Ping: Stupid People

[RomaGoth]

New Jersey woman hit by ball sues Little League player for $150k-plus (http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/story/19403449/new-jersey-woman-hit-by-ball-sues-little-league-player-for-150kplus)

Wow. I have so much I want to say regarding this but....wow. It's like beating a dead horse. Why are there so many stupid, irresponsible people on this planet?

Wow.

[DaddyTorgo]

Frivolous lawsuit.

I bet the woman needed plastic surgery beforehand, and this is just a convenient way to get someone else to pay for it.

[Chief Rum]

"Hi. My name is Matthew Migliaccio. I'm from Jersey."

"Obviously."

This kid will no doubt have this conversation many times in his life.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I had much the same reaction as you, but tempered it at least for the time being until there's some corroboration of the player's insistence that he was just warming up the pitcher & a ball got away, etc.

I realized that, even with this longer version of the story than I read previously, all I've really got is the dad's assurance that the accused didn't do something deliberate/irresponsible/negligent/etc.

Sounds like a stupid ass money grab, but I'll suspend raging about that until I've got more than just the potentially liable dad's word for it.

[JediKooter]

it's a Jersey thing, you wouldn't understand.

[Poli]

Someone told me to check in here.

[RomaGoth]

I had much the same reaction as you, but tempered it at least for the time being until there's some corroboration of the player's insistence that he was just warming up the pitcher & a ball got away, etc.

I realized that, even with this longer version of the story than I read previously, all I've really got is the dad's assurance that the accused didn't do something deliberate/irresponsible/negligent/etc.

Sounds like a stupid ass money grab, but I'll suspend raging about that until I've got more than just the potentially liable dad's word for it.

While I appreciate what you are saying here, this idiotic woman has an obligation to be aware of her surroundings, especially at a fucking baseball field. I have been to hundreds of baseball games at all levels, and never once have I been hit with anything. Of course, I also have never felt that the quickest way to not working again is to sue someone else for stupid shit either, but I digress.

[RomaGoth]

Someone told me to check in here.

And I am very happy you did!

[Lathum]

it's a Jersey thing, you wouldn't understand.

No.

No it isn't.

But if she is from Manchester it makes a little more sense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I appreciate what you are saying here, this idiotic woman has an obligation to be aware of her surroundings, especially at a fucking baseball field.

I was thinking of the possibility that the kid basically, for whatever bizarro reason, chucked one at her. Something like that, "aware" probably isn't gonna protect most folks from.

Random crap: errant throw, foul ball, etc. falls under risks associated with being at the ballpark afaic, something deliberate would probably be a different story for me.

[Subby]

While I appreciate what you are saying here, this idiotic woman has an obligation to be aware of her surroundings, especially at a fucking baseball field. I have been to hundreds of baseball games at all levels, and never once have I been hit with anything. Of course, I also have never felt that the quickest way to not working again is to sue someone else for stupid shit either, but I digress.
Maybe the lawsuit is frivolous, but your reasoning is kind of silly. Have you ever been to a little league park? There are often multiple games going at once, plus any number of kids warming up to play the next games. Add to that the social nature of Little League with parents chit chatting or giving their kids money for the snackbar, etc. and you actually have a pretty reasonable number of distracted individuals at any one time. The Little League I help run has all manner of nets and warning signs and tall fences and people shouting "HEADS" and I still see folks get hit from time to time.

The bottom line is that you need to listen to JimGA. Wait for all of the facts to come out before you start sputtering apoplectic message board rage.

[ISiddiqui]

I'm with JIMG. Something is fishy about the story. For one the woman's primary charge is referencing an intentional & reckless throw, the second charge is negligence through engaging in inappropriate physical activity near her.

So I think the charges appear to be that he deliberately threw at her. In that case, this isn't as frivolous as it appears.

Without more facts, I don't think we can jump to anything.

[ISiddiqui]

Another view from the local paper (the Asbury Park Press, which is my local paper when I was Jersey):

http://www.app.com/article/20120621/NJNEWS/306210092/Woman-sues-Manchester-Little-League-player-over-injuries-from-overthrown-ball?odyssey=nav|head

The picture indicates the fence appears to be decently high between the bullpen and picnic table.

This is an interesting juxtaposition:

“I ran over to see if she was all right,” Matthew, now 13, said during an interview, with his father at his side. “She said she was OK. I was just on with warming the pitcher up, and I was not horsing around.”

According to the lawsuit, Lloyd contends Matthew intentionally struck her, causing permanent injuries. Mian said the suit was filed after attempts to reach a settlement with insurance companies failed.

“He throws his best fast ball over the bullpen into the picnic area, striking my client in the face,” Mian said. “Life is now different for my client.”


Mian said Lloyd – who was taken to a hospital emergency room after the May 2010 incident – had to undergo reconstructive surgery and suffers from headaches.

So the kid says he ran over and the woman said she was ok. The woman's lawyer said she had to go to the ER after the incident. I don't think they both can be true unless she originally said she was ok, but then others decided she should go to the hospital which showed significant damage?

[RedKingGold]

Maybe the lawsuit is frivolous, but your reasoning is kind of silly. Have you ever been to a little league park? There are often multiple games going at once, plus any number of kids warming up to play the next games. Add to that the social nature of Little League with parents chit chatting or giving their kids money for the snackbar, etc. and you actually have a pretty reasonable number of distracted individuals at any one time. The Little League I help run has all manner of nets and warning signs and tall fences and people shouting "HEADS" and I still see folks get hit from time to time.

The bottom line is that you need to listen to JimGA. Wait for all of the facts to come out before you start sputtering apoplectic message board rage.

Now, now. Don't let something like "reason" get in the way of some good hyperbole and stereotype.

[Dutch]

Even if the kid did it on purpose and the lady had a broken nose, $150K seems excessive. ("...not a licensed attorney...")

[B & B]

You have 2 years from the incident to file a lawsuit, looks like she did just that.

I was in a auto crash in HS and the lady waited 2 years and then sued my insurance company for a similar six figure number. In the meantime I was in college and missed classes/work numeroustimes just to drive an hour back to meet with the lawyers, sign paperwork, make official statements and bring witnesses.

Turns out this lady had already been involved in around a half dozen other suits including workmans comp, etc. She had sued her bosses, coworkers, and at least 3 other auto accidents. Had so many settlements and previous injuries that it was hard to determine what , if anything , was caused by our collision. (I drove my car home afterwards)

For what it takes in court fees and how much my lawyer was getting paid (by Allstate) they decided it was cheaper just to offer her 15k to go away.

She declined.


We went to a full on jury trial, which caused further school absenses and inconvienience. Coolest part was being on the defendant side and striking members of the jury with my attorney.

The judge is my case was a hardass, and I found out he was a former lawyer working for Larry Flynt when he was shot and paralyzed. Three days later she was awarded her victory for 'missed work' and whatnot. Not a penny of punitive damages. She got somewhere around 6k. Not too sure what that is after paying her legal fees. I smiled, looked at her and just shook my head.

[Desnudo]

I read there was a second thrower by the snack bar. May be more to this than we think.

[Lathum]

I read there was a second thrower by the snack bar. May be more to this than we think.

Was it roger McDowell?

[Marc Vaughan]

For what it takes in court fees and how much my lawyer was getting paid (by Allstate) they decided it was cheaper just to offer her 15k to go away.
Something is seriously wrong with the American legal system feeding itself on this shit - my wife hit a car at barely 5mph (wet weather, foot slipped off brake while stopped at lights).

Both parties fine (walking, talking no problems at all), fenders dented .... over a year later the lady in the car settles with the insurance company for $10k for her injuries ... I mean wtf?

