[HN Gopher] Car insurance in America is too cheap
___________________________________________________________________
Car insurance in America is too cheap
Author : scythe
Score : 127 points
Date : 2024-02-03 04:01 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| metadat wrote:
| https://archive.today/F8vka
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| Is it that car insurance is too cheap or that medical care is too
| expensive?
| 55555 wrote:
| It is very clearly the latter, yeah.
| lxgr wrote:
| Medical care is much less expensive in many European
| countries (both before and after insurance), yet auto
| insurance coverage is usually still much higher.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Do you have a source for it being higher? My understanding
| is that the accident rates are lower. If the
| accidents/claims are lower and the health care is
| cheaper/covered, them I wonder what the other factor is.
| Maybe a lack of profit cap?
| lmz wrote:
| It's mentioned in the article:
|
| > By contrast, in Germany drivers are required to have
| EUR7.5m ($8.2m) of bodily-injury coverage, and in Britain
| liability is unlimited. And in those countries, going
| into hospital does not mean running up a life-altering
| bill.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Yeah, but that can't be the reason, right? If healthcare
| is so cheap, then claims should never be getting close to
| the limit unless there's a fatality (wrongful death) or
| permanent disability. Both of those are very rare, about
| half the rate as in the US and diffused by tens of
| thousands of drivers. So it still doesn't make sense to
| me that the cost would be much higher.
| lxgr wrote:
| I could imagine that the intention is to not socialize
| the cost of traffic injuries via the health insurance
| (who would otherwise end up paying if the insurance
| coverage of the driver at fault is insufficient, I
| believe; you're basically never billed for anything
| healthcare).
|
| Additionally, the insurance will pay for any damages due
| to subsequently lost wages etc. of injured persons, which
| can quickly add up and would otherwise also be socialized
| to the public unemployment insurance system.
|
| It seems like a good way to properly account for the cost
| of driving to me.
| giantg2 wrote:
| Your reply doesn't answer my question. Your statement
| about the cost of driving has no facts to support it. I
| would like to see those facts - or really a complete
| breakdown of why one is more costly than the other. The
| article and your explaination do allot address many
| factors.
| dullcrisp wrote:
| But higher coverage doesn't mean higher payouts. It's
| cheaper and easier to offer full coverage of a rare and
| inexpensive event than a more common more expensive one. Or
| do you mean that premiums are higher?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Recent increases aren't actually related to human medical care,
| body shops are just charging a lot more to fix cars these days,
| leading to increasing premiums. Anyways, both people and cars
| are expensive to fix now.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Or is it the lack of any cap on U.S. tort judgments?
| ranger207 wrote:
| Medical care is too expensive, and risk of getting in an
| accident is too high
| ijhuygft776 wrote:
| Don't insurance companies have to make a maximum profit from
| insurance policies because of laws?
| function_seven wrote:
| Many states cap the profit, yeah. But that's not the issue
| raised by this article. The states' minimum required liability
| limits are.
| tfehring wrote:
| There's not a fixed federal limit on loss ratio or profit for
| car insurance like there is for some types of health insurance.
| But they need to get approval for rate increases from state
| regulators for every state that they issue policies in, and
| some states can be extremely hard to get rate increases
| through, even when insurers are breaking even or losing money
| in those states. It's a tragedy of the commons - each state
| regulator would benefit from keeping premiums low within their
| state, but in reality any losses need to be subsidized by
| higher premiums somewhere else.
| function_seven wrote:
| Many years ago I upped my liability coverage from $15k/$30k to
| $100k/$300k, and I was surprised how little it increased my
| premium. It was a few bucks a month. A no-brainer.
|
| I'm starting to wonder if it's time to go higher.
| sergers wrote:
| In bc Canada, where insurance is probably too expensive, the
| normal coverage is 1million cad, with 2million being the new
| norm ( I have had 2 million coverage past few years).
| jeromegv wrote:
| Yeah the gap between 1 million and 2 is so small that you
| might as well get 2.
| bbarnett wrote:
| In Quebec, the license plate cost ($230 per year) also covers
| all injury. This means that the private part of insurance,
| only covers damages to things, which is rarely millions.
|
| This blend of private/public insurance results in super cheap
| rates, while keeping injury insurance in place.
|
| Both BC (full public) and Ontario(full private) have higher
| rates for the same coverage. 2x as much per year.
| andy99 wrote:
| I've heard that before but did not notice a material
| difference in my insurance moving between Ontario/Quebec.
| Is it mainly for new drivers or those otherwise more
| expensive to insure?
|
| I do know that I pay almost $400/year* between my license
| and registration in Quebec which would be ~$0 in Ontario.
| As well as a lot more for gas.
|
| * I have a "luxury" car because it cost > $50k CAD (about
| $38k USD) and therefore is so-defined by the province (a
| Volkswagen). And Montreal imposes extra fees.
| bbarnett wrote:
| Interesting, re:Ontario. They dropped the fees during the
| pandemic. I am not sure it will be a forever thing.
|
| But the insurance fees were 1/2 the price when I moved
| here. I don't know if that has changed a lot?
| hipadev23 wrote:
| I carry $1M on my vehicle plus an umbrella policy of $4M.
| function_seven wrote:
| I just now changed my limits to $300k/$500k, and the monthly
| premium increase was--not joking--about $3.50.
|
| That was the highest choice I had through my provider's app.
| I might give them a call and see what else I can get.
| hipadev23 wrote:
| Nice work. It's such a tiny incremental cost (if you're
| already carrying a policy) for a massive increase. You
| accidentally rear-end someone with a g-wagon and that
| $3.50/mo is really going shine.
| balderdash wrote:
| Yeah I have $500k/$500k liability that (no collision - my car
| isn't worth much) and it costs $100/mo and another $5m
| liability with $1m UM and that costs $25/month so I'm a
| little confused about the comments around liability being
| expensive - in my experience it's the collision coverage that
| is so expensive I think the annual premium for it was going
| to be like ~10%-15% of the insured value of the car
| Scoundreller wrote:
| And the liability premiums aren't linear. Most claims are
| for the smaller amounts, not common to have multi-million
| dollar claims (though it does happen), so that fifth
| million of coverage is cheap.
|
| The thing is, say I get sued for $100m. It's great for my
| victims that I paid extra all these years for $5m in
| coverage, but I'm going bankrupt either way.
|
| Indeed collision on an older vehicle often doesn't make
| sense. And could result in your vehicle prematurely
| salvaged.
| bombcar wrote:
| The dollar amount is basically "how hard will the
| insurance company's lawyers fight for me?"
|
| If you have many millions you need much different
| insurance than normal plebeians.
| tothrowaway wrote:
| Can you share which company your $5m policy is with? I'm
| considering umbrella coverage, and $25/month is a crazy
| good deal.
| bombcar wrote:
| Most companies that do home AND auto will offer it. The
| trick (not really a trick) is that the umbrella can ONLY
| be added after you maximize coverage on home and auto.
|
| Check the bogleheads forum for discussions on insurance.
| benatkin wrote:
| I think the system (adjusters and courts) might be used to
| $15/$30k which may limit how often and how much they need to
| pay above that. If a lot of policies went up to that level,
| maybe the system would adapt, the payouts would increase more,
| and so would the premiums.
| beej71 wrote:
| My insurer tops out at some lower figure, like 350 or
| something.
|
| Does anyone know how to get higher limits?
| bruckie wrote:
| Umbrella insurance.
|
| Most umbrella policies require you to carry a certain amount
| of homeowners and auto liability coverage, and then they add
| additional coverage on top of that. It's relatively cheap
| (hundreds of dollars per year for millions of dollars of
| coverage).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Hundreds? I think most umbrellas would be thousands in a
| year.
| nrmitchi wrote:
| My umbrella policy is ~240/year (either 1M or 2M
| coverage; can't quite remember which).
|
| It also scaled fairly linearly.
| seattle_spring wrote:
| They're not. I've been getting many million dollar
| umbrella insurance every year, as well as quotes from
| different providers each renewal cycle, and they're
| consistently in the "few hundred bucks" category for a
| married couple. I'm also not a super attractive insurance
| customer, so it likely can be cheaper for others.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| One tip if you do buy umbrella insurance: never tell anyone
| you have it. It makes you a more attractive target.
| jemmyw wrote:
| I've never seen an option to choose the liability cover on
| insurance, I didn't know it was a thing. I just checked my
| policy and it is up to $20 million NZ ($12M US) per event.
|
| How much do you pay for car insurance in the US? Mine is
| 1,200NZD per year, about 730USD
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| You need to specify how many miles per year to somewhat
| compare since the risk is directly proportional to amount of
| time on the road.
|
| I pay ~$50 per month for 5k miles per year for $500k
| liability coverage and uninsured/underinsured coverage.
|
| But I also have a few million in umbrella coverage, so not
| sure if it's even comparable.
| smaccona wrote:
| I pay ~$440 a month for two vehicles. My buddy in PA thinks
| it's because I live in New York.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Some states have weird laws that affect prices, too. I
| once got hit while in MN, and the insurance company had
| to pay out for the cost of a new body panel. The shop
| gave me the option of a new panel, or a refurbished one
| off of a scrap car.
|
| It looked identical when they were done, but I ended up
| getting a check cut for half the value of the new panel
| because the used one was so much cheaper.
|
| As I was in college at the time, a free $800 made my day.
| bombcar wrote:
| I could see the state requiring new parts because of
| unscrupulous insurance companies insisting that shitty
| used parts were fine: but it's nice you had the option of
| taking the cash. Best of both worlds, really.
| anthomtb wrote:
| About $1900/year, for two ICE vehicles (no liens), 300k/500k
| liability (per person/per incident maximums). Maxed out
| deductibles for Collison/Comprehensive on both. I just added
| a $1,000,000 umbrella policy at $500 a year though it would
| be nice to double the coverage there.
|
| I use Geico and they give a breakdown of the cost per
| vehicle. My full size pickup is double the cost of my wife's
| mid-size SUV, which I cannot argue against.
| federalauth wrote:
| When you say maxed out deductibles for collision and
| comprehensive, do you mean you picked the highest
| deductible? Or lowest deductible which would mean max
| coverage but also premium? I've always wondered about the
| value of collision and comprehensive, since it seems to be
| one of the more expensive parts of car insurance
| bombcar wrote:
| Maximum deductible is taking on more of the risk
| yourself.
|
| The first dollar in any claim is always paid, the last
| dollar hardly ever, so the first dollar is worth more.
| Maximum deductible also reduces the chance you'll involve
| insurance at all. Why report a $200 fix when your
| deductible is $1000?
|
| Comprehensive insurance is for when you CANNOT afford to
| lose the car. If it would be painful but you'd survive,
| you probably don't need it.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Do it. Then get personal liability for your net worth on top of
| it. The peace of mind knowing that no one can sue you for more
| than you're worth is priceless.
| groggo wrote:
| If someone injures you, and your insurance doesn't cover it,
| can't you sue them? If you do and they can't afford it, can you
| put them into debt? Seems reasonable rather than you going into
| debt for medical bills?
| tetromino_ wrote:
| You can sue them, and you may win, but the trouble is
| collecting the money. They might simply not have any money. Or
| they may have it, but won't make it easy for you to find it.
| Meanwhile, you still need to pay your medical bills.
| function_seven wrote:
| What does "put them into debt" mean here? Force them to take a
| loan to pay a judgement? If so, who's doing the lending?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| They have to pay the judgement. If they do not, their wages
| get garnished. There is no lending.
| patmcc wrote:
| Yes, they will owe you $x and you will still owe the hospital
| $x - but that's often not very useful, as they don't have any
| money (and you do).
|
| You may desire to transfer the debt onto them, but the hospital
| will absolutely not accept that. Why would they? If a bank owed
| you $1 million, and they said "oh, now Jim owes you that money,
| not us" you would similarly refuse.
| listenallyall wrote:
| Most carriers offer Uninsured/Underinsured coverage. I think
| it's mandatory by some states or maybe the carrier. The idea is
| to make you whole regardless of the other person's coverage
| limit. Not sure how effective it is in practice.
|
| https://www.allstate.com/resources/car-insurance/uninsured-m...
