Subject:
|
Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 30 May 2001 21:46:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
>
> > > What I would like to see is the price of car insurance included
> > > in the price of gas.
> >
> > Not I. Pay at the pump insurance assume unreal equity of drivers. For
> > instance, while an SUV driver should pay more for remidiation of polution,
> > there is no reason they should pay more for socialized no-fault insurance.
>
> Big, heavy, expensive vehicle - not cheap to repair. Bad brakes, poor
> emergency handling, prone to heavily damaging other vehicles in accidents it
> caused. Not that the proper level of fees can't be handled in other ways.
OK, so _maybe_ SUV owners should pay more for insurance, but not because it
consumes more gas. Should I have used the example of a car with a leaking gas
tank instead? My point was that gas used is not closely correlated with how I
think insurance costs should be divided.
> > I'm
> > happy with insurance being private and being based on actuarial tables. I • was
> > once a single male under 25 who had 25ish speeding tickets. Belive me when I
> > know how "unfair" prices can seem. But that was my tough nuggy. Insurance
> has to pay for itself.
>
> This either makes a good argument the other way, or means where you live
> doesn't pull driver's licenses fast enough. :-)
I agree with the latter actually. I spread them out evenly enough that I was
always one ticket away from revocation and I used lawyers to change the moving
violation to something like Excessive Vehicular Noise which carried a heavier
dollar penalty, but no points. It's dumb for the system to be so readily
abusable.
> > > Then it would be fairer to the person who drives a
> > > 100 miles a month and to the person who spends 30 times that on the
> > > road.
> >
> > I think the disparity that you're pointing out is already covered. The • person
> > who drives less gets fewer accidents and tickets and so has lower prices.
> > Further, as Tom pointed out, the cost that a driver incurs on the insurance
> > system is more relevant than the amount they drive.
>
> Is driving 10 miles on a wide-open freeway more hazardous than driving 1
> mile on cities streets though interesections (where most accidents occur)?
I don't know. I guess you're suggesting the latter, which sounds reasonable to
me. All my accidents have been on city (or suburban) streets.
> Should I pay more for insurance when I can drive 30,000 miles a year and not
> get into any accidents than a guy who drives 8000 miles and gets into two?
> It's not the miles that cost the insurance company money.
Exactly.
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Of course I'm the exception to prove the rule... Of the significant accidents I've been in since I've been down here, 2 out of 3 have been on the interstate, though still in commuter traffic. Hmm, trying to think of accidents or accident like (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Rolling Blackouts
|
| (...) Big, heavy, expensive vehicle - not cheap to repair. Bad brakes, poor emergency handling, prone to heavily damaging other vehicles in accidents it caused. Not that the proper level of fees can't be handled in other ways. (...) This either (...) (23 years ago, 30-May-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
246 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
