Re:Driverless Cars Threaten to Crash Insurers’ Earnings
by cmurf on Tuesday July 26, 2016 @06:08PM
(#12169087)
Most any reasonable person can make ~$1500 a year investing that $35K. So it doesn't seem like such a good savings considering you won't make that money on investing it, and you're almost certain to lose a lot more than than $35K if you're at fault in an accident.
That has the side effect of requiring the typical person to buy insurance, as they can't afford the alternate means of establishing it.
Do you think that's somehow unreasonable? What standard would you prefer for determining when an activity should require such advance indemnification, and how does "driving a car" fail that?
Edit: Sorry if you just meant to make the bland, neutral point that more casualties -> more insurance revenue -> more insurance profit, but your tone suggested you think it's an unfair subsidy somehow.
[1] It varies, but here's California's form for alternately proving responsibility, which only requires you put up a bond of $35k, which IMHO is ridiculously low considering how much you could fairly be held liable for. I guess the logic is that "if you don't mind setting aside that much money, you must have enough seize-able assets in case you harm someone"? https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/wcm/connect/3a81272a-0834-43b6...