Surely in this sort of scenario (and yours) the accuser should be done for 'contempt of court' or something for just wasting the courts time with crap rather than rewarded and encouraged to be an arsehole in future?

(that did scare the shit out of me with regards to the maximum cover on our car insurance which I increased somewhat afterwards)

[RedKingGold]

Tort reform is a frequently debated topic, at least in the Pennsylvania legislature.

If you're at all interested, you should watch the documentary "Hot Coffee". It was on HBO for quite awhile.

[JPhillips]

Something is seriously wrong with the American legal system feeding itself on this shit - my wife hit a car at barely 5mph (wet weather, foot slipped off brake while stopped at lights).

Both parties fine (walking, talking no problems at all), fenders dented .... over a year later the lady in the car settles with the insurance company for $10k for her injuries ... I mean wtf?

Surely in this sort of scenario (and yours) the accuser should be done for 'contempt of court' or something for just wasting the courts time with crap rather than rewarded and encouraged to be an arsehole in future?

(that did scare the shit out of me with regards to the maximum cover on our car insurance which I increased somewhat afterwards)

I wouldn't say good for her, but I don't feel for the insurance company. I was hit on I-95 and it totaled my car. Neither my wife or I was hurt. All I wanted was a rental car for long enough to buy a new car and a replacement for my car equivalent to the DC market. I didn't ask for missed work or any other damages. AllState still fought over every penny. I got to a point where I promised to never deal with an insurance company without a lawyer. There is no way to have an honest settlement with them.

[Lathum]

For what it takes in court fees and how much my lawyer was getting paid (by Allstate) they decided it was cheaper just to offer her 15k to go away.

which is almost always the case

Something is seriously wrong with the American legal system feeding itself on this shit - my wife hit a car at barely 5mph (wet weather, foot slipped off brake while stopped at lights).

Both parties fine (walking, talking no problems at all), fenders dented .... over a year later the lady in the car settles with the insurance company for $10k for her injuries ... I mean wtf?

Surely in this sort of scenario (and yours) the accuser should be done for 'contempt of court' or something for just wasting the courts time with crap rather than rewarded and encouraged to be an arsehole in future?

(that did scare the shit out of me with regards to the maximum cover on our car insurance which I increased somewhat afterwards)

Most people don't carry enough property damage insurance. They just assume "oh well, I have insurance" not realizing their 50K limits don't mean shit if they destroy someones RV or Ferrari. If you stand to lose anything, a house, 401K, etc...max out your PD limits.

I wouldn't say good for her, but I don't feel for the insurance company. I was hit on I-95 and it totaled my car. Neither my wife or I was hurt. All I wanted was a rental car for long enough to buy a new car and a replacement for my car equivalent to the DC market. I didn't ask for missed work or any other damages. AllState still fought over every penny. I got to a point where I promised to never deal with an insurance company without a lawyer. There is no way to have an honest settlement with them.

Sorry but there just aren't enough details here to not call BS. Was rental car reimbursement part of your policy that you purchased? Often people feel they should just be given a rental car when they haven't purchased that coverage as part of their policy just because their car was totaled. It isn't any different than had a tree fallen on your car and you didn't carry comprehensive, it wouldn't be covered and why would they give something away for free.

The bigger issue is you said you wanted a rental car for
"long enough" to get a replacement car. Right there you destroy any argument you had. You can't say you feel you deserve something for an undefined amount of time. That isn't how businesses operate, nor should they. What is "long enough" for you may not be long enough for someone else and more than enough time for yet someone else. That is why there is a set timeframe. And of course there is also a huge number of people who would take advantage if you just let the keep a rental car "as long as it takes" to find a replacement.

Also- good luck not losing money if you have a attorney represent you in a property damage claim unless you drive a 100K car. You will lose more in fees than anything you would gain in settlements. Not to even mention you likely would lose since insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industry there is, so unless they we doing something ultra shady, which Allstate likely isn't, you wouldn't have much of a case. You may be able to argue the condition of your car is better than they gave you credit for, which may earn a few hundred dollars more on a settlement

[Marc Vaughan]

I wouldn't say good for her, but I don't feel for the insurance company. I was hit on I-95 and it totaled my car. Neither my wife or I was hurt. All I wanted was a rental car for long enough to buy a new car and a replacement for my car equivalent to the DC market. I didn't ask for missed work or any other damages. AllState still fought over every penny. I got to a point where I promised to never deal with an insurance company without a lawyer. There is no way to have an honest settlement with them.

I don't feel for the insurance company - tbh the impression I get is that this effectively cost them nothing, they just bump up peoples premiums and you have no option but to pay realistically.

(I'm paying around 10x more for our car insurance here than I did in the UK - back home you just took "third-party, fire and theft", because of the lack of legal issues thats all you realistically ever needed - basically if you hit something you repaired your own car and other peoples problems were covered)

[Lathum]

I don't feel for the insurance company - tbh the impression I get is that this effectively cost them nothing, they just bump up peoples premiums and you have no option but to pay realistically.



That is not entirely accurate. Of course if someone causes an accident their premiums are going to go up, but in most instances not enough to "make back" the money lost from the claim. Their premium goes up based on risk. They caused an accident, they are now looked at as more of a risk to their property and other drivers.

As for having no options that isn't true. Like any other product for sale there is a price point where people will stop purchasing, regardless of what the government says. You also need to factor in the amount of competition out there. The number one most important goal for insurance companies is retaining their current customers. If you pay someones claim, then they leave because you jack their rates so high then you have zero chance of ever getting that money back from their premiums.

[Marc Vaughan]

That is not entirely accurate. Of course if someone causes an accident their premiums are going to go up, but in most instances not enough to "make back" the money lost from the claim. Their premium goes up based on risk. They caused an accident, they are now looked at as more of a risk to their property and other drivers.
Cough.

Its correct that insurance premiums should rise, but the rises (in all countries not just the US) are substantially more than make mathematical sense with regards to punishing someone for an accident.

Its simply the insurance company gouging as much as they can from the customer safe in the knowledge that other insurance companies would charge them a similar amount so the consumer has no real choice in the matter.

You can say people can choose 'not' to have insurance, but most people are law abiding and have a quite reasonable fear of going to jail .... as such its not really an option for me.

[JPhillips]

which is almost always the case



Most people don't carry enough property damage insurance. They just assume "oh well, I have insurance" not realizing their 50K limits don't mean shit if they destroy someones RV or Ferrari. If you stand to lose anything, a house, 401K, etc...max out your PD limits.



Sorry but there just aren't enough details here to not call BS. Was rental car reimbursement part of your policy that you purchased? Often people feel they should just be given a rental car when they haven't purchased that coverage as part of their policy just because their car was totaled. It isn't any different than had a tree fallen on your car and you didn't carry comprehensive, it wouldn't be covered and why would they give something away for free.

The bigger issue is you said you wanted a rental car for
"long enough" to get a replacement car. Right there you destroy any argument you had. You can't say you feel you deserve something for an undefined amount of time. That isn't how businesses operate, nor should they. What is "long enough" for you may not be long enough for someone else and more than enough time for yet someone else. That is why there is a set timeframe. And of course there is also a huge number of people who would take advantage if you just let the keep a rental car "as long as it takes" to find a replacement.

Also- good luck not losing money if you have a attorney represent you in a property damage claim unless you drive a 100K car. You will lose more in fees than anything you would gain in settlements. Not to even mention you likely would lose since insurance is one of the most heavily regulated industry there is, so unless they we doing something ultra shady, which Allstate likely isn't, you wouldn't have much of a case. You may be able to argue the condition of your car is better than they gave you credit for, which may earn a few hundred dollars more on a settlement

Your bullshit detector is broken.

It wasn't on my policy. When I've had claims on my policy it has been generally fine, but when I'm not a paying customer of the insurance company it has been a pain in the ass.