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Given how many cars are driving uninsured, you basically need
| uninsured coverage by default.
| rapidaneurism wrote:
| How does this apply to a pedestrian hit by a car like in this
| case?
| cbruns wrote:
| In many states, uninsured coverage only applies if you can
| prove they are uninsured. In my case, they totaled our car,
| sent us to the hospital, and drove off. Thus it was no-fault
| for me but I had to pay my deductible. Cop: "this is pretty
| typical".
|
| No effort was put into finding them, even though there are
| cameras at every intersection. Through my own effort I got a
| grainy photo from a local business, but not good enough to
| see the plate. Until the police actual police and there are
| consequences for people, things will only get worse.
| brigade wrote:
| A significant amount of people are judgement proof, aka they
| have no significant assets or income eligible to seized or
| garnished to pay for debts. Plus you alone bear the legal costs
| of obtaining a judgement to begin with.
| lancepioch wrote:
| Have fun collecting that 20% of their minimum wage paycheck for
| the rest of their life to pay off your injuries, car damage,
| and lawyer fees. Assuming they don't just get paid under the
| table or work as a contractor.
|
| And if they move to another state, have fun transferring your
| judgement over there and trying to find their bank accounts and
| employer(s). It's like getting blood from a stone. It's easier
| and cheaper to just pay a tiny bit more in insurance premiums.
| YokoZar wrote:
| Yes, if you are poor you are not worth suing, even if you
| will surely lose. The cynical term for this is "judgement
| proof".
|
| Once you have any sort of reasonable income you should
| strongly consider buying significantly more insurance than
| the legal minimums.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| disproportionately the type of person to kill or seriously
| injure someone else in a car crash is the type of person that
| is "judgement proof"
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Sure. And they can get their own lawyer, and you have to pay
| your own lawyer, and the case will likely settle for something,
| and at best you'll get only the fraction of their assets minus
| lawyer fees that isn't subject to seizure - probably a tiny
| fraction of what you'd get minus the uncertainty, drama, and
| delays of just getting things like high under-insured motorist
| coverage, or long term disability insurance. I don't think once
| someone declares bankruptcy after you sue them into the ground
| that you can wring out much more.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Other recent (real! verbatim!) headlines from The Economist:
|
| "Your pay is still going up too fast"
|
| "Why you should never retire"
|
| I tend to take their pronouncements with a massive grain of salt
| and a massiver eye roll.
| graemep wrote:
| The former is an accurate reflection of central bank policies
| in many countries - raise interest rates to keep pay rises (aka
| wage inflation) down.
| kstrauser wrote:
| Quite likely, but I have never, not once, found myself
| thinking "thank heavens we're not getting raises anymore".
| graemep wrote:
| True. The aims of central banks very often reflect those of
| the business paying you than yours.
|
| My point is that the headline quoted is not a bad summary
| of an influential point of view.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| Those are both satire pieces.
| giantg2 wrote:
| The main reason our insurance cost so much is because there are
| so many claims. This is partially because our licensing is too
| lax, there is too much vandalism and storm loss, and the costs of
| the vehicles and health are is so high. Higher quality drivers
| will result in fewer claims and cheaper premiums.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| If we had a comprehensive public transit network, then only the
| people who need to drive would do so. Then you could raise the
| licensing requirements.
|
| More importantly however you probably want to separate out
| roads from streets in American towns, cities, and suburbs to
| reduce the number of accident prone interactions. As it is now,
| streets and roads are treated basically the same way and you
| get the abomination that are "stroads". By keeping them
| separate you remove all pedestrian and bike traffic from roads
| and you massively slow down car traffic on streets (along with
| removing traffic lights on streets).
| giantg2 wrote:
| "If we had a comprehensive public transit network, then only
| the people who need to drive would do so. Then you could
| raise the licensing requirements."
|
| That's not a prerequisite for raising licensing requirements.
| In fact, claims tend to be highest in major cities that do
| have public transportation networks. So the people most
| likely to lose their license are more likely to have access
| to public transit.
|
| Pedestrian and bike deaths are an extremely small percentage
| of road fatalities and injuries. If you want to make an
| impact on insurance cost through reduced claims, you need to
| take another action. Higher quality drivers through more
| stringent education and testing is the most comprehensive way
| to do that with the lowest infrastructure cost.
|
| Note that not everyone would lose thier license. Many of the
| people involved in accidents today are ignorant and could be
| brought up to a possible level with better training.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| That's not the issue. The issue is that in the regions
| where you do have good public transit, most of the drivers
| are commuting from places that don't. So until those areas
| have at least decent access to public transit, you risk
| excluding people from those areas from economic
| opportunities in the city.
|
| So you still need a comprehensive public transit system. It
| doesn't need to be super regular or blazing fast but it
| needs to be viable enough that commuters can still commute
| if they can't get a license.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I'm not sure where you are, but most larger cities have
| public transit extending quite far from the city proper.
| Sure, the super commuters might be left out, but there's
| no reasonable solution for that use case.
| dopylitty wrote:
| This is the crux of the issue.
|
| Ultimately no impactful regulation of cars/drivers is
| possible because it's impossible to survive in most of the US
| without driving. You can take someone's license or mandate
| they have $10 million of insurance but at the end of the day
| they'll just have to drive without a license and drive
| without insurance because in most places there's no
| alternative.
|
| The solution is to stop building out our infrastructure in
| ways that make cars a requirement for survival. Give people
| an alternative and maybe then you can start enforcing
| stricter automobile regulations.
|
| As a benefit you'd reduce all the other horrible impacts cars
| have on our society (health, pollution, costs, anti-social
| behavior)
| thfuran wrote:
| It's pretty much an unfixable problem at this point given
| that we also have lost the ability to do infrastructure
| projects with anything resembling a sane budget or time
| table.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| It's really not. Florida for all its wrongs is actually
| showing this to be feasible. Decades of attempts at
| building rail in the state floundered and failed over and
| over again but Brightline is finally actually making good
| stable progress.
|
| And this isn't just some new company that popped up out
| of nowhere. This is more or less the same group that had
| been attempting passenger rail in the state for the last
| 15 years or so. What changed is they stopped trying to
| sell it as a public infrastructure project and instead
| sold it as a purely private project that is funded by
| bonds which only come out at a loss to the government
| when the project succeeds (and the companies have to pay
| back with interest if it fails).
|
| But now that Brightline has been shown to be viable,
| politicians in the state are bending over backwards to
| allocate land for routes (for example republican
| politicians allocated a route along I-4 from Orlando to
| Tampa in near record time). They are pursuing their next
| sets of routes in the state including the aforementioned
| Orlando-Tampa route, an east coast up to JAX route, and
| numerous local commuter rail routes from the surrounding
| counties into Miami.
|
| All it takes is one good success and everyone who was
| otherwise staunchly against it starts moving heaven and
| earth to spread the boon to their constituents.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Drivers are getting worse and insurance companies are often
| mandated to cover all "good drivers" for some state-defined
| definition of good.
|
| So I am basically subsidizing alcoholics and stuff because they
| can't price that into the premium in California.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I knew a kid with ADHD in high school. There were days (game
| days) when he would _intentionally_ not take his medicine,
| yet he would still drive. He had numerous accidents. One time
| he stopped behind someone at a stop sign. Then he rear-ended
| them because he forgot they were in front of him and he got
| caught up in looking for a gap to pull out. He totaled 3 cars
| before the end of high school.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| Our driver tests are a joke. Driver quality seems to be
| decreasing significantly in my area. To make things worse,
| there is a massive shortage in driving instructors for new
| drivers.
|
| Prior to December, I had only see 1 wrong-way driver in my
| entire 20+ years of driving. Since December, I have seen 4! One
| of them was on the freeway going up-hill and slightly around a
| bend - at night - which was extremely frightening to witness as
| people were dodging it at the last second due to poor
| visibility.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I've seen this happening more now. I have two potential
| explainations. First, almost all of the people I've heard of
| doing this have turned out to be really drunk or high when
| they were arrested or autopsied. Second, one is more along
| the lines of what you're saying with poor driver quality.
| Some people have an over-reliance on GPS telling them where
| to turn and have lost the ability to navigate for themselves
| (or even just verify what the machine is telling them is at
| least safe).
| vacuity wrote:
| To be clear, there was a yellow line separating the lanes and
| they were in the wrong lane?
| giantg2 wrote:
| The examples I know of are usually on divided highways -
| they're on the wrong side of the barrier.
| tnh0 wrote:
| Would my normal health (not auto) insurance cover my own
| hospital/ER bills regardless of whether it's from an auto
| accident?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Yeah but I suppose a lot of Americans are uninsured or
| underinsured WRT health.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| About 8 percent are uninsured, which is a lot with a
| population of 330 million. I dont know if that includes the
| 7+ million illegal immigrants.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Depends on what state you are in but probably car insurance
| rates are worse. In Mississippi 1 in 3 drivers are uninsured.
| Uninsured rate for health in that state is 1 in 6.
| mh- wrote:
| Google _health insurance subrogation auto accident_.
|
| Your health insurance will seek reimbursement from the at-fault
| party's auto insurance. Which may be _your_ insurance.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Yes and it makes much more sense to prioritize health insurance
| over underinsured motorist, especially if you don't care about
| your vehicle.
| xyst wrote:
| This article sounds more like a car insurance ad. Fear mongering
| at its best. Yea it's probably only a a $10-20 increase in
| premiums if you are in a class of "very very low risk" drivers.
| But people with poor credit, high number of at fault accidents,
| or just living in the wrong zip code (higher accidents means
| higher premiums!) will result in much higher increases.
|
| Most people here probably fall into idgaf category and can pay
| the increased premiums for the "peace of mind". But if you are
| living at or near the federal poverty line. Paying for peace of
| mind is much less important.
|
| Personally I have the maximum limits myself since the increase in
| 6 month premiums is only about $20.
|
| I do wish I did not have to own a car though. No more car
| maintenance, car insurance, ongoing gas costs, yearly
| registration fees to local/state entities, tire replacement,
| brake replacements, ...
|
| I very much prefer to use my bike, walk, or use public
| transportation where possible. Much better for personal health
| (more active), environment, and my mental health (dealing with
| other drivers inattentiveness, poor driving skills, drunk mofos
| at night). Plus it's nice to multitask while taking the bus or
| train home.
| kasperni wrote:
| That sounds very low. Here in Denmark (where health care is a lot
| cheaper). The required liability coverage is around $20 million
| covering both treatment and compensation. Obviously the amount
| they pay out would normally be a lot less then in the US.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| That makes a lot of sense. What are the policies on
| underinsured motorist coverage minimums?
