Solving it with money doesn't really solve it unless there's "real" competition.

Look at automotive insurance points systems. People have to buy it so the sellers lean on the legislatures and before you know it a ticket costs the same points and screws you out of just as much money as an actual accident.

That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.

>That seems appropriate. A small fraction of people cause most of the losses, they should pay more.

Surely that was a satirical comment and was meant to be an illustrative example of exactly the sort of mindset that runs political cover for a system as it pivots from providing enough value to become entrenched to using that entrenched position to behave in an extractive manner.

In my state if grandma gets pulled over for an out of date inspection sticker it's the same number of points as actually causing an accident. Someone is being fleeced.

I have zero faith that letting the government choose at the behest of industry who ought to pay more for healthcare that it wouldn't devolve into the same exact sort of exercise in finding a reason to charge everyone more.

I’ve never seen having an expired tag be a points violation, that seems very wrong. IME it’s only ever moving violations that impact safety. For that, higher rates are absolutely appropriate.

Safety inspection. It's a moving violation in this state (of course it wasn't initially, frogs are best boiled slow). That's the magic of it. Frame it as a "safety" issue and everyone who can't think critically about how that sausage might be made will knee jerk approve.

If I was an auto insurer, I would want to know that my policy holders were properly maintaining their vehicles. I would also have a strong interest in ensuring that non-policy holders did the same.

And as a driver, I certainly want everyone around me to be required to properly maintain their cars.

This is a hilarious interpretation of how driving laws are enforced. I happen to know a lot of people in the racing / street car community, though I am not involved myself. As a matter of course, I've come to learn how they get ticket convictions less often than me and your average guy who barely speeds but gets caught once a decade by sheriff joe.

(1) They have GPS tracking of all camera locations with alerts at each one

(2) They use laser jammers

(3) They have the best radar detectors

(4) They all know the best lawyers for getting your tickets dropped and failing that

(5) They know how to approach the prosecutor for diversions

The much better, safer, driver gets the ticket and higher rates instead because they haven't revolved their driving experience over defeating the ticketing enforcement. And the 'justice' system is good with this because the end goal is revenue, not identifying problem drivers.

I'm not gonna let the goal posts move here. That still doesn't make it a moving violation on par with driving like a dick and/or causing an accident.

What you're saying seems to make sense on face value but in reality letting insurance leverage safety inspections is just a politically less thorny wealth proxy. The inspections themselves don't provide all that much value (IMO this is because of how comprehensive they are, 90/10 rule and all that) and multiple states have ended their programs because they don't actually provide meaningful improvement for the money.

Cigarettes are usually sold at an increased tax rate already.