In this case, the other driver lost control and was 100% responsible. I needed a rental for two weeks and AllState initially said one week, with no weekends, was all they would cover. After arguing a lot I eventually got two weeks. With work there was no way I could shop for and purchase a car in five days. The initial offer on my car was less than I could find any similar make/models in the DC area. Only when I presented them with about a half a dozen ads proving that I couldn't purchase a replacement for the money they offered did they budge. After that they bumped up the offer.

I know I wouldn't get as much if I used an attorney, but at that point I didn't care. I tried to deal with them honestly and they tried to nickel and dime me over everything. I hated dealing with them and would have been fine getting ten percent less if they spent ten percent more.

[Lathum]

Cough.

Its correct that insurance premiums should rise, but the rises (in all countries not just the US) are substantially more than make mathematical sense with regards to punishing someone for an accident.

Its simply the insurance company gouging as much as they can from the customer safe in the knowledge that other insurance companies would charge them a similar amount so the consumer has no real choice in the matter.

You can say people can choose 'not' to have insurance, but most people are law abiding and have a quite reasonable fear of going to jail .... as such its not really an option for me.

Insurance premiums in other countries seem pretty irrelevant to me in this discussion. Other countries charge far more for gas than we do, so what you are saying is Exxon/Mobile is some generous company giving their product away?

Gouging is a strong word. Like I said, it is such a heavily regulated industry that they charge what is dictated by their competition, same as any other industry. FWIW my company pays out over 85% of everything it takes in from premiums back into claims, that doesn't count operating expenses. The percentage of premiums that are pure profit is less than 5%. Other companies pay out MORE than they take in, reason being is so they can have auto to bundle into homeowners, etc... So if anything as an industry they are undercharging.

As for uninsured motorists. A quick google search turns this article up.

– USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-11/uninsured-drivers/50363390/1)

13% of drivers not insured, including 24% in your home state. So every 4th driver you pass on your way to work is uninsured.

[Lathum]

Your bullshit detector is broken.

It wasn't on my policy. When I've had claims on my policy it has been generally fine, but when I'm not a paying customer of the insurance company it has been a pain in the ass.

In this case, the other driver lost control and was 100% responsible. I needed a rental for two weeks and AllState initially said one week, with no weekends, was all they would cover. After arguing a lot I eventually got two weeks. With work there was no way I could shop for and purchase a car in five days. The initial offer on my car was less than I could find any similar make/models in the DC area. Only when I presented them with about a half a dozen ads proving that I couldn't purchase a replacement for the money they offered did they budge. After that they bumped up the offer.

I know I wouldn't get as much if I used an attorney, but at that point I didn't care. I tried to deal with them honestly and they tried to nickel and dime me over everything. I hated dealing with them and would have been fine getting ten percent less if they spent ten percent more.

Why would they arbitrarily offer to pay more up front. They are in the business of protecting their customers and their business. Don't forget they are a business whose goal is to make money for their investors.

As for the duration they offered, liability, etc... that was why I told you there wasn't enough info. One week with a car is pretty generous. However they should have given you the weekend with it for sure. As for the settlement, I can't speak for how Allstate handles that. My company does a search for comparative vehicles in the area to come to an average. To me we are very fair.

so many people don't realize when they are in an accident it is the insurance company's job to protect their insured and themselves, not to make the other parties life as easy as possible. The reality is to many people would take advantage, not saying you were doing this and I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I try and treat people better than that, but you have to have set parameters or people would take advantage.

It just irritates me that people seem to think when I get up in the morning,rub my hands together and try and figure out how to screw people that day ( by I meaning insurance company employees)

[JonInMiddleGA]

They are in the business of protecting their customers and their business. Don't forget they are a business whose goal is to make money for their investors.

The ease with which this basic fact is overlooked by enormous swaths of the public never ceases to amaze me.

[JPhillips]

Why would they arbitrarily offer to pay more up front. They are in the business of protecting their customers and their business. Don't forget they are a business whose goal is to make money for their investors.

As for the duration they offered, liability, etc... that was why I told you there wasn't enough info. One week with a car is pretty generous. However they should have given you the weekend with it for sure. As for the settlement, I can't speak for how Allstate handles that. My company does a search for comparative vehicles in the area to come to an average. To me we are very fair.

so many people don't realize when they are in an accident it is the insurance company's job to protect their insured and themselves, not to make the other parties life as easy as possible. The reality is to many people would take advantage, not saying you were doing this and I'm sorry you had a bad experience. I try and treat people better than that, but you have to have set parameters or people would take advantage.

It just irritates me that people seem to think when I get up in the morning,rub my hands together and try and figure out how to screw people that day ( by I meaning insurance company employees)

I don't think they or you are trying to screw people, but the adversarial relationship is so ingrained that in my experience you can expect to be screwed if you aren't a strong negotiator. That's what I mean when I say you can't have an honest process. I purposefully started at what I thought was reasonable and didn't ask for damages outside of what transportation I needed and the replacement rate for my vehicle. I eventually got that, but only after a lot of fighting. If I would have started with demands for medical expenses, lost work, loss of consortium, etc. I probably would have fought just a little more and come away with more money.

If the game is who is the best negotiator, there isn't any way I'd play that again without an attorney. For me, doing anything else is taking a knife to a gunfight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's what I mean when I say you can't have an honest process.

Hmm ... I don't know that it's a "dishonest" process if you approach it rationally.

Their job is to make money, your job (as a claimant) is to get money. That's pretty straightforward. No different than most other transactions really, it's always safe to assume that what's best for you isn't what's best (or most desirable) for the other party.

Just a matter of how you look at it I suppose.

[Lathum]

I don't think they or you are trying to screw people, but the adversarial relationship is so ingrained that in my experience you can expect to be screwed if you aren't a strong negotiator. That's what I mean when I say you can't have an honest process. I purposefully started at what I thought was reasonable and didn't ask for damages outside of what transportation I needed and the replacement rate for my vehicle. I eventually got that, but only after a lot of fighting. If I would have started with demands for medical expenses, lost work, loss of consortium, etc. I probably would have fought just a little more and come away with more money.

If the game is who is the best negotiator, there isn't any way I'd play that again without an attorney. For me, doing anything else is taking a knife to a gunfight.

I can't speak for other companies, but we don't negotiate with regards to property damage. We run the numbers through a third party, it spits out a settlement and that is what we present you. Unless you can prove we calculated something incorrectly, forgot an options, etc. that is the offer. If you don't like it you can always go through your own insurance or contact the insurance commission and file a complaint.

As for the rental car, again, keep in mind that it isn't the other parties insurance companies job to make your life easier. It is their job to compensate you for their insurance causing damages to your property.

That being said I personally don't operate that way. I try and treat people right within reason if I can.

[JPhillips]

Hmm ... I don't know that it's a "dishonest" process if you approach it rationally.

Their job is to make money, your job (as a claimant) is to get money. That's pretty straightforward. No different than most other transactions really, it's always safe to assume that what's best for you isn't what's best (or most desirable) for the other party.

Just a matter of how you look at it I suppose.

I agree, and I was probably naive to think otherwise, but I surely don't also have to see them as anything but an adversary. They can't be both fair and trying to spend as little money as possible.

[Lathum]

I agree, and I was probably naive to think otherwise, but I surely don't also have to see them as anything but an adversary. They can't be both fair and trying to spend as little money as possible.

Sure they can, it just depends on your definition of fair. They certainly operate within the confines of the law, so if you don't think it is fair don't hate the insurance company, hate the legislatures who create the laws that regulate the industry.

[gstelmack]

...
For what it takes in court fees and how much my lawyer was getting paid (by Allstate) they decided it was cheaper just to offer her 15k to go away.