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| "The hospital charged the couple's insurance $180,000 for his
| care" - this sounded like a health insurance problem than car
| insurance.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Typically health insurance is first in line, but will then try
| to assign this to the proper insurance company based on who is
| covering the actual source of the damage. If it's just some
| health thing, then it stops with the health insurance company.
| But if it's a car accident (or work related, etc), the health
| insurance company will go after the car insurance company (or
| worker's comp, etc) as appropriate. This is fairly standard,
| but still there might be some arguing and lawyers and whatnot.
|
| The consumer/patient/victim is last in line and doesn't need to
| be overly involved in these arguments between insurance
| companies - but it does become a big problem if none of the
| insurance is enough to pay the bills, and the person who caused
| the damages doesn't have money either. The victim gets stuck
| with whatever bill is left. You can sue the at-fault driver,
| but that's little help if they don't have money. More effective
| is to plead mercy and negotiate with the hospital. If you owe
| them $200k, that's more their problem than your, if you don't
| have it. And they've already gotten maybe (hopefully) $100-300k
| from insurance anyway, so maybe they'll forgive the rest or
| setup a payment plan for $50k or whatever. None of this is
| good! But there really is no good outcome when someone gets
| smashed with a car.
|
| One reasonable remedy would be to increase the required
| liability coverage to $1M or more - enough to cover the amount
| of damage one can do in an automobile. Of course then only the
| people who care about these laws will have it. We'll still have
| an uninsured motorist problem. Now that I think about it, maybe
| they should make proof of car insurance required for
| registration. Why don't we do this already? Registration is
| much easier to enforce (there's a sticker on your plate in the
| US).
| whimsicalism wrote:
| 180k is a lot but also my guess is that having a trauma team
| work on you is quite expensive - pretty much no other time in
| someone's life is someone going to be getting direct work from
| so many high-wage professionals.
|
| Note that the family was on the hook for ~4k. That seems to me
| to be insurance working as expected.
| tptacek wrote:
| We don't have to have this unproductive debate, because you can
| just switch the scenario to an accident causing death and be
| right back where we started in terms of demonstrating that
| $100k coverage lines are not enough to cover the externalities
| of driving.
| xivzgrev wrote:
| Too many articles with a kid getting hurt or dying. As a new
| parent these are so much harder to read now: I feel like I can
| just start to understand the pain the parents went thru. In a
| blink your world is turned upside down and your joy is gone.
| melevittfl wrote:
| I have two teens. It doesn't go away.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Just keep in mind that the world, including and especially car
| and pedestrian safety are much better now than in the past.
| Still hurts to read about these accidents when they happen
| though!
|
| I agree that there are too many articles about relatively few
| incidents, but that's what people want to read about
| apparently, so that's what the news people give us.
| jacobolus wrote:
| Pedestrian safety has gotten significantly worse in the past
| few years in the USA as people keep buying larger vehicles.
| The USA is much less safe for pedestrians than most developed
| countries.
|
| There should be much stricter regulations on drivers ability
| to see to the front and sides of their vehicles. I'm not
| quite sure what other regulations would force better
| engineering for pedestrian/cyclist safety. Policymakers
| should put more effort into discouraging people from buying
| vehicles that are significantly larger than they really need,
| and making large vehicles safe for everyone on the road, even
| at the expense of possibly making them more expensive, less
| convenient, less cool looking, or slower. After-market
| modifications which compromise pedestrian safety should be
| strictly banned from city streets.
|
| Personally I think manufacturers should be partly liable for
| damage caused by their vehicles.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| The natural way would be to price this into insurance
| premiums, using a high value for human life. It would
| require that the premium depend on the vehicle model and
| the expected damage it will do. An SUV model with bad
| visibility that crushes toddlers, would have a high
| premium. E($100M * number of crushed toddlers).
| thfuran wrote:
| Can't we just ban the toddler crushers instead of
| restricting them only to the wealthy willing to pay for
| the privilege?
| jacobolus wrote:
| Some people need vehicles with significant size or
| hauling capacity: delivery trucks/vans, long-haul trucks,
| ambulances, fire trucks, buses, tow trucks, vehicles used
| by tradespeople and farmers, etc. At least some of these
| vehicles are inevitably going to be on streets with shops
| and residences. But the vehicles needed could be re-
| engineered to be at least several times safer for
| pedestrians/cyclists if it were mandated, and many of the
| large vehicles on the road could be made smaller and
| lighter without compromising their drivers' needs.
| thfuran wrote:
| And the military needs tanks and bombers. That doesn't
| mean just anyone should be able to buy them for
| joyriding.
| randerson wrote:
| Vans have good visibility as well as more cargo capacity
| than the shiny $100K pickup trucks mostly driven in
| cities by non-tradespeople. The engine bays on modern
| pickups are unnecessarily large. It boggles the mind that
| there is no regulatory pressure in the US to make pickup
| trucks safer for pedestrians.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Occupant safety improved, but pedestrian safety peaked in
| 2009 and is now back to the level of 1982, with death numbers
| continuing to climb.
|
| 15 years ago most cars had good visibility, and pedestrians
| getting hit rolled over the vehicle's hood. Now people prefer
| vehicles with much worse visibility and hoods that hit
| pedestrians like a freight train instead of like a scoop.
| Steltek wrote:
| If you're in a state that isn't regressive, teach your kids to
| jaywalk. It changes your view from focusing on the traffic
| signals to what the cars are actually doing. I don't think I go
| a single day without seeing a car flagrantly run a red light.
| There are no more rules and kids need to understand that.
| vacuity wrote:
| At my university, the drivers are very used to stopping to
| let students cross, but a lot of people don't seem to look
| around or even lift their eyes from their phones. If I tried
| doing that, I'd be really nervous that I would be the one
| where a driver unfortunately doesn't stop in time. I really
| don't get those people.
| mfalcao wrote:
| That's insanely low! In Portugal the minimum required by law is
| 6.45 million for victims and 1.30 for property damage, per
| accident. A policy like this can cost as little as 250EUR / year.
|
| I assume these low limits in US insurance also affect material
| damages so that if you crash into an expensive car you just get a
| bunch of debt you need to pay off?
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| Despite the seemingly affordability a lot of drivers are
| uninsured. In California its 1 in 5 and in Mississippi its 1 in
| 3 drivers that are uninsured. Its likely they try and flee the
| scene over staying to offer to pay with money they don't have.
| Hit and run drivers successfully get away 9/10 times. You might
| only carry liability insurance at which point you pay for your
| own repair.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| If you claim too much on your health insurance then the company
| (e.g. UHC) requires you to file a report of all details related
| to it. If it's a car accident then they require all info about
| the other parties. They will sue the other parties to recover
| their costs.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| A "fun fact" that often astonishes europeans when I tell them: in
| America, it's even possible (and common?) to get insurance
| coverage for cases where the other party doesn't have their own
| insurance cover.
| smaccona wrote:
| I believe in some states this is required.
| sircastor wrote:
| My state (Oregon) requires insurance for motor vehicle
| operation. I understand the idea, but I can't help but feel
| like it's business model protection ensconced in law. The
| insurer isn't obligated by law to pay for... anything.
| They'll do everything they can to get out of paying for
| anything.
|
| And yes, you can buy "uninsured motorist protection" from
| your insurer as well. Even in states where it shouldn't be
| possible for there to be uninsured motorists.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| I would expect if you have liability insurance theres a
| lessened chance you would flee the scene of an accident you
| caused.
| NegativeK wrote:
| Every state I've lived in requires auto insurance.
|
| The idea makes sense -- the state recognizes that vehicle
| accidents will happen and preemptively deals with free
| loaders by requiring auto insurance, instead of just
| suggesting it. It falls down when the state isn't actually
| requiring the insurers to do their damn job.
| user_7832 wrote:
| Mandating insurance makes sense from the perspective of
| CYA, though I wonder if the govt could do something to
| enforce competition. Maybe make public actuarist data, and
| payout rates and information?
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Regulations frequently kill competition, either explicitly
| on purpose, or accidentally. Insurance is otherwise a
| hyper-competitive business anyway. Super easy to shop rates
| among many companies, so they all gravitate downward to
| about the same level, net of small differences in coverage
| or services, fancy websites, etc.
|
| And of course uninsured motorist coverage is a thing,
| because making something illegal doesn't mean people won't
| do it.
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| > _making something illegal doesn 't mean people won't do
| it_
|
| Isn't that the point of making something illegal? Here
| the system is: no insurance, no plates.
|
| (it's also no inspection, no plates. One has to be wary
| of the sketchier tourists, but everyone with local plates
| has both insurance and a functioning vehicle)
| wongarsu wrote:
| If people engage in a risky activity where the legal system
| expects them to pay for damages if something goes wrong,
| but damage sums are so high that most people are unable to
| pay for these damages, it makes perfect sense to require
| people to have insurance if they want to engage in this
| risky activity.
|
| The real crime is the state then zoning and building
| infrastructure in a way that forces you to engage in said
| activity, effectively forcing all citizens to buy
| insurance.
| morsch wrote:
| Frequently covered by (non-car) liability insurance in Germany.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| In the US you can get away with only having liability
| insurance.
| jwr wrote:
| Why would that be astonishing? It's routine (EU).
| 082349872349872 wrote:
| Do uninsured drivers exist in the EU? We're not barbarians,
| here ;)
|
| (no insurance, no plates)
| User23 wrote:
| Get an umbrella policy. They are remarkably inexpensive for what
| you get.
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20240203134307/https://www.econom...
