Fuck Cars
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
view the rest of the comments
Yeah but if you are injured or killed in a warehouse the warehouse owner may be sued or held liable which hurts rich people. If you get killed on the street only the poor suffer.
/s
I thought one of the reasons you have vehicle insurance is precisely so that if you hit someone, they can sue you and you can't just weasel out of it by declaring bankruptcy?
I was mostly joking in my response.
That said you are mostly/kinda right. If person A hits a pedestrian, person b, then person b can sue person A's insurance. Two major issues... The insurance can afford much better lawyers than person B and can afford to drag it out longer, resulting in person B not getting the compensation they should. Also person A has/will pay more in monthy charges than the insurance will likely ever pay out. That is why they make profit.
It's a loss for both parties to have insurance.
I'm not sure if either of your points are quite right.
The first is that auto insurers aggressively fight suits. I think they're generally settled quickly. Lawyers are brutally expensive, a sustained fight very quickly becomes more expensive than a payout.
The second is the notion that an individuals lifetime premium payments are capping the injury payout in order for an insurer to stay in the black. That isn't the gamble insurers are making. Their bet is that MOST of thier drivers won't end up with a massive liability, which is why they can payout an individual liability far in excess of that person's lifetime payments and still stay comfortably in profit.
I'm sorry, I think we agree and I explained it wrong.