So what I mean by it not being a right, is that just like you do not have the inherent right to drive a car if you can't afford or have permission to use one, you also can't own a car if you can't afford insurance to make sure that if you get into an accident (and I don't care how good of a driver you are, you cannot make any sort of guarantee you won't have an accident that's your fault), then you have means to pay.
Driving is a right, not a privilege. Just like running which can also cause hazards to those around us. Must we crawl in your world for fear of causing injury? Some of your language suggest you are speaking in terms of "positive rights" ("can't afford or have permission"). In that case, you need to log off and hit the books and brush up on what true liberty means. You are also confused about the state of law. I can own a billion cars and legally have zero insurance ("also
can't own a car if you can't afford insurance to make sure that if you get into an accident"). The trouble begins if they are driven. Nor does the paltry sum of insurance legally required do what you think it does ("make sure that if you get into an accident (and I don't care how good of a driver you are, you cannot make any sort of guarantee you won't have an accident that's your fault), then you have means to pay.").
You are also supporting more laws for government to enforce. Now we have to show insurance papers when getting pulled over or at "safety" checks. Thanks for supporting the police state!
Mandatory insurance laws mean the carriers targeting poor or at-risk compete on offering the "minimum", not a value proposition with reasonable overheads. Also, money that ought to go towards covering risk ends up in the state coffers. How much of this money goes to the victims?:
The law, which takes effect in January, mandates that anyone with two or more previous convictions for driving uninsured who is again caught driving without coverage and causes bodily harm in an accident must pay a fine of $2,500.
Source: Insurance Research Council
Motorists who drive uninsured in the state already face fines of $500 to $1,000 for doing so and can have their driving privileges revoked for three months, after which they will have to pay a $100 reinstatement fee. The new law goes a step further and calls for a $1,000 fine for motorists who are convicted of a third or subsequent charge of operating a vehicle without insurance.
http://news.onlineautoinsurance.com/state/illinois-uninsured-penalties-car-insurance-95130
All that money from poor people is unavailable to pay for insurance or the mayhem - damages - they might cause.
You don't seem to understand how costly an accident lawsuit is, your talking 6 figures if there are injuries.
If you tap someone from behind, they scream oh my neck, they get trip to the hospital with x-rays and cat scan.
That alone would be like 8K out of your pocket... Its not like we are worried about the $350 bumper...
I understand that even if someone else has the state minimum, it is unlikely they will cover the type of costs you reference:
Illinois law (625 ILCS 5/7-203) requires BI limits of at least $20,000 per person per accident and $40,000 total per accident.
Property Damage (PD) – Pays for damage to another person’s car or property such as fences, buildings, utility poles, signs, and trees. Illinois law (625 ILCS 5/7-203) requires PD liability limits of at least $15,000 per accident.
http://insurance.illinois.gov/autoinsurance/shopping_auto_ins.asp
Regardless, the reason driving is a right is to increase the burden of having that right removed from an individual. A privilege implies we must beg to use the roads we provide. A right implies that TPTB must present a case in open court that we have the ability to challenge.
The motivation to eliminate mandatory insurance laws is not so that we can drive without insurance. Rather, it is to require the insurance companies to offer a competitive value proposition. Instead of money going to commercials, lobbyists, overhead,
undue profit, etc., the money can be available when needed. Insurance is a losing bet and those who can't afford insurance are most likely to lose that bet. Their coverage is lower, the companies that offer that coverage are stingier (good luck getting payouts!), they will deny and deny and deny coverage likely until you threaten to sue. Wealthier people can have their non-fly-by-night insurance company handle this or contact lawyers already on retainer.
From a purely egalitarian standpoint, rich people that want to drive around museum pieces or overpriced luxury goods ought to bare more risk for electing to bring non-utilitarian show pieces into a dangerous environment. I wouldn't necessarily support "no fault" insurance but possibly limits on damage when at fault (e.g., $1000 for a bumper, not $5,000).
NMA Position On Auto Insurance Laws
We oppose mandatory automobile insurance for seven reasons.
1 It increases the cost of auto insurance.
2 It increases the regulation of auto insurance.
3 It adds more punitive sanctions to be applied against motorists, even if they have auto insurance.
4 It reduces the number of companies offering coverage in a given state.
5 It does not necessarily increase the number of insured vehicles.
6 It does not guarantee coverage of catastrophic losses.
7 There are better ways to protect responsible motorists from serious losses attributable to uninsured motorists.
http://www.motorists.org/insurance/
If the socialist fantasy pushed by "driving is not right" types were true, then insurance costs ought to decrease as freeriders are eliminated. Big surprise, but that doesn't happen. Insurance and fines to the state BOTH increase.