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Car insurance in California has price caps. And as many of us
| know from econ 101, price caps lead to shortages.
|
| The California auto insurance market basically failed in December
| and it is now almost impossible to get auto insurance with less
| than 3 weeks lead time. Most of them have closed their brick and
| mortar locations and do not accept online applications.
|
| Of course, California's solution to a shortage is to try to
| mandate supply.
|
| quote from commissioner that refused to allow price increases for
| 4 years:
|
| > "These alleged passive-aggressive tactics by insurance
| companies to slow down drivers' access to coverage are
| unacceptable, dangerous, and will not be tolerated," Lara said in
| a press release Thursday.
| redsoundbanner wrote:
| Price caps are pathetic stand-ins for profit caps.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Profit caps incentivize bigger costs and bigger payouts
| collegeburner wrote:
| i do not care for them, but profit cap is not the same as
| margin cap
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Profit cap is not a real thing as far as I know
|
| But if it were, it would encourage serving the smallest
| possible cohort and doing no more business
| hamandcheese wrote:
| Notably, the Affordable Care Act limited administration costs
| to 20%.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| I've always suspected that that incentivized health
| insurance companies to let hospitals inflate costs. If the
| government forbids me from increasing my percentage of the
| pie and I need to increase revenue I have to increase the
| size of the pie.
| FooBarBizBazz wrote:
| Yes, this and vertical integration. The insurance company
| may have limited profit, but if the hospital doesn't, and
| they're both owned by the same parent company, then the
| prices "inside the control volume" can be whatever
| fiction is most convenient to report to the government.
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| How many insurance companies are under the same parent
| org as hospitals?
| oatmeal1 wrote:
| Profit caps disincentivize companies to be efficient, meaning
| they'll just waste resources that could be used better
| elsewhere in the economy. Capping price or profit does
| nothing to address the root cause of the problem - lack of
| competition. Lack of competition could be addressed by
| finding ways to reduce regulatory hurdles to enter the
| market, or by breaking up monopolies with anti-trust action.
| redsoundbanner wrote:
| > _Profit caps disincentivize companies to be efficient_
|
| Considering I was just laid off for the sake of
| "efficiency" that is perfectly fine by me.
| financypants wrote:
| We don't care what is fine by you
| collegeburner wrote:
| cost-plus has largely proved to be a busted business model.
| in industries where it is de rigueur, such as defense and
| space, traditional business models have driven efficiency
| improvements and new product development alongside price
| decreases.
| akira2501 wrote:
| Wouldn't that just be taxes?
| mjevans wrote:
| The government should not be prohibited (in some places they
| are! Muni broadband as an example) from offering competing
| services.
|
| Proper competition would limit market malfunction.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| 3 weeks lead time sounds inconvenient but not really a big
| deal?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| This is the lead up to them exiting the state like in Florida
| (and California for other types of insurance). I believe
| state farm and allstate have already exited california, but I
| may be wrong.
|
| Three weeks delay is just the most visible thing, they are
| basically pulling out all the stops to try to avoid covering
| as many people as possible.
|
| But even 3 weeks delay in driving a vehicle you just
| purchased is considerable.
| hnrodey wrote:
| Last week I switched car insurance company and coverage was
| offered in the literal same day, all over the phone. In
| comparison, three weeks seems like an eternity.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| That's just semantics though. Whatever an "eternity" means
| to you, it's still three weeks. And is very different from
| not being available at all.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| Not being able to drive for 3 weeks is not an option for
| a lot of people. It's not "semantics"
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Ok and not being able to drive for 3 weeks is different
| from not being able to drive ever.
| vacuity wrote:
| But maybe it is a big deal? You shifted from your
| previous statement.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Can you give an example where it's a big deal?
| alexb_ wrote:
| Just about everywhere in America requires you to drive to
| work. If you can't drive for 3 weeks, you can't work for
| 3 weeks. Do you see why this might be a problem
| collegeburner wrote:
| three weeks of spotty or delayed attendance can lose one
| a job
|
| most of the people with the option to remote work are
| working decent white-collar jobs, so add this to the long
| tally of policies that are designed to help but only hurt
| the poor
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > three weeks of spotty or delayed attendance can lose
| one a job
|
| Under what conditions will a person have a job that they
| are expected to be at, but not have car insurance to get
| there? I'm sure this exists (for instance for someone
| whose policy is revoked for DUI or accident or whatever),
| but in many cases I assume public transit or a three week
| wait to start is acceptable.
| BadHumans wrote:
| Three week wait to start is not acceptable for my
| slightly over minimum wage job on the other side of town
| or in the next city over.
| syndicatedjelly wrote:
| This is a weird hill to die on. best of luck to you
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| What do you do, just drive around uninsured for 3 weeks in
| your new car and hope nothing happens?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| You wait. I'm not saying it doesn't suck.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| How does that work? Do you just hope no one buys the car
| in the meantime? Or will the dealer let you store it with
| them?
| jncfhnb wrote:
| You can drive a car home without insurance. A quick
| google suggests californias grace period is 30 days.
| yumraj wrote:
| It may be allowed, but who pays in case of an accident?
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| Most (all?) dealers in California offer some kind of
| 24/48 hour insurance for you to legally drive home. The
| prices are sort of ridiculous when compared to normal car
| insurance ($50-$100 for a couple days of coverage IIRC),
| but thats just a function of the risk profile and the
| fixed underwriting costs of a short policy.
| reactordev wrote:
| You aren't allowed to drive without insurance
| fhdkweig wrote:
| New Hampshire is the only state in the US that does not
| require liability insurance. If you drive through NH,
| make sure you have uninsured coverage. (and it is a good
| idea anywhere)
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| It is legal to drive without liability insurance in
| almost every state... you just have to post a $20k-$50k
| bond with the state.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| We're only 5 weeks into this new rule.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Not just California. In Arizona, I was looking to shop around
| insurance recently and couldn't even get a quote from my home
| insurer (who also recently raised my rates, mind you).
| hot_gril wrote:
| CA also has sort of a price cap on wildfire home insurance,
| which has prompted many insurers to leave the state entirely.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| This one frustrates me because when the government intervenes
| to try to lower wildfire insurance premiums they are
| literally risking people's lives.
|
| People should have to pay the full cost of the risk of living
| in these dangerous areas so the price system encourages them
| to move.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Definitely agree, and I also firmly believe that each
| property should get exactly one FEMA bailout ever. If you
| live in Florida and your house gets destroyed by a
| hurricane, FEMA should pay you for it. If you choose to
| rebuild on that exact same spot, and your house gets
| destroyed by a hurricane, you should get exactly bupkis.
|
| This should carry with the property address - the next
| person who buys it should have to sign a form acknowledging
| that they aren't going to get a FEMA bailout if it gets
| destroyed.
|
| Lots of Florida Republicans out there who complain about
| welfare but rely on some of the biggest welfare checks that
| get written to repair their homes because of the absolutely
| foreseeable results of their choices.
| bdowling wrote:
| > the next person who buys it
|
| If they can't build on it, who would buy it? Urban
| farmers?
|
| In any case, your plan would destroy the land value, and
| the corresponding property tax revenue.
| burnerthrow008 wrote:
| > In any case, your plan would destroy the land value,
| and the corresponding property tax revenue
|
| Sounds like the market effectively discovered the true
| value of the property with all externalities priced in. I
| don't see a problem here?
| arccy wrote:
| perhaps disaster prone areas shouldn't be worth a lot?
| ouEight12 wrote:
| I could be mistaken on this, as I don't live in an area
| where such things are common, but my understanding is the
| issue is that if your house is destroyed by say, a
| hurricane, no insurance provider (or fema) gives you a
| bag of cash and says "move", reimbursement is predicated
| on rebuilding the structure where it stood.
| bluGill wrote:
| If built to modern codes houses can survive a hurricane,
| or so I'm told.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| This is what building to code should address. If a house
| is built to a specific hurricane code, and is destroyed
| due to other reasons (a hypercane, for instance), then
| let insurance cover this and mandate rebuilding to an
| even higher standard.
|
| https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hurricane-idalias-
| destr...
|
| : Dozens of modest homes along the Big Bend coast were
| heavily damaged in the floodwaters, but interspersed
| among the debris were residences left relatively
| unscathed, all because they were built elevated on
| stilts.
| cmilton wrote:
| While I understand the idea, who would buy these properties
| they likely may want to sell to escape these rising costs?
| whimsicalism wrote:
| for long standing communities, ideally the government
| would offer voluntary buyouts if they can't find someone
| willing to cover the insurance premium.
|
| they already do the same in flooding zones.
|
| but yes, people who live in fire-prone areas may take a
| loss. encouraging people to anticipate these losses is
| part of a functioning market. if they can live somewhere
| risky without financial risk, we only encourage future
| people to do the same.
| abigail95 wrote:
| me, i'll take discounted land in california any day of
| the week.
| sokoloff wrote:
| For $1 each, lots of people. Price will find buyers.
| kkielhofner wrote:
| I tried to get car insurance in California last year. It was so
| absurd I just sold the car.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| Have you considered moving to any other state rather than
| just trying to live without a basic necessity of life in
| America?
| techsupporter wrote:
| I live in one of the "any other states" (Washington)
| without a car quite comfortably. A lot of us can't or don't
| drive. It's nice to not have to put up with car insurance
| companies.
| danielhep wrote:
| Hello fellow car free Washingtonian! Selling my car was
| one of the best decisions I ever made.
| anon291 wrote:
| As a car lite person, this comment is condescending. As
| much as I'd love if it were the case, efficient public
| transit is not a thing in most parts of the country. A
| car is a necessity. California needs to greatly expand
| transit or figure something out quick.
| techsupporter wrote:
| Why is it condescending? I can't drive or at least I
| can't do it very well. But before that, my spouse and I
| had long since sold our car.
|
| To me, it is more condescending to insist that a car is a
| basic life necessity. It demeans those of us who live
| without one.
| creer wrote:
| Events since 1989 show California has no intention of
| solving anything.
| tomcam wrote:
| I'm impressed--no sarcasm. Would you mind giving us a
| glimpse of your day-to-day?Except in Seattle near
| downtown it seems like there would be tons of challenges.
| jghn wrote:
| I spent nearly 20 years in an American state without a car.
| Plenty of people I know do the same
| i80and wrote:
| I'd say maybe a third of people I know don't have cars. In
| America. That's not a "basic necessity of life", especially
| when we're talking about well-developed regions like the
| west coast.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| I just moved to Nevada from California.
|
| My Nevada insurance costs half of what I paid in California.
| imbusy111 wrote:
| Cause labor is cheaper in Nevada, people drive cheaper cars
| and there are less cars in Nevada on the road in general, so
| you are less likely to get into an accident. These are just
| the top reasons off the top of my head.
