the evidence may be destroyed or require significant forensic work to discover). Another issue is the situation where the driver dies in a crash. If an insurance company refused to pay out in that situation the TV news shows would crucify them, the cost of a replacement car is nothing compared to the bad PR. But again when the government is the beneficiary the policy would still be valid if the car was unroadworthy – it would be the job of the insurance company to change the premiums according to the risk or cancel the policy if appropriate.

Checking cars every year makes a lot of sense.

Donald: If someone is driving a car that is safer than average then the savings from a reduction in income tax would exceed the extra insurance costs. If they have an unsafe car then they just have to buy a safe one. If they are incapable of driving safely (EG the repeat drink drivers) then they need to be prevented from driving.

Bad drivers do not “need” to get to work. I’d rather have my tax money be spent on paying unemployment benefits for such people instead of paying for the expenses related to the deaths of their victims.

By: Donald Gordon

Donald Gordon — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 20:12:45 +0000

What about people who need to be able to drive (to get to work, etc) who under such a scheme would suddenly be unable to afford their insurance? There are plenty of cities where a car is a necessity. They’ll just end up illegally driving without insurance, and you’re back where you started.

Better driver education and testing, sure. But bad drivers need to get to work too, and an insurance based scheme isn’t going to improve public transport.

By: Dean

Dean — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:51:15 +0000

Nice idea, one nitpick:
“In some states elderly drivers have no requirement for periodic health checks to determine their ability to drive, I know of one case of a woman who was certified as legally blind, ordered a white cane, and then drove home afterwards! I’m sure that insurance companies would implement whatever tests are necessary to reduce the risk of being hit by multiple $2M fines from a single crash.”

I’d be surprised if her insurance policy covers her in the event of a crash anyway, I imagine the government would be stumping up that $2M as the average driving old blind lady isn’t a millionaire.

I haven’t read a policy in full in a while, a clause saying “if your car is unroadworthy then your cover is cancelled” wouldn’t be surprising, though possibly hard to prove if it’s been in an horrific accident.

At least in the UK all cars older than three years old have to have an annual check to get insurance and car tax anyway.