Driving as a right (in the US)

Alright, maybe insurance works different in the US then. In Germany it's usually the insurance of the "offender" that has to pay, even if the "victim" also has insurance. I'm not even sure if my car insurance would give me any money if somebody else destroyed my car but didn't have insurance. I guess in that case it's just bad luck for me. Which is why basically everybody has to have liability insurance as a minimum*, in case they cause damage to the property of other people because it's THEIR fault and then THEIR insurance policy goes up, not the one of the victim.
But if your insurance pays for your stuff no matter who caused the damage, great. In that case I see your point.
Here your insurance will cut you a check but their insurance will pay them, if they don't have insurance or not enough they get sued. Caveats to that below as is answer to your last paragraph.


*A general liability insurance for when you just randomly (and on accident) break stuff (of other people), and another liability insurance for when you own a car and do damage to other people's property with your car. Apart from that you can decide wether you want any actual insurance for YOUR car in case YOU do damage to it yourself.
We don't have that here, insurance is tied to some sort of an object, car, house, boat, etc..
I guess I'm pretty reasonably insured but if a mate came to visit and broke my TV it would be HIS insurance that covers the TV and not mine. Same goes for cars: if somebody does damage to me with their car it's THEIR insurance that has to pay me, not my own. That's why everybody has to have insurance. Not (only) for their own good but for the good of the people they might cause damage to. I mean it would be pretty stupid if MY insurance rating would get worse because somebody else damaged my stuff. It's certainly not MY fault.
Your insurance doesn't automatically go up due to damage, some companies have accident forgiveness in general, others look at fault it varies.


@somebody destroying my car: tough luck, my insurance wouldn't pay a dime. There is an option available to also insure your car against this kind of damage, but my insurance company only offers it for new cars and it also costs a lot more. So if somebody destroys your car you better hope they find him and you better hope he or she is insured (which, as I said, pretty much everybody around here is by default anyway).
It's similar here, I only have liability on my cars, meaning if I hit something insurance will cover up to X amount, I can get collision insurance meaning they pay if I'm in an accident and comprehensive, meaning they pay no matter what. I could get that for any kind of car old or new but if I am leasing or financing (as in loan) a car I have to have it as part of the lease/loan agreement.

- - - Updated - - -

prizrak, what are you smoking? Rights don't exist unless you pay the fee and beg the Man for a permission slip.

Sorry I forgot I was in a "free" country again :p
 
If you truly believe that you live in a "free" country then that explains a great deal about your views on this and several other topics.

:tease:
 
[...] You would also see that this defense was successfully used in three different states in order to overturn "Driving without a license" conviction, remember US law is highly reliant on precedent.
To quote yourself: those are "local court rulings that support that idea" ... hardly what I?d call a strong precedent.

What is unconstitutional?
Taking your license or rather preventing you from driving a car without a license is.

Just because you really want to believe it - does not make it true. :santa:

[...]That's not really the point though, the point is that you are being forced by the government to buy a service from a private corporation.

My point was, that the service provided by the insurances doesn't have to be provided by corporations. You could also have the mentioned non-profit cooperative - or a government run agency. It?s a question of what your society wants. Most people say that corporations run much more effective than government and stuff - but hey, what do I know. Maybe you?d love getting your insurance at the DMV :D

[...] it is up to you to protect both yourself and your stuff from others, so if you don't insure your stuff from damage that might be caused by others who may not be able to pay for it even if found guilty it's your problem.
No, that eventually becomes societies problem. One way or the other. Which is why the system of mandatory insurance was instated in the first place.
But here it is the other way around - the mandatory insurance to be allowed to drive on the road does not cover YOUR damages but the damage you CAUSE.
Maybe that is the point where this discussion is not clear to you. In Europe you don?t have to insure "your car", but insure against damage caused towards others by (you and) your car. I always thought that was the same in the Us, but reading your posts, I get a different impression.
Ruin your own life? Your bad. Ruin that of potentially countless others? That?s societies problem and that?s where you need to come up with some sort of way of preventing that. Mandatory insurance is one way of doing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehic...nited_States#A_brief_history_of_car_insurance