| queuebert wrote:
| Also could be less fraud, smaller average liability claims,
| lower costs of litigation, etc.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I don't really understand. Geico gives you a quote instantly
| and let's you buy it instantly.
|
| I'm in California and have been buying insurance like this for
| 20 years. Last time was 18 months ago. Basically instant.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Geico will not give you a quote instantly and let you buy
| instantly.
|
| you say you last bought coverage 18 months ago. i said the
| market failed in december. i encourage you to try to buy
| coverage now and see. i was also surprised since i expected
| the previous situation of instant insurance to still be in
| place.
|
| not sure why i am being downvoted, i encourage anyone to try
| for themselves
| bblcla wrote:
| Yes. I tried to get car insurance in July in California and
| barely succeeded -- I had to _walk in_ to an AAA branch and
| they quoted me 2-3 times the Geico price.
|
| Geico will quote a price but forces a 15 days waiting
| period. Then they'll send you snail mail and ask you to
| send in a picture of your car within two days, by snail
| mail. This is the car you don't have insurance on, so it's
| probably still at the dealer's or at the seller's house! I
| think they're not allowed to actually refuse to sell
| insurance but they'll do everything they can to make it
| annoying enough that you go away. State Farm and the others
| are all equally bad.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I eventually was able to get well priced insurance same
| day through "toggle" which is a Farmers subsidiary, even
| though Farmers is no longer offering online applications
| and has 14 days waiting. AAA also was available but like
| you quoted me 3x the price.
| morio wrote:
| I concur, bought insurance for a new car early January and
| got it instantly using esurance.com (Allstate) by just
| entering my VIN. Yes, I am in SF/Bay Area.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| interesting. i forget if it was allstate or state farm but
| one of them refused to do online and also refused to do
| fewer than 14 days out - this was like two days ago.
| morio wrote:
| To be clear: I already had my old car insured with them
| for several years, so I just removed the old car and
| added the new car. I am also 50+ with no negative record
| and a garage in a single family home.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| oh i am discussing for new customers, not people with
| existing policy - might be different there.
| creer wrote:
| Coudn't even get someone on the phone at Geico in 5 hours 2
| days ago. Wasn't happening yesterday either.
| BMc2020 wrote:
| _As for those refunds, Californians are still waiting for about
| $3.5 billion of the $5.5 billion that Consumer Watchdog
| estimates policyholders are owed for pandemic-era overcharges._
|
| _The matter still hasn't been fully resolved, say the state's
| insurance officials, who argue that rate hike decisions aren't
| interfering with unfulfilled rebates._
|
| _"These are separate processes," said Michael Soller_
|
| Don't forget fraud isn't covered in econ 101.
| kristjansson wrote:
| TBF, that's overcharged in a very insurance-specific sense,
| not a mustache-twirling fraud sense. Effectively they didn't
| adjust prices fast enough to the actual changes in risk,
| which on the whole seems like something best dealt with ex
| post, not ex ante.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| You chaps in the US have no bloody idea how lucky you are. In the
| UK, everyone's car insurance are increasing by 50% to 100% for
| ICE cars. EVs premiums are even worse. I think personally greed
| has a lot to do with it and the fact the UK Govt don't care about
| the people.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| I live somewhere where the government has tried to impose price
| caps on auto insurance and now I can't even get insured.
|
| My guess is the reason premiums are going up is people are
| driving worse and repair costs are going up.
| dclowd9901 wrote:
| Also, car design requirements for safety usually leave the
| car as totaled from almost any accident. It's basically
| always cheaper to total out a car, but of course that still
| isn't a cheap thing to do.
| callalex wrote:
| Healthcare costs keep doubling every few years as well.
| alexriddle wrote:
| The UK motor insurance market is one of the most competitive in
| the world. Aggregators have created a situation where every
| insurer is looking for the slightest competitive advantage to
| drive themselves up the comparison table.
|
| I don't have the most up to date figures but in 2022, combined
| ratio was forecast to be 115% for motor insurance - this means
| for every PS1 in premium, PS1.15 was paid out in claims and
| expenses. There is some income from investments but it's
| minimal compared to the pre 2008 situation.
|
| Consequentially several insurers have exited the personal lines
| market as they cannot make money from it - RSA for example.
| 2022 is forecast to be the worst year for insurers since 2010.
|
| The market does suffer from a cycle of 'hard' and 'soft'
| markets and there will be an overcorrection in the short term -
| over a few years, we'll see insurers seeing an opportunity to
| undercut the market and gain market share and premiums
| increases will ease.
|
| TLDR - whilst it is painful to see premiums rising so quickly,
| it is not an industry that is awash with profits.
| mrlonglong wrote:
| That's quite an eye opener, thanks. I hadn't also thought
| about the recent conveyor belt of pretty nasty storms, that
| definitely would have an knock on effect on insurance. I
| think it is in the insurers' own interest that the Govt
| should implement NetZero measures asap to reduce the impact
| of these storms.
| y-c-o-m-b wrote:
| West coast of the US here. Mine more than doubled this year and
| shopping around has been an eye-opening exercise in the sense
| that it seems to be an across-the-board increase, not just my
| insurance company. I've been driving for over two decades and
| have a spotless driving record, so it's really painful to see
| such a dramatic increase in a short amount of time.
| paulsutter wrote:
| The article explains that insurance /coverage/ in the US tends to
| be inadequate, which has nothing to do with the pricing of
| insurance. My first reaction to the title was surprise that
| insurance companies would be willing to price the risk too
| cheaply
| prng2021 wrote:
| Agreed, it's a very poorly worded title.
| nsagent wrote:
| The article does state this though: According
| to the American Property Casualty Insurance Association
| (apcia), a trade association, last year insurers paid out $1.08
| in claims for every $1 in premiums they took in.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| The business of insurance sometimes has good (profitable)
| years and sometimes has bad (losing) years. That's why
| insurers work so hard to invest and spread their risk over
| multiple years. I got a dividend from State Farm during the
| pandemic because they had an unusually profitable year, and
| they re-distributed some of their profits to policyholders.
| likpok wrote:
| Another aspect is that insurance companies can make money
| on the float, and this can potentially let them be
| profitable while paying out more in claims than they take
| in (or at least netting out to paying out what they take
| in). That's assuming that they can effectively invest the
| premiums.
|
| Buffett successfully applied this strategy with geico.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| I wanted to fault them for this too, but it's an inescapable
| result. Liability premium costs always moves in lockstep with
| the rate of coverage, as it has to by probability laws for an
| insurance company to be viable.
| bmitc wrote:
| Whatever you say. For years after I purchased a new car, my car
| insurance was basically half of my car payment. I haven't had an
| accident, which was a minor fender bender at a light, in over 15
| years. My rates were so ridiculous that I thought it would be
| better just to buy another car and lower the insurance to the
| minimum required.
|
| And when you need the insurance, even when you are not at fault,
| they immediately raise your rates. What were you even paying them
| for before if they just raise your rates to repay themselves?
| tptacek wrote:
| The point of the article seems to be that the minimum coverage
| rates people are required to get don't come close to paying the
| medical bills of car accident victims. It's not a consumer
| argument, it's an argument about externalities.
| denimnerd42 wrote:
| Bad headline for sure. The coverage by law is too low.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| > For years after I purchased a new car, my car insurance was
| basically half of my car payment
|
| Different cars have very different insurance rates, it's a big
| part of the TCO. If you aren't rich enough not to care,
| insurance rates need to be considered early on in any car
| purchase decision. I don't even know how much my car insurance
| costs because it's too small to matter because I have a basic
| paid-off car that's cheap to insure.
| tibbon wrote:
| Insurance rates were actually the deciding factor for me not
| buying a Tesla 3 a few years ago (before the carriers seemed
| to figure out coverage and risk for them a bit better). The
| insurance was going to be stupidly high, making the TCO with
| a decent loan (around 2% at the time) to be like $1k/month. I
| was like, I do not need to spent $1k/month on a car, so I
| bought a used Porsche for cash instead and pay almost nothing
| for insurance in comparison.
| bmitc wrote:
| The car was a Kia...
| bombcar wrote:
| The key is what's being insured and what is driving the
| costs.
|
| If you go from junker with just liability to new car with
| comprehensive, liability, and gap, you're greatly
| increasing what is insured and how much it costs.
|
| Usually it is all broken down in the quote or bill.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Did you shop around? Ask the agent whether there may be
| discounts you could be eligible for that you haven't taken
| advantage of? If you've been accident free, your risk profile
| does diminish.
| prmoustache wrote:
| How can 1 out of 8 driver be uninsured in that country? Aren't
| the cars supposed to be registered? The state isn't checking that
| registered cars are also insured?
| tptacek wrote:
| You technically can't drive a car off a lot without proving you
| have insurance coverage (at least in every state I've lived
| in), and, when you re-register your car every year, you'll
| again need to prove insurance coverage; failure to re-register
| deprives you of a sticker you'll need to keep from being pulled
| over. So in that sense, the system coheres.
|
| But insurance coverage can fluctuate over the course of a year,
| because unlike with health insurance, there's no annual
| enrollment period; people switch insurers, or miss bills, or
| sign up ruthlessly for a month of insurance to get past the
| state bureaucracy and then just never pay again.
|
| There's the SR-22 system, which is a court order to maintain
| insurance at minimum levels, which you get for getting
| repeatedly pulled over without insurance (or, perhaps, for
| getting pulled over without proof of insurance and then not
| proving you did get coverage afterwards). But that's not a fix,
| because you can only enforce it at police traffic stops.
| thfuran wrote:
| >failure to re-register deprives you of a sticker you'll need
| to keep from being pulled over
|
| My car is insured and registered, but it has been the better
| part of ten years since I actually bothered to put a new
| sticker on the plate. Maybe there are places where cops try
| to more actively police expired plates, but it certainly
| doesn't seem to be a thing around here.
| flutas wrote:
| > failure to re-register deprives you of a sticker you'll
| need to keep from being pulled over. So in that sense, the
| system coheres.
|
| anecdata, but in my town of 60k people, any one drive I do I
| couldn't even count on my hands the number of expired temp
| tags (I've seen over a year old), and expired registration.
|
| It really _feels_ like people don't get pulled over for that
| anymore.
| tptacek wrote:
| I get pulled over for it constantly, including within the
| last year. Chicago.
| Palomides wrote:
| it's required to have it, but in my state (ohio), you only have
| to prove it if you cause an accident or get pulled over by a
| cop
|
| the poor or un-insurable go without and just hope they aren't
| caught
| afruitpie wrote:
| Anecdotal, but since I started cycling I've noticed an absurd
| amount of cars have license plate tabs that have been expired
| for years. There's even a Porsche Taycan in my apartment that's
| been driving without plates for over a year.