She declined.

...
She got somewhere around 6k. Not too sure what that is after paying her legal fees. I smiled, looked at her and just shook my head.

I've probably told this story a few times, but I'll tell it again. The one time I did jury duty and got on a case was a similar story. Young woman rear-ends a car, woman hit goes to hospital, starts complaing of nerve damage, can't ride a horse anymore, and sues for medical bills and pain and suffering, some similar large amount. Defendant and insurance company balk and offer to settle for $5K.

During the trial, the defendant's lawyer finds out that the same lady was involved in one of the breast implant lawsuit, complaing of the exact same symptoms prior to the accident.

So we on the jury took about 60 seconds to find that the defendant was responsible, then went through the medical bills line-by-line until we found where the doctors were starting to treat her for the nerve damage issues. We then awarded everything up to that point.

Plaintiff got around $3500 :D

[Lathum]

I've probably told this story a few times, but I'll tell it again. The one time I did jury duty and got on a case was a similar story. Young woman rear-ends a car, woman hit goes to hospital, starts complaing of nerve damage, can't ride a horse anymore, and sues for medical bills and pain and suffering, some similar large amount. Defendant and insurance company balk and offer to settle for $5K.

During the trial, the defendant's lawyer finds out that the same lady was involved in one of the breast implant lawsuit, complaing of the exact same symptoms prior to the accident.

So we on the jury took about 60 seconds to find that the defendant was responsible, then went through the medical bills line-by-line until we found where the doctors were starting to treat her for the nerve damage issues. We then awarded everything up to that point.

Plaintiff got around $3500 :D

This sums up perfectly how countless people try and screw insurance companies, yet the perception is insurance companies are constantly trying to screw everyone. In reality they are just protecting their own interests and their investors.

[Danny]

Lathum, stop screwing people!

[JPhillips]

Sure they can, it just depends on your definition of fair. They certainly operate within the confines of the law, so if you don't think it is fair don't hate the insurance company, hate the legislatures who create the laws that regulate the industry.

Since when does legal=fair?

[Marc Vaughan]

Insurance premiums in other countries seem pretty irrelevant to me in this discussion. Other countries charge far more for gas than we do, so what you are saying is Exxon/Mobile is some generous company giving their product away?
There are usually factors causing the discrepancies in pricing, either because of taxes location, need (or lack of) the item in the region or something similar.

In America's case the biggest reason I can see for the pricing discrepancy is the legal side of things - the biggest reason for the legal side of things (ie. lawsuits over nothing) is that insurance companies settle and reward people for said lawsuits ....

The cost of the lawsuits thus allow the insurance companies to justify their charges because they're only making 15% profit over their income after all .... however if the lawsuits weren't as common (which they wouldn't if they weren't basically auto-wins without being contested in most cases) then the amount being paid out wouldn't be as huge meaning that the corporations would lose their excuse for high charging etc.

That in effect means its in the insurance corporations best interests to keep paying out on lawsuits and passing on the charges to consumers, as it maximises their profits in two ways - (1) it scares people into heavy insurance cover because of fear of such a lawsuit hitting them, (2) it increases their profits because they can charge people more because if the fear of not being able to pay and losing everything.

Now I'll readily accept that this isn't 'all' the insurance companies fault and the legal setup with compensation in the US is at least partially to blame - but I also think that the current status quo is in the insurance companies best interests and they're hardly likely to fight against it ..

Gouging is a strong word.
Yes it is - I said it intentionally (sorry not a great fan of insurance companies ;) ).

As for uninsured motorists. A quick google search turns this article up.
13% of drivers not insured, including 24% in your home state. So every 4th driver you pass on your way to work is uninsured.
Out of interest (as I don't know) - what is the punishment for driving uninsured in most states?

Back home you lose your licence and get hit with large fines.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Out of interest (as I don't know) - what is the punishment for driving uninsured in most states?

Generally speaking the penalty seems to be a combination of fines & suspension of license and/or tag (i.e no insurance means the car itself is not legal to be on the road).

That said however it seems that mostly serves as a revenue generator for the state as much as a deterrent. I mean, we're talking about people who are willing to drive illegally without insurance, how many of them aren't going to be almost equally willing to drive illegally without a valid license/registration?

[bhlloy]

Anectodally, when I was in court to fight a traffic ticket here in CA, 95% of the cases being called before the judge seemed to be no ID/no insurance combo. In each case, the person was hit with a fine and told to talk to the cashier to arrange paying for it.

Which seems absolutely, 100% batshit insane to me. We know these people are out there driving without ID and insurance and they just go back on the road after paying a few hundred bucks? Way to actually do something about the situation legal system. As Jon says, it's just a way to make the state some money and the rest of us eat the consequences.

[Marc Vaughan]

Generally speaking the penalty seems to be a combination of fines & suspension of license and/or tag (i.e no insurance means the car itself is not legal to be on the road).

That said however it seems that mostly serves as a revenue generator for the state as much as a deterrent. I mean, we're talking about people who are willing to drive illegally without insurance, how many of them aren't going to be almost equally willing to drive illegally without a valid license/registration?

What happens for a second offense - does it escalate at all? (ie. second offense when you have no valid licence = balls kicked in severely & vehicle impounded ... I believe thats how things operate in the UK).

[JonInMiddleGA]

What happens for a second offense - does it escalate at all? (ie. second offense when you have no valid licence = balls kicked in severely & vehicle impounded ... I believe thats how things operate in the UK).

I can get a junker used car cheaper, in some cases, than these drivers can get insurance. Short of jailing them -- in jails that are already overcrowded -- how else are you going to keep them off the road? There's around 15 million licensed drivers in Florida, up to 1/4th of those have no insurance. Got 3-4 million jail cells handy?

And that's just the licensed drivers, there's another estimated 2.2 million driving without a license (http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/accidents/one-in-10-motorists-drives-without-a-license-expert-says/1189901) ... all of whom are guaranteed to be uninsured.

Not defending them in the least, just acknowledging the practical realities of it. Also worth noting here that it varies considerably state by state, in both insurance requirements & punishment for violations.

And, just as an aside I guess, the strongest correlation for percentage of uninsured motorists seems to be unemployment rate, or at least a strong correlation between a rise in one and a rise in the other.

[sabotai]

Doing a bit of googling, I found that for NJ, you get a fine of $300-$1000, community service and you lose your license for a year. Those are mandatory penalties. (probably..."mandatory"...).

Second offense is 14 days in jail, a fine of $500-$500, 180 hours of community service, suspension of license for 2 year, and you get 9 insurance eligibility points.

And in both cases, you pay a yearly DMV surcharge of $250 for 3 years.

While looking this up, I also found the punishment for driving drunk. It's better to be an insured drunk driver than an uninsured one (except you could get up to 30 days in jail for driving drunk, but off my anecdotal evidence, that hardly ever happens)

EDIT: Driving while your license is suspended due to conviction of driving without insured: $1000 fine and up to 90 days in jail. You have to be on your 2nd drunk driving conviction to get that.

[CU Tiger]

Few points in some states you can pay a bond and sign a form and not carry any insurance. (SC =$500 and never carry insurance again) Of course its stupid to do so if you have a net worth in the black at all, but I have known people to willingly take the gamble during difficult times.

The only point I would debate with Lathum (and debate may not be accurate I sense he may get this, making him in the .0001% range of all involved in the insurance arena) is minimizing the expense in a given instance may not always equal maximizing overall profits. Case in point, when I owned my business and had 30+ vehicles on the road. On of my trucks was totaled by an under the influence driver. They were insured by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual was so easy at handling my claim and made the whole process so painless that I left the company I had been with for 5 years and moved all my business to them at a 2% premium. Granted that is the 50 cent version of the story, but in their case spending a little more money on my claim then they could have gotten away with legally earned them enough to pay for the claim about 20 times over during the next 4 years.

