Actually I was thinking that individual driving equalled more freedom because the driver could go where he wanted, when he wanted and return when wanted. Most mass transport is about adhering to pre-set destinations and pre-set arrival and departure. But then again there are taxi cabs, charter planes, etc.

How do you deal with that situation today, Sam?

The road is a public place. Use it at your own risk.

When the government compels people to purchase insurance, then it gives an advantage to a private industry. Obviously, having the government insure drivers would be just as bad.

People are more reasonable than you think.

Before you can arrive at a policy, you need to arrive at the principle. Accidents happen, it is part of life. Insurace is based on the false economic claim that pooling risk lowers risk. That’s crazy. The risk is exactly the same, but now an insurance agent is profiting on the fear of accidents. Like taxes, it is an increase of overhead. Not only does insurance not lower risks, it actually increases the costs of driving and of society as a whole. All those people pushing paper are not doing anything productive.

No insurance should be mandatory, and no court cases should be heard for what happens on a public road. Nobody drives with the intention of harming themselves. The whole insurance system is a mathematical farce.

http://www.behappyandfree.com

There is much confusion about what insurance really is. The common idea is that it is about pooling risk among large numbers of people. But the best description of what insurance actually is (or perhaps I should say “should be”, given government interference in the insurance industry), is that of grouping the risk of a homogenous group of people. “Homogenous” so that these people are in the same category or level of risk, and thus, while no one can predict which particular people will need the insurance, the insurance company can statistically figure out what percentage of people will need payouts, and thus determine appropriate rates of insurance.
Mixing different groups of people (such as race-car drivers with commuters or weekend drivers) means that low-risk people are subsidizing the costs of high-risk people. The cause of the high risk might be irresponsibility, or it might simply be a different set of circumstances. Mandatory insurance thus tends to lead to mixing different groups and thus forcing low-risk people to subsidize high-risk people (unless you have an exceptionally enlightened government regulation).
Overall, real insurance is a benefit to individuals who want to minimize their risk, especially if the insurance company is doing a good job of grouping people and their risks. Uninsured motorist coverage is your best bet if you are worried about OTHER people, because as has already been pointed out, mandatory insurance cannot guarantee that everybody will have insurance, and I would bet that mandatory coverage actually weakens the value of insurance in the first place.
Insurance companies could be doing more to “punish” people, if allowed to, without being an authoritarian government. For example, you pay for uninsured motorist coverage, and if you get hit by an uninsured motorist who cannot cover the costs of damage, the insurance company covers your costs, and then they should be able to pursue recovery of costs from the other motorist. Thus, he faces financial risk and ruin for driving without insurance. As it is now, the government simply makes you pay a small fine (relative to possible damages) if caught without insurance.

Nothing to lose but their cars, you mean, or else how did they get into a car accident?

Reactionary

Premise: The road owner does not require drivers of vehicles traversing his property (the road) to possess insurance.

1/. An individual taking car onto road assumes certain risks in so doing. One of these is that he may be involved in a crash which damages or writes-off his vehicle.

2/. The decision to venture onto the road is that individual’s choice. There is a risk that comes with this decision. That risk his or hers to bear. That is, it is the individual’s risk to bear. He or she may or may not make further decisions to limit the downside of the risk being taken. It is still the individual’s risk to take and to deal with the consequences of.

3/. Subsequent to assuming the risk it is possible that a crash may occur. Further it is also possible that the crash can be shown to be caused by some other party who is held to be “at fault.” Further it is possible that the “at fault” party may not be able to make restitution. Those are all part of the risk assumed when taking one’s car onto the road.

4/. It is invalid to attempt to force other people to subsidise your risk downside.

Now what don’t you comprehend precisely?

—

You write: “Again, this is tantamount to saying that you assume the risk that other people will act irresponsibly, which effectively means that responsible people will bear the costs imposed by irresponsible people.”

That occurs now in many situations (and not only for driving cars on roads). It always has occurred and it always will occur. Responsible people need to be cognisant of irresponsible people. There is a risk that the actions of the irresponsible may harm you. That’s part of life.

You wrote: “Obviously people with assets to protect would not tolerate such a situation, so there would be massive capital flight from any place where insurance was not widely purchased, if not mandatory as a condition of living in the community.”

To demonstrate your statement is false, visit New Zealand. There one will find some of the finest roads in the World. Some feature breathtaking scenery, some are real driver’s roads (very challenging and a lot of fun) but no matter where you drive over there, third party insurance is not compulsory. People with assets (such as very expensive automobiles, trucks, motor-homes etc.) tolerate this situation. There has not been massive capital flight (but there has been a massive capital in-flow into NZ).

I assume the context was that of driving on roads. If not, you should state up front what the revised context is and why you have chosen to expand it.

Sione

Reactionary

You wrote: “If I get drunk, hop in my car, cross the centerline, and wipe out your family, you would not be able to recover a penny because, after all, your family assumed the risk of drunk drivers.”

Depends on context. Staying with the original premise, we have these options:

1/. You died at the scene. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. Your estate can’t pay restitution.

2/. You survive the accident. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. You can’t pay restitution (lack of wealth, resource, nature of injuries sustained by you – whatever).

3/. You survive the accident. It is subsequently determined you were at fault 100%. You have sufficient wealth to pay restitution.

I may be able to extract some cash from you in case three. However in all three situations the losses are irrecoverable. It is impossible for you or anyone else to repair the damage done. The presence of insurance or lack thereof makes little difference.

My family in venturing out onto the road assumed the risk that there may be an accident. That risk includes the three possibilities listed above (and others as well).

How is compulsory insurance going to protect my family in the situation exactly? Even had you been insured, you can’t raise the dead. You may have been insured but insurance didn’t stop you from having the accident. My downside (not to mention that of the family) is unaltered by the presence of an insurance scheme.

Regarding New Zealand.
You are starting to dissemble and prevaricate. While aspects of the NZ Health system may be socialised, that has little bearing on the topic of assumed risk. As far as I recall (having resided in NZ for many years) the NZ health system does not assume responsibility for repairing cars, trucks, cargo, property etc.

Secondly, your knowledge of NZ Law is erroneous. The individual is frequently prohibited from taking action to extract damages from negligent parties. The Common Law principles which would recognise such a right have long since been superceded in NZ legislation.*

Third. Still no capital flight from NZ due to insurance or lack thereof.

Sione

* interestingly, one of the somewhat pragmatic principles applied by the framers of NZ legislation was that of avoiding the litigious nightmare that exists in the USA. There was a real repugnance for that and a strenuous effort undertaken to avoid it. Of course, that does not mean that NZ legislation is perfect- far from it, but it did influence the bias towards a “no fault” premise.