[...] Look at it this way, cyclists don't need to have insurance in the US and they can still injure and in rare cases kill people. Or even just cause property damage, body panels, glass for example are vulnerable to cyclists.
Possible, but you?ll see a lot less cases of those. And if society would have a lot of those cases to shoulder where the general tax-payer/populus would end up paying for damages caused by cyclists that they cannot pay - you?d be seeing mandatory insurance for cyclists. But as long as most of the damage caused by cyclists are some broken mirrors and some scratches - cyclists simply don?t amount to the sort of sums that motorists do - on average. Let?s face it, crashing a 2ton vehicle into something is gonna produce a bigger bill than a 75 kg man on a 10 kg Bike doing the same. The chances of causing an accident with a bike that you won?t be able to pay for are much slimmer. Hell, you could even cause something as a pedestrian that you won?t be able to pay for - but the chances for that are even tinier.
 
Last edited:
To quote yourself: those are "local court rulings that support that idea" ... hardly what I?d call a strong precedent.
You must not be very familiar with the US court system, it works on precedents regardless of court. However, as you didn't even skim the articles, you are mistaken about the cause and effect here, those case were won due to precedents set by Supreme Courts of different states. I would think a state Supreme Court precedent would have a decent amount of weight in any judicial discussion.

Just because you really want to believe it - does not make it true. :santa:
Apparently a good number of judges agree with my position and not yours.
My point was, that the service provided by the insurances doesn't have to be provided by corporations. You could also have the mentioned non-profit cooperative - or a government run agency. It?s a question of what your society wants. Most people say that corporations run much more effective than government and stuff - but hey, what do I know. Maybe you?d love getting your insurance at the DMV :D
Your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion, provider of insurance is irrelevant having to pay to use the right is.
N
o, that eventually becomes societies problem. One way or the other. Which is why the system of mandatory insurance was instated in the first place.
But here it is the other way around - the mandatory insurance to be allowed to drive on the road does not cover YOUR damages but the damage you CAUSE.
Maybe that is the point where this discussion is not clear to you. In Europe you don?t have to insure "your car", but insure against damage caused towards others by (you and) your car. I always thought that was the same in the Us, but reading your posts, I get a different impression.
Ruin your own life? Your bad. Ruin that of potentially countless others? That?s societies problem and that?s where you need to come up with some sort of way of preventing that. Mandatory insurance is one way of doing that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehic...nited_States#A_brief_history_of_car_insurance
There are three levels of insurance for cars/drivers in the US:
1) Liability - usually mandatory though not in all states covers damage caused by you while in control of a motorvehicle, it covers both medical and property damage up to a limit. Also covers any driver of the car who doesn't have insurance, so if you came stateside and drove my car into another car my insurance would cover you.
2) Collision - covers your car in the even of a collision
3) Comprehensive - covers your car for all other reasons

Possible, but you?ll see a lot less cases of those. And if society would have a lot of those cases to shoulder where the general tax-payer/populus would end up paying for damages caused by cyclists that they cannot pay - you?d be seeing mandatory insurance for cyclists. But as long as most of the damage caused by cyclists are some broken mirrors and some scratches - cyclists simply don?t amount to the sort of sums that motorists do - on average. Let?s face it, crashing a 2ton vehicle into something is gonna produce a bigger bill than a 75 kg man on a 10 kg Bike doing the same. The chances of causing an accident with a bike that you won?t be able to pay for are much slimmer. Hell, you could even cause something as a pedestrian that you won?t be able to pay for - but the chances for that are even tinier.
Cyclists injure pedestrians all the time and let me tell you healthcare ain't cheap in this country. It's besides the point though, simply answering CD on how insurance works here.

- - - Updated - - -

If you truly believe that you live in a "free" country then that explains a great deal about your views on this and several other topics.