On the flip side, my wife was hit from behind when our daughter was very young. (maybe 9 months) my daughter went into hysterics and was puling her hair and holding her head and was taken by ambulance to the hospital. Turned out all was well no harm no foul just a scared baby. Well that insurance company couldnt wait to give me a check for pain and suffering, despite me refusing and telling them fix the car and cover the doctor bill no more. They refused. In the end I had my attorney draft a letter saying I did not intend to sue as I had no damages but I also did not want to accept undue money to get them to pay me. That company I will never do business with again either.

[Marc Vaughan]

I can get a junker used car cheaper, in some cases, than these drivers can get insurance. Short of jailing them -- in jails that are already overcrowded -- how else are you going to keep them off the road? There's around 15 million licensed drivers in Florida, up to 1/4th of those have no insurance. Got 3-4 million jail cells handy?
Surely though that is proof that something within the system is wrong and needs reform rather than a reason to ignore the fact that there are people driving without insurance?

After all those people not paying aren't 'truly' not paying - whenever they have an accident or injure someone ... someone within society pays even if they themselves can't ... plus basically you're saying there is a law, but a huge proportion of society aren't complying and its accepted, that surely indicates the law is (as they say) an arse ...

Few points in some states you can pay a bond and sign a form and not carry any insurance. (SC =$500 and never carry insurance again) Of course its stupid to do so if you have a net worth in the black at all, but I have known people to willingly take the gamble during difficult times.
Just 'wow' .... exactly how/why is that allowed? .. even the most basic fender bender costs more than that and if someone can't afford insurance then chances are their vehicle isn't going to be exactly well maintained etc.

(is it just me who doesn't think having motorised transport is a 'right' and that if you can't afford it you shouldn't have it?)

[Marc Vaughan]

PS - On the 'rights' front, when I first moved to Florida it might amuse you to know that I didn't have a driving licence (had ridden motorbikes in England as a kid, but never cars).

For the first two months over here, while I learnt to drive, I cycled most places was quite good exercise ... I'm still not a huge fan of driving myself and often cycle down to the local shops here (about 3-4 miles away) as a preference.

[sabotai]

(is it just me who doesn't think having motorised transport is a 'right' and that if you can't afford it you shouldn't have it?)

No, you're not the only one. Driving is absolutely not a right.

[Autumn]

I can get a junker used car cheaper, in some cases, than these drivers can get insurance. Short of jailing them -- in jails that are already overcrowded -- how else are you going to keep them off the road?

Don't you just increase the penalty to a dollar amount that no longer makes it worth risking going without insurance? If the penalty is big enough, people will change their risk calculation.

[Autumn]

And, just as an aside I guess, the strongest correlation for percentage of uninsured motorists seems to be unemployment rate, or at least a strong correlation between a rise in one and a rise in the other.

Also this is the closest Jon has ever come to sounding like a liberal. I'd like this moment marked down.

[Lathum]

The only point I would debate with Lathum (and debate may not be accurate I sense he may get this, making him in the .0001% range of all involved in the insurance arena) is minimizing the expense in a given instance may not always equal maximizing overall profits. Case in point, when I owned my business and had 30+ vehicles on the road. On of my trucks was totaled by an under the influence driver. They were insured by Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual was so easy at handling my claim and made the whole process so painless that I left the company I had been with for 5 years and moved all my business to them at a 2% premium. Granted that is the 50 cent version of the story, but in their case spending a little more money on my claim then they could have gotten away with legally earned them enough to pay for the claim about 20 times over during the next 4 years.


Absolutely correct. Anytime we handle property damages for a claimant it is looked at as an opportunity to gain a new customer. Treat people right and they appreciate it and remember it. The problem is that you still are in business to protect your insured, so there are times when it is perceived as "screwing" someone.

I personally don't treat a claimant or insured any differently unless I have to based off the facts of loss and my customer service scores are the highest in my office. There is something to be said about treating people right.

[Lathum]

Don't you just increase the penalty to a dollar amount that no longer makes it worth risking going without insurance? If the penalty is big enough, people will change their risk calculation.

Not really. You can't get blood from a stone.

[Autumn]

Well, but if they're paying the current fines, there's clearly room to move upwards. There's a percentage of them that have some amount of money, and don't want to spend it.

[Marc Vaughan]

Not really. You can't get blood from a stone.

Then you're indicating that these people are 'outside the law' and that they'll continue to do what they want regardless of consequences? .... I find that hard to believe or surely they'd be holding up convenience stores and rioting the streets far more regularly? ;)

As an aside a seperate approach to fining the individual might be to regulate car or petrol sales more stringently? ... ie. automatic check of a persons driving status when you purchase either with fines to the individual/business who sell to someone without a licence?

(before anyone says you can't do that - alcohol sales are regulated ...)

[Lathum]

As an aside a seperate approach to fining the individual might be to regulate car or petrol sales more stringently? ... ie. automatic check of a persons driving status when you purchase either with fines to the individual/business who sell to someone without a licence?

(before anyone says you can't do that - alcohol sales are regulated ...)

Who pays for it? Not to mention do you really think car dealerships are willing to lose a sale because of that? In states where it is mandatory to show proof of insurance prior to leaving the lot people just call and cancel the policy as soon as they drive off the lot

[Marc Vaughan]

Who pays for it? Not to mention do you really think car dealerships are willing to lose a sale because of that? In states where it is mandatory to show proof of insurance prior to leaving the lot people just call and cancel the policy as soon as they drive off the lot

Some people might get around things like that - but it'd encourage some to have it at least in the immediate future, there are always wallies around - the idea is to encourage people to behave in a way which betters society.

At present by the sounds of it driving without insurance is tolerated and indeed 'accepted' by society, making the perception of this unacceptable through various mediums would be the best approach to preventing it - part of this has to be making it obvious that its being treated as a serious offence, the rest of it would have to be public awareness campaigns etc.

(20 years ago in England the public perception of drink driving was very similar to in the US (ie. everyone does it, no big deal) .... today its very rare because people are aware of (1) the effect it can have on their driving, (2) they could kill someone, (3) the fines/punishment for it are SERIOUS)

PS - If someone cancels that close to purchasing a vehicle in this day and age it wouldn't be 'rocket science' to have a computer automatically flag the vehicle as likely being without insurance - then have the police simply pull the car over if its spotted in the area, if they can't prove insurance then impound said vehicle end of problem (if this sounds like a very harsh line to take for someone who's 'liberal' bear in mind my stance is generally for the good of society, people acting like arseholes and risking other peoples well being isn't good for society .. plus if its tolerated within society then it encourages other people to follow suit).

[Toddzilla]

Marc Vaughan for City Council

[JonInMiddleGA]

Also this is the closest Jon has ever come to sounding like a liberal. I'd like this moment marked down.

Eh, it seems to be a factual statement, and I'm not sure whether it's so much liberal or conservative as it is just plain ol' reality.

I thought it was interesting that the latest thing I saw as I was looking at various numbers pointed out that there was (paraphrasing here 'cause it's late & I'm tired) a stronger connection between uninsured rates & unemployment rates than even uninsured & illegal immigration (although not a ton stronger).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then you're indicating that these people are 'outside the law' and that they'll continue to do what they want regardless of consequences?

So it is, so it like shall largely remain since we lack the resources to build adequate jails to hold them all.

ie. automatic check of a persons driving status when you purchase either with fines to the individual/business who sell to someone without a licence?

Most states haven't even automated the insurance checking process for police yet, there's a better chance of printer cartridges* flying out of my bum than seeing one emerge that could allow access for retailers.