|
| It doesn't seem like registration is enforced in any meaningful
| way.
| sh34r wrote:
| It used to be, but there's a pandemic of the blue flu going
| around. Cops have been quiet quitting for 4 years because
| they want to be able to murder with impunity again.
| bitzun wrote:
| In Texas, if you don't get in an accident, cops will rarely
| spot that your registration is out of date and definitely won't
| check if you have insurance. If you do get in an accident and
| are lacking a driver's license and/or insurance and/or current
| registration, they'll take the report, maybe issue a citation
| and usually just let you leave if the car can drive.
| seatac76 wrote:
| My experience has been completely different. State Farm jacked up
| my price by 40% over the last two years, even though I had to
| incidents. When I called and asked they said it's due to
| inflation. Insurance increase along with groceries has been one
| of the permanent inflationary increases in my expenses since
| Covid. I'm sure a lot of people are in the same boat.
| callalex wrote:
| The increase in auto insurance is just reflecting the increase
| in their two main expenses: healthcare and cars/car parts.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Always buy the underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage. My
| daughter was hit by a car, the main payout was from my insurance,
| and not from the person who hit her.
|
| Liability is everything, the cost of the car is nothing. Get the
| umbrella policy on your house. Buy liability insurance when you
| rent a car.
|
| It's not just the medical bills- it's also the legal damages.
| warner25 wrote:
| > Always buy the underinsured/uninsured motorist coverage.
|
| Agreed. I'm a personal finance nerd, and it felt like an
| epiphany when I discovered this a few years ago, because it's
| rarely discussed but seems so important. I max out our UM/UIM
| coverage now.
|
| Side note: My wife is a stay-at-home mom and I've long wished
| for a disability insurance product that would cover the
| economic value that she provides, i.e. cover the cost of
| daycare / after-school care if she couldn't care for the kids.
| As far as I can tell, there's no such product for people who
| aren't wage earners. The closest thing I've found is UM/UIM
| coverage, since the most likely cause of disability is a car
| crash. Presumably it would pay for at least some of the other
| things beyond medical bills.
|
| > Buy liability insurance when you rent a car.
|
| Why do you say this instead of just relying on the liability
| coverage under your regular auto insurance?
| jhallenworld wrote:
| Getting the umbrella is good, because during the process they
| review the rest of your insurance (at least they did for me).
|
| >stay at home mom
|
| I'm in the same situation, it sure would be nice. We do both
| have life insurance at least.
|
| >Why do you say this instead of just relying on the liability
| coverage under your regular auto insurance?
|
| To be careful. If you don't buy it, make absolutely sure that
| your own auto insurance covers it. [also people who don't own
| a car won't have auto insurance..]
| daydream wrote:
| >Side note: My wife is a stay-at-home mom and I've long
| wished for a disability insurance product that would cover
| the economic value that she provides, i.e. cover the cost of
| daycare / after-school care if she couldn't care for the
| kids. As far as I can tell, there's no such product for
| people who aren't wage earners.
|
| AD&D (accidental death and disability) is the closest you'll
| come. It's most commonly offered by workplaces I believe, and
| is not expensive. On the flip side the situations it pays out
| are pretty narrow.
|
| The only other alternative I know of is life insurance but of
| course that covers death, not disability.
| warner25 wrote:
| > AD&D... most commonly offered by workplaces
|
| Like the employer offers coverage that extends to a non-
| employee spouse, like family health insurance?
|
| I remember finding one product sold to individuals
| _including_ stay-at-home parents a few years ago by Bright
| Peak Financial. Now I can 't even get their website to load
| to see any details, so maybe it doesn't even exist anymore,
| but the coverage limits were pitifully low. Like it would
| cover only fraction of our childcare costs, and only for a
| time measured in months.
|
| We definitely have term life coverage on her that will run
| until our youngest kid is a teenager.
| daydream wrote:
| >Like the employer offers coverage that extends to a non-
| employee spouse, like family health insurance?
|
| Yes. I believe it's typically offered for just you,
| you+spouse, or you+family - like health insurance. Lots
| of info on Google.
| bombcar wrote:
| > AD&D (accidental death and disability) is the closest
| you'll come. It's most commonly offered by workplaces I
| believe, and is not expensive. On the flip side the
| situations it pays out are pretty narrow.
|
| This is the problem. Those policies usually cover "unable
| to work at all" which is extremely narrow (some won't pay
| out if you can do any job anywhere, even if you were a
| doctor lawyer 10 programmer CEO before).
|
| You can find a policy to cover stay at home spouses, but
| they're often somewhat custom, expensive, and only pay out
| until children are X age. Long-term care can also be added,
| even more.
| swozey wrote:
| If you get a loan on a vehicle also get GAP insurance. It's
| stupid cheap, $10-20/mo. I had a car stolen and totaled that I
| owed $26k on. USAA, who were absolutely horrible to deal with
| after 20+ years of using them, was only willing to give me the
| "Local cash market value" - this means they open up craigslist
| and look for the cheapest private party car of your model. This
| is not hyperbole.
|
| They gave me $15k. I went from a beautiful 2008 Lexus IS350 to
| a $2500 2001 Honda CRV because I had no money to buy a car with
| other than the cash I had left over in my bank through bo fault
| of mine. It was actually even worse with lot fees after the
| police found the car and impounded it, etc. But that's another
| story.
|
| GAP covers that, and car thefts are up at a massive scale now.
| I get GAP on every car and if the dealer has some anti-theft
| option I get that too. I bought a car last week and I think it
| was $900 and if the car is ever stolen or wheels stolen over 5
| years I get something like $5k cash. I'm also going to put a
| DroneMobile system in it.
|
| Don't get a car stolen. Garage it if you can. I used to have
| that "USAA will cover me! hehe! no worries if it's stolen!"
| naivete until it happened.
|
| I seriously can't explain how rude they were to me. Had a fraud
| investigator come to my house and grill me in the most
| despicably rude way possible. They acted like I tried to get it
| stolen or something to get out of the car payment. "I've had
| this car since it was new, never missed a payment, and I I'm
| still employed making $YZ money. Why would I try to get out of
| my payment by .. hiding my car? Leaving it open to steal?" I'm
| not kidding. It got stolen when I walked into a Walgreens to
| buy a frozen pizza.
| thedufer wrote:
| Gap insurance covers a tightly-bounded amount of loss (it
| will never pay out more than the remainder of your loan),
| which is why it's so cheap. That's also why it's a great
| target for self-insurance - you know exactly how much you
| need to have to cover the worst-case loss. If you have the
| cash, you are almost certainly better off skipping this one.
| bombcar wrote:
| If you have the cash you might as well just skip the loan,
| unless it's unconscionably low.
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| I work in insurance. Local cash value is normal. It's not a
| Craigslist lookup, it uses industry standard published tables
| and is the same across all companies. People are frequently
| shocked that they are underwater on their cars so much, but
| it's worth what it's worth, car insurance has no reason to
| cover loans. As you found out, GAP is insurance on the loan
| itself, most lenders will strongly encourage GAP coverage or
| even mandate it.
| mysterydip wrote:
| where do they get the data to publish in the industry
| standard tables?
| swozey wrote:
| There was absolutely no way I could walk into anything but
| the most decrepit used car dealer and walk out with a car
| anywhere near what I previously owned for what they gave
| me, completely unrelated to whether or not I had a loan.
| The KBB was around 20k dealer. They gave me the crumb not
| fully loaded non F-sport (a $5k package) private party low
| end. $15k was shockingly low. Mine had like, 15k miles and
| the 15k range had over 100k. Their criteria seemed to be
| "Lexus I of some sort, cheapest." I don't think the IS250
| was even normally that low.
|
| Maybe it's what they all do, but it sucks. And it's not
| what a lot of people expect.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| We had our i3 totalled a few years ago. Insurance company
| guy was transparent and said he'd gone to our version of
| Craigslist here in Norway, found i3's of same age and
| similar milage, and took the average.
|
| As such I could definitely buy a replacement with the
| payout.
|
| While I'd much rather be without the experience, I was
| almost pleasantly surprised by the insurance company.
| bombcar wrote:
| That's what progressive did when our older car was
| totaled by hail. It wasn't just Craigslist but it was
| some similar ones available- and averaged. They'd go buy
| one for us, or give us the cash, or (what we did) is give
| us back the car and most of the cash.
| brendoelfrendo wrote:
| You may have been able to push for a better settlement if
| you saw their comps and noticed they were not actually
| comparable, but at the end of the day, no insurance
| company will give you more than local market value. If
| you're underwater on the loan and the value doesn't cover
| it, that's om you. I never buy GAP; if you need to buy
| GAP, you should be buying less car.
| swozey wrote:
| Yeah I really had no idea what powers/options I had in
| the situation. The way they treated me made me seriously
| want to somehow get them to recover a LOT of money I had
| to spend (around $4-6k in impound lot fees they wouldn't
| pay). They pretty much went out of their way to make me
| feel like I should be grateful they helped at all.
|
| I was maybe 23 and definitely didn't have money for legal
| help. I hate how I let myself get treated.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| GAP comes on leases too pretty standard these days.
| jrmg wrote:
| FWIW our car (2014 RAV4 EV) was totaled in California in
| 2018, and the insurance payout pretty much exactly
| covered replacing it with a near-identical new model
| (actually a bit lower mileage!) from a local used car
| dealer. I think we actually came out a few hundred
| dollars ahead.
|
| We were insured with Travelers.
|
| I've wondered since then if that's how it usually works
| out, or if we were a lucky fluke.
