I'm curious about the insurance aspect of this, do people buying $1000 cars forego insurance?
This is part of the reason I prefer inexpensive cars: buying only what I can afford to pay for outright means there is no loan which would obligate me to carry a comprehensive insurance policy.
And I guess they don't get pulled over because there aren't ALPRs or cops are ignoring the hits? I had my insurance lapse for 1 day and they still pulled me over a week later off a stale list, so idk.
Car-dependent city design a travesty, grossly hurting the poor. You shouldn't need to pay insurance and operate an expensive machine just to live.
And yet at the same time I see uninsured driving as a really bad and extremely selfish crime. You're risking seriously messing up someone else's life to save some small amount of money every month.
It's not surprising people are willing to do the bad thing when you don't really give them many other good options. We should all be better at empowering people to not have to be in such a situation where the bad option seems like best choice for them in the moment.
If the options were drive and potentially end up in jail or just take the cheap/free reliable bus to get to work, which would they take? If the options are potentially end up in jail or lose your job, which choice do you pick?
So yes it is surprising and wrong
Yeah they can walk in a city without sidewalks. They can bike in a city without any bike infrastructure. They can ride in a city without busses. Sure sounds effective and safe.
You're blind to reality if you think the average American city and town is actually designed to get by with people walking or biking or riding public transit.
Let's say you live here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/c7Zd2Ce2aKJaq7xV6
You can't legally drive for whatever reason now. How do you get to your job in Plano? How do you go get groceries? It's a 40 minute bicycle ride each way to the closest grocer. There is no transit.
You have no answers for people in that position.
I do.
We shouldn't design our cities and towns like this.
If you find a machine you've been building tends to mangle the operators hands you don't just shrug your shoulders to the problem. You figure out the proper ways to add guards, build in lockouts, make it so people practically can't mess up their hands in normal operation as much as possible.
Bad city design can make things harder, sure. It still doesn’t remove personal responsibility for choosing to drive illegally.
> It still doesn’t remove personal responsibility for choosing to drive illegally.
I never, ever, once even slightly suggested otherwise. I've been very consistent: it's a harsh and selfish crime that routinely ruins innocent lives which should have steep penalties and strong enforcement. I just don't like that we then don't actually address why people end up making that decision, we just act like it isn't really a problem at all, meanwhile more and more people drive illegally.
Quit burying your head in the sand to the actual solutions to this problem. You'll have far fewer people stealing food when they're no longer hungry.
Also, stealing food because you are hungry isn’t analogous to driving uninsured or justifiable for stealing food. Quite the leap! Really? No one does that.
It's been the same argument the entire time.
> While better transit /may/ reduce uninsured driving
It'll do far more to reduce the rate than just taking away drivers licenses. Ooh wow you took away some paperwork and made an illegal thing they were doing more illegal. What a solution to the problem, really finding the root cause there.
> that doesn’t make urban planning the root cause of it.
It absolutely is the root cause. If you have to drive to realistically participate in society, people will drive no matter what. It doesn't matter what punishments you levy on them, they will end up doing it. Because, to them, there is no other real option. Take the bus...but there's no bus service? Ride a bike...on roads where massive cars are blasting by at 50mph while drivers are looking at their phones? Yeah, sure, you see how long taking that "option" works for you.
You edited your comment about the stealing food part, it was quite a bit more obvious about the connection the way you had it before. People in desperate positions do desperate things. If you think the only way to get to work and not spiral even deeper into poverty is to drive illegally, you're probably going to drive illegally. If you think stealing that bread is the only way you're going to be able to feed your family, you're probably going to steal that bread. Give that same person nutrition assistance, support food pantries, etc and suddenly there's choices other than stealing. Give people another way to move in society and they'll choose another way. Once again, if you think I'm trying to justify either of these activities you're massively misreading what I'm actually saying.
> Really? No one does that
Hungry people don't steal food? That's how much you're burying your head in the sand to reality? Incredible.
Unfortunately there's a fair bit if industry built around charging people who are stretched financially more, but it's possible to avoid that.
Also, that $4K cash for clunkers was a lot. I agree with the author, that would've totally gone into my pocket if they did it today. I still have my old car from college that's worth about $500 now, purchased for $1500, and I don't need it.
Obviously insurance companies make money on average for every policy. If they didn’t, they would go bankrupt. So on average, every time you buy insurance, you lose.
So insure only what’s required by law, or things that would throw your life off track if they vanished.
Sure, you can use HSA/FSA money on these things, but better to go through "insurance" and keep/use that money for other things.
If there is an accident, the insurance company will say: Your car is only worth $700 per blue book value and your deductible is $500 so here's $200 and your title is now totaled.
Buy liability only and self-insure for any damage (or just buy a new beater as needed).
In an accident, your risk becomes not the cost to restore your ride, but the cost to defend yourself from vampire litigants looking to suck you dry.
Without significant assets, you can just treat bankruptcy as your answer here. With growing assets at middle-class and higher levels, that would be a pretty painful outcome for most.
I suppose, once you are fabulously wealthy, you can wisely be self-insured again, simply trusting that your wealth can defend itself in a sustainable way?
Here's an interesting story that gave me greater understanding of how insurance is priced. Years ago, I worked at a place where I lived 5 miles away as the crow flies. However, due to geography, the only way to get between my work and my home was by car, using one of the most dangerous freeways in my state.
I got tired of the commute and moved closer to work, close enough that I didn't have to use the freeway (or even drive unless I was lazy) anymore. I reported the change of my residence to my car insurance company, and they cut my premium by a third.
They didn't say why, but I'm certain the reason was that I didn't take that freeway 10 times per week anymore.
I do wonder if the same thing would have happened if I carried comprehensive rather than liability. I suspect not. They may see liability-only policies as an indicator that the customer is of limited means.