And from personal experience, even those who have an automatic system for it (like Georgia) have one that's pretty imperfect; i.e. people without are listed with and vice versa. Had the latter happen to me years back when it first began, we were still in the beta period of the system so no harm no foul.
Nowadays however, at least here, you can & will go to jail, directly to jail, without passing Go if the system says you don't have insurance.

*(handy inanimate object in my field of vision)

(before anyone says you can't do that - alcohol sales are regulated ...)

Well, there's attempts to regulate it. Rather weak in practice though, in terms of effectively denying the product to ineligible consumers.

[Autumn]

Eh, it seems to be a factual statement, and I'm not sure whether it's so much liberal or conservative as it is just plain ol' reality.

I agree it's reality. But by pointing it out in that context it's suggesting this is an extenuating circumstance which explains the behavior and makes it difficult to deal with it. In most instances, considering the possible reasons for law breaking, or the context of it, is a liberal tool.

If I made a similar point about, for example, drug use, I doubt you would consider it a relevant detail when talking about someone who has broken a law. Usually it seems you're in the "the law's the law" camp. We don't have room in jails for drug users any more than we do for people driving without insurance.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I agree it's reality. But by pointing it out in that context it's suggesting this is an extenuating circumstance which explains the behavior and makes it difficult to deal with it. In most instances, considering the possible reasons for law breaking, or the context of it, is a liberal tool.

Yeah, I get where you were headed & all, although it's a relatively small percentage of the scofflaws in this instance. Similar to, say, unemployment, there's a baseline that will flout the law regardless of circumstances and that makes up the majority of the uninsured. There's a correlation to the y2y increases seen, not a direct 1:1 from point zero.

If I made a similar point about, for example, drug use, I doubt you would consider it a relevant detail when talking about someone who has broken a law. Usually it seems you're in the "the law's the law" camp. We don't have room in jails for drug users any more than we do for people driving without insurance.

Maybe this will make you feel better ... I don't give a flying fuck if we have to bulldoze the Pentagon and the Jeff Davis homeplace, there isn't an acceptable excuse for not finding room (assuming, that is, we continue to lack the balls to execute the worthless fuckers in the first place).

[Autumn]

Yeah, I get where you were headed & all, although it's a relatively small percentage of the scofflaws in this instance. Similar to, say, unemployment, there's a baseline that will flout the law regardless of circumstances and that makes up the majority of the uninsured. There's a correlation to the y2y increases seen, not a direct 1:1 from point zero.

I see what you're saying. I agree there's a core of people who just don't give a fuck what the law is. I don't see any reason not to take whatever assets we can get off of them when they get caught. Live by the sword ...

Maybe this will make you feel better ... I don't give a flying fuck if we have to bulldoze the Pentagon and the Jeff Davis homeplace, there isn't an acceptable excuse for not finding room (assuming, that is, we continue to lack the balls to execute the worthless fuckers in the first place).

I feel the same about the uninsured! So let's bulldoze some other spots too! Or erect the gallows.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I feel the same about the uninsured! So let's bulldoze some other spots too! Or erect the gallows.

When you're King feel free ... but for so long as I'm King, my priorities come first ;)

[Autumn]

Fair enough ;-)

[RomaGoth]

Then you're indicating that these people are 'outside the law' and that they'll continue to do what they want regardless of consequences? .... I find that hard to believe or surely they'd be holding up convenience stores and rioting the streets far more regularly? ;)

There are those whom just don't see insurance of any kind as a necessity. In fact, some people even view insurance as a waste of money, despite the obvious benefits of having said insurance in case of accident, litigation, or death.

[RomaGoth]

I was thinking of the possibility that the kid basically, for whatever bizarro reason, chucked one at her. Something like that, "aware" probably isn't gonna protect most folks from.

Random crap: errant throw, foul ball, etc. falls under risks associated with being at the ballpark afaic, something deliberate would probably be a different story for me.

Maybe the lawsuit is frivolous, but your reasoning is kind of silly. Have you ever been to a little league park? There are often multiple games going at once, plus any number of kids warming up to play the next games. Add to that the social nature of Little League with parents chit chatting or giving their kids money for the snackbar, etc. and you actually have a pretty reasonable number of distracted individuals at any one time. The Little League I help run has all manner of nets and warning signs and tall fences and people shouting "HEADS" and I still see folks get hit from time to time.

The bottom line is that you need to listen to JimGA. Wait for all of the facts to come out before you start sputtering apoplectic message board rage.

What you are saying has some merit, but I will give benefit of the doubt to the kid until proven otherwise. Can the woman prove that the kid hit her on purpose? Did they know each other prior to the incident?

[Marc Vaughan]

There are those whom just don't see insurance of any kind as a necessity. In fact, some people even view insurance as a waste of money, despite the obvious benefits of having said insurance in case of accident, litigation, or death.

Then you supply the 'reason' for them to have it in the way of large enough fines that it encourages them to do so; back in the UK the fines for having no insurance are on a par with paying for it for a year for most drivers ... this is sufficient to encourage most to take it out.

Exact range is: Upon conviction there can be a fine of up to £5,000, between 6-8 penalty points imposed on the licence and the court can impose discretionary driving ban.

(the fine will vary depending on person and circumstances - if its deemed 'accidental' (ie. first time offense where insurance had only recently lapsed then it might be 150UKP, if its a repeat offender then expect to get hit heavily)

[Marc Vaughan]

Oh and if you're caught driving while suspended in the UK ..

What happens if I do get caught driving on a ban?
Driving whilst disqualified is an arrestable offence so it won't be a case of a stern ticking off at the side of the road. Offenders will be arrested immediately and then processed via the Police system which can be an alarming experience for those unfamiliar with the process of being taken back to the Police station in handcuffs, finger printed, DNA tested, searched, photographed and then held in a cell prior to a taped interview being undertaken.

If you are fortunate, you will then be bailed to attend Court. If however the custody sergeant decides that there is a risk of you committing any further offence, he can refuse bail and you can be held at the Police station until the prison van arrives to take you to Court along with other prisoners who have committed "real" crimes.

What is the maximum punishment for driving whilst disqualified?
There is a wide variety of options available. A prison sentence is a very real possibility, particularly if the Court feels that by driving you have shown disrespect to the Court that imposed the original suspension.

If the Court decides to impose a prison sentence, that will have an immediate effect. Alternatively, the Court can adjourn the case in order to obtain pre–sentencing reports from the probation service but can still impose a prison sentence as and when the report is received.

If you are fortunate enough to avoid prison, then expect either a community service or curfew order to be imposed, together with a fine and for the period of disqualification to be extended.

(community service is basically unpaid labour where you do work in the local community for its betterment, repairing walls, clearing litter etc. - its as much as anything a 'shaming' of the individual publicly as anything).

[molson]

Then you supply the 'reason' for them to have it in the way of large enough fines that it encourages them to do so; back in the UK the fines for having no insurance are on a par with paying for it for a year for most drivers ... this is sufficient to encourage most to take it out.

Exact range is: Upon conviction there can be a fine of up to £5,000, between 6-8 penalty points imposed on the licence and the court can impose discretionary driving ban.

(the fine will vary depending on person and circumstances - if its deemed 'accidental' (ie. first time offense where insurance had only recently lapsed then it might be 150UKP, if its a repeat offender then expect to get hit heavily)

The tricky part is you can't force someone to pay a fine, and you can't enforce a license suspension. Some states try harder than others to collect, but there's only so much you can do, especially when the driver doesn't work and doesn't have any money, or is an illegal immigrant. Lots and lots of people have just dropped out of the license/insurance thing altogether because they've racked up so many fines/suspensions/points that they could never get valid again even if they wanted to. But they're still going to drive, they just have to live with the occasional inconvenience of being arrested and having to show up for court a few times before they're sentenced to another fine/suspension. And if you have a working car and don't violate traffic laws, so you're not going to be pulled over too often, you just have to try to limit yourself, keep trips short, etc. That's just a fact life for many.