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| It seems like the industry has some pretty strong
| incentives to standardize on the lowest possible values in
| those tables.
|
| Further, what does "worth" mean if you can't take the
| amount of money you were given and easily purchase a car of
| the same make, model, year, and condition?
| silexia wrote:
| I also had a terrible experience with USAA. I don't know what
| happened to them, but it is a rotten company now. I switched
| to Country Financial recently as I can at least talk to a
| person without a nightmare phone tree there.
| eduction wrote:
| I'm sorry this happened to your daughter and you!
|
| As someone with two kids, can I ask, does health insurance not
| work in this situation? I ask partly because at the moment we
| own no cars. If health insurance doesn't cover it I'm wondering
| how we should insure.
| jhallenworld wrote:
| So she was a pedestrian when she was hit (she's OK, but
| messed up two years of her life). This makes me wonder if
| it's worth owning some crappy car even if you never drive it,
| just for the privilege of having auto insurance...
|
| Anyway, yes health covers it but they are first in the line
| getting reimbursed, even before the lawyer- which I think
| sucks, I mean what am I paying them for?
| balaji1 wrote:
| > but they are first in the line getting reimbursed
|
| Sorry about the incident. Do you mean the health-insurance
| company tries to get reimbursed? From who? the auto-
| insurance of the other driver?
| yodon wrote:
| You can get car insurance without a car. It's inexpensive
| and available from most (many?) insurance companies.
| sowbug wrote:
| _> I mean what am I paying them for?_
|
| The reimbursement right that the insurance company has is
| called subrogation. The basic idea is that whoever was at
| fault shouldn't be better off because the injured party had
| insurance; otherwise it would be rational for individuals
| to not have insurance as long as most other people do have
| insurance. Subrogation means someone will still sue you
| into the ground even if the person you hurt was made whole
| by insurance. There can be many links in the insurance
| chain before you get to the person who actually caused the
| problem, and in your case it sounds like UMC was the final
| link.
|
| At least, this is the stated public policy reason for
| subrogation. You are right that your health insurer got
| reimbursed even though they promised to cover your loved
| ones, and that feels weird.
| karakfa2 wrote:
| Your insurance will cover your children even if they are
| not listed in the insurance contract. Being redundant to be
| clear: if a random driver hits a pedestrian child, parent's
| auto insurance will cover the costs even if they are not
| involved in the accident. The insurance company may chose
| to not pursue legal action even if they pay for the costs.
| The injured party can still do.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Agreement. My wife was in a crash with an uninsured (and, as it
| turns out, unlicensed and with outstanding warrants) driver.
| Everyone was uninjured, thankfully. Our car was a total loss.
|
| The only monetary payout we got was our uninsured motorist
| coverage. (Seeing the lady who hit her get arrested at the
| scene and taken to jail was nice. Our insurance company
| pursuing her in court was also nice, too, though having not
| been thru the experience before we were taken aback when my
| wife unexpectedly received a summons to testify.)
|
| I max'ed out our uninsured driver coverage after that.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Why is it so hard to go after the person's assets? In a just
| world, everything she owns should be sold and the proceeds
| handed over to her victim.
| bombcar wrote:
| These people usually have no assets.
|
| They own nothing and are happy. Or in jail.
|
| It's called being judgement proof and basically lets you
| ignore civil penalties.
| yuliyp wrote:
| Most people have negligible assets beyond where they live
| and stuff like clothes. Legal settlements can't generally
| force people out of their homes.
| cbruns wrote:
| Know your state laws. Uninsured often only applies if you can
| prove they are uninsured. Uninsured people will hit and run, so
| if you don't catch their plate, you are out of luck. Make sure
| you have a dash cam. And if you do catch them, good luck
| getting any compensation from someone with no insurance. You
| will likely have to sue them just to collect 10 dollars from
| them for a couple months before they disappear. Best case
| scenario, they go to jail.
| pests wrote:
| Isn't best scenario is you get your money back?
|
| Why wish for people to be imprisoned?
| mynameishere wrote:
| _Why wish for people to be imprisoned?_
|
| Hit and run can be a grave crime. You might be leaving
| someone for dead.
| fortran77 wrote:
| So they don't do it again! He wants to protect _you_ and
| you're mad about it?
| anovikov wrote:
| Somehow i always paid an invisible amount for my insurance (even
| after having one accident where i was at fault, and drunk). And
| yet local insurance companies seems to be making ends meet
| easily. I don't know what is the problem there. Maybe because
| it's not the USA? Why is this only a problem in Anglosphere (yes
| i heard in UK it is about as bad - and their healthcare is
| socialised, so it's not because of healthcare)?
| sudden_dystopia wrote:
| No it is not. Insurance companies get a bad rap, some of it
| deserved. But you would be absolutely shocked at the amount of
| exaggerated injury claims and the amount of fraud encouraged by
| lawyers and doctors.
| saxonww wrote:
| This article is really an indictment of healthcare costs, not
| that car insurance is too cheap. Change my mind.
| silexia wrote:
| The USA limits the number of new doctors a year, driving pay
| for doctors to stratospheric levels averaging over a million
| dollars a year each.
|
| Deregulate medicine and watch the free market dramatically
| improve quality of care, time with each doctor and costs.
| saxonww wrote:
| Now I guess I'm arguing against my point, but I think these
| numbers are out of whack.
|
| I don't think the US limits the number of new doctors per
| year. That would surprise me. I do think the AMA or whatever
| has a vested interest in controlling the supply of
| physicians, because it props up salaries.
|
| That said, it is certainly not the case that US doctors
| _average_ $1m /yr in salary. There are some doctors that make
| that much or more, and different specializations make
| different salaries on average, but the overall average is
| more like $225k/yr.
|
| Finally, while I am not going to argue about the benefits of
| deregulation - we do have to make sure people actually get
| appropriate care - it is the case that practices across the
| country are being bought up by companies like HCA. This seems
| to lead to the 'enshittification' phenomenon as applied to
| medicine. The parent companies demand more efficiency,
| leading to office staff having to handle more patients and
| more work than before, and doctors having to see more
| patients in the same amount of time as before. Quality, from
| the perspective of the patient, suffers. I don't think
| deregulation fixes this.
|
| I don't think 'the market' is a good solution to healthcare.
| When I think of healthcare, I think of people who are sick,
| or hurt, or whatever, and they need to get some help. If
| there is ever a time where having to weigh pros and cons of
| available services while shopping around to find the best
| deal is a good outcome, asking people to do this when they
| are hurt or sick is not it.
| GenerWork wrote:
| I think the limit that the parent was talking about is
| related to the number of student doctor seats at hospitals.
| That is a real thing, and the AMA heavily defends it.
| tiahura wrote:
| As an ambulance chaser who gets to deal with both the
| healthcare industry and the insurance industry, you are
| correct.
| excalibur wrote:
| Don't get me wrong, the insurance industry writ large played a
| huge and active role in shaping the current hellscape. But this
| is still putting the onus on auto insurers for what is
| fundamentally an issue with the healthcare system.
| manicennui wrote:
| This sounds more like another symptom of the problems with our
| healthcare system. I wonder how many non-American are aware of
| this extra idiocy in the system: if you get hurt on commercial
| property, at someone's home, or in a car, you can't use your own
| health insurance; you now have to fight with someone else's
| insurance.
| advael wrote:
| Insurance run for profit has to be a scam by definition. You
| can't turn a profit from a risk pool without ensuring that you
| can avoid paying at least a good chunk of the time. It should be
| as illegal as ponzi schemes
| abigail95 wrote:
| "what is drawdown and how much will i pay to avoid it"
| Invictus0 wrote:
| Wait till you find out about free market competition!
| advael wrote:
| Let me know when there's a free market somewhere
| l33t7332273 wrote:
| Strictly speaking I don't think that's true. If premiums are
| sufficiently high then an insurance company could pay out every
| valid claim and still make a profit.
| advael wrote:
| When you get to decide what claims are valid and profit from
| deciding they're not, the incentives just don't stack up to
| actually covering people adequately, and by this same
| property as well as the obfuscated nature of the internal
| judgments that lead to these conclusions and the infrequent
| occurrence of incidents built into... why risk-pooling makes
| sense for anyone, buyers don't have good enough information
| in advance to drive any selection pressures on acting against
| these incentives
|
| There is no honest insurance company because the mechanism
| design implications of making it possible to be one would
| effectively destroy or nationalize the sector. Thus, it's a
| business that can't not be a scam
| creer wrote:
| Lawyers, courts, regulators have a more powerful word
| against insurance company decisions on claims. Consumer
| organizations could also apply plenty of pressure. Granted
| none of these are worthy solutions for individual small
| claims. And the US don't exactly strive for functional all
| of the above. So - yes in theory the insurance companies
| don't have the last word - and sure, in practice that
| theory feels like it never helps. It should help in a
| serious accident.
| sokoloff wrote:
| Insurance companies can decide what they're willing to pay
| _without being sued_. At the end of the chain, if they
| decline to pay a valid claim, a lawsuit is the next step.
| It's not like they are the final arbiter (pun intended).
| advael wrote:
| So our check against making the financially obvious
| decision to try to get out of the obligation to save
| people from disasters they paid into a risk pool to
| mitigate because they are infrequent enough that adequate
| individual preparation is impractical but devastating
| enough that insuring against them is rational is to hope
| that people who have been stiffed by these companies to
| weather those disasters on their own resources despite
| having paid into the risk pool will then be able to
| muster the wherewithal and finances to bring suit against
| an insurance corporation large enough to credibly claim
| to bulwark that risk afterward
|
| I just can't see why this isn't working
| creer wrote:
| Risk-shifting is a legitimate service. If you buy insurance
| solely because of some legal (often perceived) legal
| requirement, then you are probably buying the wrong insurance
| for your situation. And missing out. After that, yes, the
| people making this their business can be expected to turn a
| profit? That doesn't seem unreasonable.
|
| After that the word you should be looking for is competition:
| competition in keeping costs tight, competition in paying out
| easily, quickly and fairly.
| pkoird wrote:
| > Since then, the number of severe crashes has climbed. It is
| hard to say exactly why.
|
| The article mentions some of the reasons but the one I find
| personally annoying the most are white LED headlights. What in
| the absolute seven hells is wrong with every manufacturers these
| days? White light may give you extra vision but it blinds
| everyone else. Eventually, everyone starts using it and then no
| one will be able to see properly at night anymore. Truly, a
| tragedy of the commons. A swift intervention at the Federal level
| seems like a must.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| I see quite a few searing LED headlights that don't blind me
| because they're angled low enough, I think the biggest problem
| (so to speak) is when they're on towering pickups and SUVs. I
| suspect there's no good way to angle the beams on those to
| allow their drivers to see the road without also frying the
| retinas of normal-sized vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians.
| There also seem to be quite a few iffy aftermarket LEDs, which
| apparently don't always allow for much fine-tuning when they
| replace halogens.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| There was a big NYTimes article about this a few weeks ago,
| and somebody in the comments complain that the bright white
| LED headlights were ruining the proximity sensors on their
| Volvo and they couldn't install optical filters without
| voiding the warranty. To me this seemed weird cause I thought
| those things worked on IR. I'm wondering if there's some sort
| of CV solution to this? I don't see how narrow color
| temperature of LEDs would affect IR sensors, etc.
| yial wrote:
| Leds can output 275nm-950nm.
|
| IR is between 780nm-1mm.
|
| These aren't exact numbers.
|
| Probably something in that overlap was damaging them
| somehow. Or it might be something totally different and the
| person had misdiagnosed.
|
| What I'm uncertain of, is if the led is intended to produce
| a certain color (white, blue) how much it would be emitting
| on the IT spectrum.
|
| Example: https://toshiba.semicon-
| storage.com/us/semiconductor/knowled...
