Hacker News Reader

Comment by phlipski | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if insurance rates have been adjusted to reflect this. I would assume that being "at fault" for a crash with a fatality would result in a hefty insurance payout....

View on HN

Yes, but pedestrian fatalities are relatively uncommon compared to other insurance losses, and in the US the insurance companies liability is typically capped at a fairly low level.

Long story short is that insurance companies price everything in — that’s how insurance works - rates are based upon actual losses and payouts.

In British Columbia, we solved it by switching to a "no fault" regime where motorists and the government insurance provider are simply legally impossible to sue for damages. If you are rendered as a quadriplegic because of a negligent driver, you may get some of your rehab paid for by the government if they agree that your therapy is required. You will receive precisely $0 for your reduced quality of life. So, problem solved. Simply abdicate any responsibility for the disastrous consequences motorists impose on pedestrians and cyclists, all for those sweet sweet low premiums!

Mandatory minimum insurance limits sure haven't. They've gone up in some states but are still woefully low.

In California, drivers are only required to have $15,000 liability insurance.

And 17% of them just drive around with no insurance at all.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/uninsured-motor...

i just learned from a cop that you don't even need a license to drive in LA! she said that cops don't want to put undue burden on people in a city where driving is almost mandatory for livelihood (though i don't currently own a car myself due to the hassles and cost). i kid you not.

Anecdotally from my experience in CA, my friends have been in a total of 6 crashes and not a single other driver was insured. Makes sense why my un/underinsured driver line item on my car insurance is ~40% of the total.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com