[RomaGoth]

Then you supply the 'reason' for them to have it in the way of large enough fines that it encourages them to do so; back in the UK the fines for having no insurance are on a par with paying for it for a year for most drivers ... this is sufficient to encourage most to take it out.

If only it really worked that way for everyone. My experience within the insurance industry has shown that there is very little gray area in this regard: people who don't buy insurance often don't care about the repercussions either. Most of us understand the need for insurance to protect ourselves and our assets; but not all people see things that way and no amount of fines/jail time is going to change that.

[Marc Vaughan]

The tricky part is you can't force someone to pay a fine, and you can't enforce a license suspension.

What do you mean you can't force someone to pay a fine? .. you fine someone if he works dock it directly from his wages, if he doesn't then you either dock it from other income or collect it from his belongings like a private company would.

Remove the TV etc. from someones home and they'll think twice in most cases.

Some states try harder than others to collect, but there's only so much you can do, especially when the driver doesn't work and doesn't have any money, or is an illegal immigrant.
Illegal Immigrant is easy, deport them - simple as that (sorry but if you're illegally in a country breaking the law then you've no real argument for remaining there imho).

Lots and lots of people have just dropped out of the license/insurance thing altogether because they've racked up so many fines/suspensions/points that they could never get valid again even if they wanted to.
Then they shouldn't be driving - driving isn't a right.

Or do you believe that partially sighted people should be allowed to drive or mentally unstable people fly planes etc.? ...

But they're still going to drive, they just have to live with the occasional inconvenience of being arrested and having to show up for court a few times before they're sentenced to another fine/suspension. And if you have a working car and don't violate traffic laws, so you're not going to be pulled over too often, you just have to try to limit yourself, keep trips short, etc. That's just a fact life for many.

If this is happening already then its 'partially' working as its keeping them off the roads to some extent (ie. limiting their driving) - it just needs harsher punishments to stop them totally imho.

(yes I'm a right tolitarian git when it comes to someone potentially injuring someone and then leaving them without a means of paying their hospital bill/mortgage etc. .... before anyone comments this is totally in vogue with my liberal viewpoints elsewhere, society looking after the people within it ... someone without car insurance is being incredibly destructive towards society imho ... not just from the damage they can do from driving, but because its stating that laws are safe to ignore if you don't feel like it)

[Marc Vaughan]

If only it really worked that way for everyone. My experience within the insurance industry has shown that there is very little gray area in this regard: people who don't buy insurance often don't care about the repercussions either. Most of us understand the need for insurance to protect ourselves and our assets; but not all people see things that way and no amount of fines/jail time is going to change that.

You'll always some people who will try and avoid such things - however the UK rate of 1 in 25 drivers uninsured (4%) seems far lower than those quoted for the US, which shows that approach could hugely help imho.

btw also found this article interesting - the UK is moving to simply block uninsured vehicles from being able to refuel which would further improve things:

http://www.autoblog.com/2012/03/14/uk-to-use-gas-station-cameras-to-automatically-stop-fueling-of-u/

[molson]

What do you mean you can't force someone to pay a fine? .. you fine someone if he works dock it directly from his wages, if he doesn't then you either dock it from other income or collect it from his belongings like a private company would.

Remove the TV etc. from someones home and they'll think twice in most cases.

Illegal Immigrant is easy, deport them - simple as that (sorry but if you're illegally in a country breaking the law then you've no real argument for remaining there imho).

Then they shouldn't be driving - driving isn't a right.

Or do you believe that partially sighted people should be allowed to drive or mentally unstable people fly planes etc.? ...

If this is happening already then its 'partially' working as its keeping them off the roads to some extent (ie. limiting their driving) - it just needs harsher punishments to stop them totally imho.

(yes I'm a right tolitarian git when it comes to someone potentially injuring someone and then leaving them without a means of paying their hospital bill/mortgage etc. .... before anyone comments this is totally in vogue with my liberal viewpoints elsewhere, society looking after the people within it ... someone without car insurance is being incredibly destructive towards society imho ... not just from the damage they can do from driving, but because its stating that laws are safe to ignore if you don't feel like it)

I don't disagree that those things maybe should happen, but they don't, and depending on state law, they can't. State courts rarely if ever garnish people's paychecks for any criminal fines, lets alone infraction or misdemeanor car insurance tickets. They certainly don't (and probably can't) go after anyone's private property. And states definitely can't deport anyone. Suspensions/insurance issues, like you said earlier, is just one of those things that isn't a big deal here, though I agree it should be a bigger deal.

[JPhillips]

If the healthcare mandate gets stricken I wonder how long it will be before auto insurance mandates are taken to court.

[JediKooter]

If the healthcare mandate gets stricken I wonder how long it will be before auto insurance mandates are taken to court.

I don't think you can really compare the two. People don't have to have cars, so there is only a mandate if you have a car. That's just my guess though, as they seem 'different' to me. If you still had to have car insurance even if you don't have a car, then I think that would be a more accurate comparison.

I personally don't like the mandates for either.

[molson]

I don't think you can really compare the two. People don't have to have cars, so there is only a mandate if you have a car. That's just my guess though, as they seem 'different' to me. If you still had to have car insurance even if you don't have a car, then I think that would be a more accurate comparison.

I personally don't like the mandates for either.

And there's no federal car insurance mandate.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Seems relevant, so I looked it up
Figures are from 2009 (most recent that kept popping up, so I'll run with them)

U.K. cars on road: 31,035,791 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1264282/Number-cars-road-falls-time-Second-World-War.html)
U.K. population: 61.8m (http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/livingintheuk/dg_10012517)
UK Per capita: 1 car per 1.99 persons

U.S. registered vehicles: 254m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States)
U.S. population: 305m (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/12/31/us-population-2009-305-million-and-counting)
U.S. Per capita: 1 car per 1.2 persons

[Marc Vaughan]

Seems relevant, so I looked it up
Figures are from 2009 (most recent that kept popping up, so I'll run with them)

UK Per capita: 1 car per 1.99 persons
U.S. Per capita: 1 car per 1.2 persons

This is true - however I'm not sure what you're drawing from this? .... there are a few reasons why there are less cars per person in the UK:

(1) We're setup not to require them as much (possibly because its not seen as a 'right' and you can very easily end up without one - ala losing your licence etc.). The public transport options in England are competant enough that you could say work in London (South UK) and commute in from Cambridge (middle of UK) without any issues at all.
Until I moved to Florida I didn't drive at all - simply I'd never needed to.
(2) The UK has very strict regulations on what is allowed to be driven on the roads, if you're driving a vehicle which isn't road worthy it'll be taken off the road for the safety of others incredibly quickly .... when I first moved to Florida it scared the heck out of me that some of the junk heaps driving around are allowed on the roads. These days I just tend to give them lots of space and get away from them as quickly as I can.
This also means that second hand cars are a lot more expensive as if they aren't road worthy you can't sell them etc. - this cuts out people who can't afford insurance from driving and abandoning cars without concern when they're impounded as they simply can't afford to keep doing so even if they somehow avoid arrest, fines etc. (ie. giving false identity or whatever).

[JediKooter]

And there's no federal car insurance mandate.

This didn't even occur to me, but, yes that is true.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is true - however I'm not sure what you're drawing from this?

Relevance being the sheer volume to enforce in one place vs the other.

[GrantDawg]

This didn't even occur to me, but, yes that is true.


I think there are still a couple of states that insurance is not required (I know Alabama was one for a long time, but they do now. Only Virgina, Mississippi, and New Hampshire doesn't now.)