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| LEDs are often straight swapped into housings designed for
| halogen bulbs. Doesn't matter if it's a tiny sports car or a
| huge F350 truck, replacing bulbs this way to going to throw
| light where it shouldn't be. For vehicles with headlights
| higher up from the road, they're more likely to end up
| shining in the eyes of other drivers, but it's still a
| problem of wrong bulb, wrong housing. Larger vehicles can
| have LEDs that have a beam pattern that casts light the
| appropriate area but this usually means a whole new headlight
| assembly instead of a bulb swap and even then, many of the
| aftermarket products aren't designed with property beam
| patterns in mind.
|
| While there are guides available on adjusting headlights,
| they can only help so much when there's a bad combination of
| LED bulb, halogen housing, and high headlight height. Merely
| angling the housing downwards won't solve the problem of
| improper equipment combinations. Wish places like AutoZone
| offered free or inexpensive a beam pattern analysis service
| like they do with checking batteries and error codes. Lots of
| people don't even know their bulb swap is causing problems
| for others.
| Grazester wrote:
| This is especially an issue with non projector housings.
| reisse wrote:
| Wait, are you saying aftermarket LEDs are road legal in US,
| no strings attached?
|
| Throughout Europe it's either straight prohibited to
| retrofit LEDs in place of halogen bulbs, or it requires
| special certification where beam patterns are checked.
| queuebert wrote:
| And most people who lift their trucks don't angle the
| headlights to downward compensate.
| starttoaster wrote:
| Probably makes things worse but I've taken to shining my high
| beams back at those blinding white LED headlights. I need
| something to act as a photonic barrier just so I don't drive
| myself off the road some nights; there aren't too many street
| lights in my area so my eyes will be conditioned for relative
| darkness and then all of the sudden somebody comes barreling
| around a curve with their 6000 lumen tactical blinder
| headlights. My headlights are just old halogens so I barely
| stand a chance. I doubt my high beams even pierce through their
| LED headlights, to be honest. Those things need a dimmer
| switch.
| anon373839 wrote:
| Passing other cars with headlights has always been
| uncomfortable if you look at them. Trucks especially, if
| you're in a car.
|
| The trick is to briefly direct your gaze toward the right
| edge of your lane rather than the center, while you pass. You
| won't be blinded that way.
| ironmagma wrote:
| It's baffling even the police don't care enough to enforce
| this.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| They need equipment that makes objective measurements. Noise
| tickets and tint tickets are rarely issued anymore due to the
| social context of those most likely to attract such tickets.
| Police must use noise meters deployed at a standard distance
| from the source to issue tickets. That a vehicle's exhaust or
| radio is annoying isn't enough in the current environment.
| Same for tint, where a piece of equipment is required to
| determine a vehicle's light passthrough on its tinted
| windows. All of this equipment exists and most police have
| access to it but few want to bother with the hassle and the
| current social context even with objective measures.
| Headlights are just another one of these issues where being
| proactive creates too many troubles. They let the insurance
| companies fight it out in court over if an accident was
| caused by improper equipment.
| tmnvix wrote:
| I mentioned this in another thread, but why can't we regulate
| headlight height? Why do SUVs and pickups trucks have to have
| headlights that are higher than buses and real trucks?
| financypants wrote:
| Yeah, the brightness needs to be regulated. We're all going to
| go night blind at this rate.
| queuebert wrote:
| Is it legal to mount parabolic mirrors on the front of your
| car?
| wilg wrote:
| The good news is that its now legal for the US to have LED
| Matrix headlights. The new Model 3 has this (among others). You
| get the brightness of the headlights but it blocks only the
| area where oncoming cars can see it.
|
| Also, for what you said to make sense you have to do better
| than speculating that brighter headlights allowing people to
| see further is outweighed by them causing glare for oncoming
| drivers. It's entirely possible this is a good safety tradeoff.
| CaptainMarvel wrote:
| What about oncoming cyclists?
|
| Pedestrians?
| wilg wrote:
| Lazy response. No reason that can't happen too. I don't
| know which systems support that. Research it and report
| back!
| tmnvix wrote:
| That does sound like an improvement.
|
| Still, from a very cursory bit of reading it seems that these
| are designed to detect other vehicle headlights only. How
| about pedestrians and cyclists (or even motorcyclists)? I'm
| really not convinced that these sorts of technical solutions
| are the best way to address the problem (in the same way that
| forward and reverse cameras - while helpful - aren't a proper
| solution to good old fashioned line of sight).
| wilg wrote:
| The only way to block line of sight is to erect a wall in
| the middle of the road so I'm not sure what you want.
| Pointing the lights is a tradeoff between seeing in front
| of you and shining the light on other people who are in
| front of you.
|
| There's no reason matrix headlights can't block light for
| any reason, the Teslas and other ADAS systems see bikers
| and pedestrians so I don't see why that wouldn't be
| possible.
| Scubabear68 wrote:
| We live in a very rural area, and the most annoying thing is
| huge pickup trucks with giant light arrays over the cab or on
| the grill, especially the ones that just look like a wall of
| light. The blinding effect is tremendous, and it is doubly
| dangerous in our area because the deer population have
| exploded. I don't know if these are legal or the cops just
| don't care, either way people use them with impunity.
|
| I think the use case is supposed to be hunting and camping, but
| these assholes seem to no blinding everyone around them!
| lobsterthief wrote:
| Sounds like you need to install an even brighter one and turn
| yours on to remind them what it's like
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| What I hate most are the misaligned retro fits. But honestly I
| completely agree with you.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| The problem when someone is killed by a car and their family gets
| $0 of the $100,000 per person payout is not the lack of auto
| insurance. It's a crooked hospital who decided to cheat everyone
| involved.
| vacuity wrote:
| I recently had an uncomfortable realization that driving is a
| bunch of people trying their best and some not trying their best,
| all in a fast-paced context. People needing a car to get to work
| every day...makes me appreciate public transportion all the more.
| We need it last decade.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Or perhaps the healthcare is too expensive? I think my car
| insurance is expensive-ish ($800/yr or so) but I can't imagine
| what it would be if _any_ healthcare for the other party would be
| on the line.
|
| Now, of course I pay for that healthcare one way or another
| anyway, whether I'm involved in the accident or not. Which is why
| there are seatbelt laws, 0.02 percent alcohol limits and drivers
| licenses requiring $1000 or more in driving lessons.
| ttul wrote:
| Here in British Columbia, the car insurance system recently
| received a massive overhaul. Car insurance has long been a public
| monopoly that many complained led to higher prices than in other
| provinces. That much may be true. But the recent overhaul
| involved eliminating the right to sue in most cases, instead
| requiring the insurance company to cover the long term healthcare
| costs of the injured. No longer do the victims of accidents have
| to sue for a settlement.
|
| Of course it's not perfect. Some people have been injured and
| then felt they received less care than they would have otherwise
| under the litigious system. But on balance I think this change is
| likely for the best. It closed of an externality that previously
| led to a great deal of unnecessary expense (on lawyers),
| recognizing that car accidents are largely random.
|
| At a bare minimum, everyone should purchase uninsured motorist
| insurance to the maximum degree possible. If you are injured by
| someone from out-of-state or someone who has no insurance at all,
| you will need it.
| wyldfire wrote:
| > recognizing that car accidents are largely random.
|
| I think maaaaaaaybe that was more of the case twenty years ago.
| But these days, inattentive drivers distracted by you-name-it
| are the cause of many accidents. It doesn't seem random at all.
|
| > everyone should purchase uninsured motorist insurance to the
| maximum degree possible
|
| Absolutely agree with you there.
| btbuildem wrote:
| Random as in you're not deliberately targeted by the
| loathsome subhuman creature piloting the weapon without
| paying any mind to its surroundings.
| jolmg wrote:
| > And in those countries, going into hospital does not mean
| running up a life-altering bill.
|
| I chuckle a bit that the next sentence to that is:
|
| > Why not raise the liability legal limits?
|
| Shouldn't the focus be on the insane hospital costs?
| btbuildem wrote:
| In a sane place, that would be the answer -- in a place where
| healthcare exists to care for people's health, and insurance
| exists to protect from consequences of accidental or deliberate
| damage.
|
| Here, both exist to extract as much profit as possible for the
| operators of each, leaving us the unlucky participants as
| little more than units of measure.
| temporallobe wrote:
| Car insurance rates in FL are among the highest in the nation and
| my rates keep going up. One of the drivers to this (no pun
| intended) is that so many motorists here are uninsured or
| underinsured (and many are not even licensed), as we are only
| required to carry $10k in Personal Injury Protection and $10k in
| Property Damage Liability, and many people carry just that. It's
| also a "no-fault" state, which for simple fender-benders works
| pretty ok, but for more serious accidents can get very
| complicated and costly. It's why we have so many personal injury
| attorneys and our cities are saturated with billboards shouting
| things like "DAN NEWLIN GOT ME $800,000".
| biddit wrote:
| We have a whole grifter-industrial complex built around milking
| your own $10k PIP for any little thing that happens.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| I was hit by an incompetent driver and burned through $40K in
| medical expenses of the $50K mandatory PIP in my state. It is
| a nice thing to have when it's needed.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > One of the drivers to this (no pun intended) is that so many
| motorists here are uninsured or underinsured (and many are not
| even licensed), as we are only required to carry $10k in
| Personal Injury Protection and $10k in Property Damage
| Liability, and many people carry just that.
|
| This could drive up the price of full coverage (i.e.
| uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance), but you're not
| required to buy that. In principle it should also reduce the
| moral hazard of insurance -- if people have less insurance then
| they have to be more careful about causing damage because if
| they do it comes out of their own pocket instead of the
| insurance company's, or puts them at risk of being charged with
| a hit and run if they flee.
|
| The actual problem is that too many people don't own anything
| anymore, because otherwise they would _want_ to carry insurance
| to protect their assets. Leave too many people poor and
| desperate and you can see what happens.
| 0n0n0m0uz wrote:
| Lawyers and fraudelent claims are a big part of the problem. My
| wife rear-ended someone at a slow speed and the other party
| declined ambulance coverage. They were able to drive home no
| problem. A week later they hired a lawyer and my wife caused the
| woman to have a miscarriage. Of course they were unable to
| provide any medical documents confirming even the most basic
| details yet the insurance company still gave them a payout
| probably because it was cheaper than paying attorneys to right
| it. A very similar scenario exists with condo property insurance.
| The lawyers make millions and the consumers premiums keep going
| up.
| viktorcode wrote:
| The title should have been "Health insurance in America is too
| expensive".
| the_mitsuhiko wrote:
| > She quickly discovered that there was little hope of that. The
| driver who killed Seamus had just $100,000 of liability coverage
| per victim
|
| This is pretty wild. The legal minimum coverage in Austria for
| cars is 7.6 Million Euro (6.3M for personal injuries and 1.3M for
| property damage). Apparently in most US states the minimums top
| out at 50k (however they are per victim). Seems widely off
| though.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-03 23:01 UTC)