[Marc Vaughan]

Relevance being the sheer volume to enforce in one place vs the other.

I don't really see it as an issue tbh - both countries have lots of people in them, both have complex issues .... the increased amount of people mean greater revenue and benefits from enforcement which offsets any complexity.

It is something which takes time (possibly a decade or more) to implement though in the same way its taken since my childhood to persuade people smoking is bad for them.

I've seen similar arguments on many things over here - for instance 'gun control', "it'd never work there are too many in circulation, its too complex" etc. .... if you accept something is impossible then it remains that way, if you work towards it being possible then one day it will be.

[JediKooter]

I think there are still a couple of states that insurance is not required (I know Alabama was one for a long time, but they do now. Only Virgina, Mississippi, and New Hampshire doesn't now.)

Wow. That is actually less than I thought it would be. For some reason, I thought it would be in the double digits.

[Autumn]

Live Free or Die!

[Marc Vaughan]

Wow. That is actually less than I thought it would be. For some reason, I thought it would be in the double digits.

Just did a cursory look at some figures now and was shocked to see that some states in the US have uninsured drivers as 30% of motorists ..... just, wow ....

[JediKooter]

Just did a cursory look at some figures now and was shocked to see that some states in the US have uninsured drivers as 30% of motorists ..... just, wow ....

That does seem a bit high. I can't remember the last time I was asked for proof of insurance to register my car, but, good luck trying to get a new sticker if you don't have your smog certificate.

[RomaGoth]

I can't remember the last time I was asked for proof of insurance to register my car, but, good luck trying to get a new sticker if you don't have your smog certificate.

This is so true. I am just glad that Canyon County (in Idaho) finally requires emissions inspections. It is also every other year now, which is kinda nice too.

[JediKooter]

This is so true. I am just glad that Canyon County (in Idaho) finally requires emissions inspections. It is also every other year now, which is kinda nice too.

Ah, same thing here in California...every other year and I somehow still miss the notice on my registration renewal paper work. Reading is hard sometimes, when all you're looking for is to see how much the state has raised the registration fee. :)

[JonInMiddleGA]

I've seen similar arguments on many things over here - for instance 'gun control', "it'd never work there are too many in circulation, its too complex" etc. .... if you accept something is impossible then it remains that way, if you work towards it being possible then one day it will be.

Neither the complexity nor the number in circulation is the issue on that one. There's the minor matter of the Constitution (at least to this point).

[Marc Vaughan]

Neither the complexity nor the number in circulation is the issue on that one. There's the minor matter of the Constitution (at least to this point).

I'm pretty certain the constitution didn't originally have much to say about motor vehicles in particular as I doubt they were very common when it was written ;)

With regards to 'forcing' people to have insurance - there are a huge number of things people are 'forced' to do/have in society for its betterment already.

Within the US you have emissions checks on your vehicles (in some states), pay property tax on any land you own, there are a number of enforcements on what animals you can own in many county's etc. - all of which are in essence requirements you have to sustain in order to remain part of society - no different to me than someone having to pay car insurance if they want to use a car.

(what part of the constitution would it fall foul of that the other items mentioned avoid tripping? - also why is it that the constitution protects people driving but not their potential victims, is 'drink driving' also enshrined and protected in the same manner as a 'right' ... if not why not)

[molson]

Within the US you have emissions checks on your vehicles (in some states), pay property tax on any land you own, there are a number of enforcements on what animals you can own in many county's etc. - all of which are in essence requirements you have to sustain in order to remain part of society - no different to me than someone having to pay car insurance if they want to use a car.

(what part of the constitution would it fall foul of that the other items mentioned avoid tripping? - also why is it that the constitution protects people driving but not their potential victims, is 'drink driving' also enshrined and protected in the same manner as a 'right' ... if not why not)

The states can do all of those things (as long as its allowed by their own state law). And I think the federal government COULD require people to purchase car insurance if they're going to drive, at least on interstate highways under the commerce clause.

And for the whys and why nots, stuff like crime and victims is one thing that has remained largely a state role, though the feds have muscled in there too (mostly in the name of the war on drugs).

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm pretty certain the constitution didn't originally have much to say about motor vehicles in particular as I doubt they were very common when it was written ;)

You got lost somewhere there.

I was referring to your reference to issues with gun control, pointing out that the arguments you mentioned weren't the critical ones.

[Marc Vaughan]

You got lost somewhere there.

I was referring to your reference to issues with gun control, pointing out that the arguments you mentioned weren't the critical ones.

Oh apologies in that case (trust me I'm easily confused and re-reading I can see thats what you meant, sorry).

[RomaGoth]

With regards to 'forcing' people to have insurance - there are a huge number of things people are 'forced' to do/have in society for its betterment already.

Within the US you have emissions checks on your vehicles (in some states), pay property tax on any land you own, there are a number of enforcements on what animals you can own in many county's etc. - all of which are in essence requirements you have to sustain in order to remain part of society - no different to me than someone having to pay car insurance if they want to use a car.

I am fairly certain you will find that the people who pay their taxes, get their vehicle emissions checked, and don't own Lions and alligators, are the same people who probably carry automobile insurance as well. I suspect these two lists are not all that mutually exclusive.

[Rizon]

Ervin McKinness, Aspiring Rapper, Tweets 'YOLO' About Driving Drunk And Dies Minutes Later (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/ervin-mckinness-driving-drunk-tweet-yolo-dies-car-crash-dui-_n_1880348.html?utm_hp_ref=celebrity&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)


Drunk af going 120 drifting corners #FuckIt YOLO
— 2.7.5 Inkyy(@ink2flashyy) September 2, 2012


Darwin Award nominee?

[JediKooter]

WTF is YOLO? Is that Yoda's half brother?

[Rizon]

WTF is YOLO? Is that Yoda's half brother?

I think it's those chocolate candies with caramel in the middle.

[Lathum]

Ervin McKinness, Aspiring Rapper, Tweets 'YOLO' About Driving Drunk And Dies Minutes Later (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/ervin-mckinness-driving-drunk-tweet-yolo-dies-car-crash-dui-_n_1880348.html?utm_hp_ref=celebrity&ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009)



Darwin Award nominee?

FoSho

[Lathum]

Just read 4 other people died also, pretty sad actually.

At 1:40 a.m., McKinness died in a crash in Ontario, Calif., at Creekside Drive and Haven Avenue when the 2005 Nissan Sentra ran a red light, lost control and slammed into a wall, according to the San Bernardino County Sun

Nothing says thug life like a 2005 Nissan Sentra

[JediKooter]

I think it's those chocolate candies with caramel in the middle.

I LOVE those!

[JPhillips]

You
Only
Live
Once

[JediKooter]

You
Only
Live
Once

4226

[terpkristin]

You
Only
Live
Once

When I was in French Guiana, the guy behind the counter, seeing I was an American who spoke French, asked me to translate it into French for him. It was one of the weirdest requests I've ever had, more so because I hadn't heard of YOLO until then.

/tk

[Chief Rum]

When I was in French Guiana, the guy behind the counter, seeing I was an American who spoke French, asked me to translate it into French for him. It was one of the weirdest requests I've ever had, more so because I hadn't heard of YOLO until then.

/tk

Tu vives seulement un temps?

Haha, it has been 20 years since I actively used any of the French I took in HS, so I would imagine the above isn't very close to the actual translation. :)

[Passacaglia]

I think it's those chocolate candies with caramel in the middle.

I think yolos have yogurt in the middle, actually.

[britrock88]

Tu vives seulement un temps?

Haha, it has been 20 years since I actively used any of the French I took in HS, so I would imagine the above isn't very close to the actual translation. :)

Yet it's perfectly understandable to an Anglophone who knows French...