:tease:

It's quite expensive :p
 
If you truly believe that you live in a "free" country then that explains a great deal about your views on this and several other topics.

:tease:
Many still believe that the republic is not lost and are working on restoring freedom. We're certainly still doing better than the rest of the world.
 
We are straying slightly off topic here.

Would it be an idea to add a poll to this thread with a few options? It might clarify the issue, or at least people's feelings thereon, and also prevent it from descending into USA v the Rest of the World......
 
We are straying slightly off topic here.

Would it be an idea to add a poll to this thread with a few options? It might clarify the issue, or at least people's feelings thereon, and also prevent it from descending into USA v the Rest of the World......

Not a bad idea, need to see how I could add a poll.

I also want to clarify that the reason I put "In the US" in the title is not because I am trying to start a 'murrica - fuck yeah! thread but rather because the cases I am talking about are in the US and wouldn't apply elsewhere.
 
I'm not saying that it would be ok to do 200 through a school zone but what I'm saying that in principle a risk of something happening cannot be considered a right infringement. Because a risk of you being hit exists in at any speed, plenty of kids get killed by people backing out of their driveways at 5mph.

So... it'd be okay to put a shooting range in your suburban front yard as long as nobody gets hit by a stray bullet because the risk of that is not an infringement of other people's rights?
Reducing the risk is what I was talking about, not eliminating 100.0% of all risk - that's impossible, see the point about black-and-white vs grey and the balance of your rights against other peoples' rights.


That's not really the point though, the point is that you are being forced by the government to buy a service from a private corporation.

Government insurance service then?

Actually that's not exactly correct, here is an example, I was looking at a car the other day with trading in my car + loan to cover the difference it would cost me around $350/mo, however mandatory insurance would make my actual monthly payment $500/mo that is not an insignificant difference to a poor person. So government interference could cause an inability to exercise a right rather than free market, that sounds socialist to me (or would it be fascist since the insurance company is private?)

If you can't afford liability insurance, you can't afford the risk of operating an uninsured car out of your own pocket.
Again, balance of rights - your right to drive gets curtailed a little in order to prop up other peoples' right to have damages to them paid for. This is what it always comes down to, hardly anything is black-and-white 100% absolute.
 
So... it'd be okay to put a shooting range in your suburban front yard as long as nobody gets hit by a stray bullet because the risk of that is not an infringement of other people's rights?
Reducing the risk is what I was talking about, not eliminating 100.0% of all risk - that's impossible, see the point about black-and-white vs grey and the balance of your rights against other peoples' rights.
That depends on local laws but actually yes it can be OK if properly designed. IIRC NY doesn't allow outdoor gun ranges, other states do. Plenty of people shoot in their back yard in more rural areas.

Government insurance service then?
Only if it's paid for by tax money, otherwise you are being forced to pay for a right, which isn't right :)


If you can't afford liability insurance, you can't afford the risk of operating an uninsured car out of your own pocket.
Again, balance of rights - your right to drive gets curtailed a little in order to prop up other peoples' right to have damages to them paid for. This is what it always comes down to, hardly anything is black-and-white 100% absolute.
Irrelevant, I can't afford to paid if sued for libel but I don't need libel insurance in order to exercise my right to free speech.
 
That depends on local laws but actually yes it can be OK if properly designed. IIRC NY doesn't allow outdoor gun ranges, other states do. Plenty of people shoot in their back yard in more rural areas.

So... by properly designing, or being more rural, both your examples reduce the risk to others significantly. Why, if risk to others is not a problem as long as nobody gets hit (by a speeding car, by a stray bullet)?

Only if it's paid for by tax money, otherwise you are being forced to pay for a right, which isn't right :)

How is tax money not "being forced to pay for a right"?

Irrelevant, I can't afford to paid if sued for libel but I don't need libel insurance in order to exercise my right to free speech.

The two aren't really comparable, your free speech doesn't wreck someone's car.
Different tangent: Is that speech really free if you have to fear prosecution?
 
So... by properly designing, or being more rural, both your examples reduce the risk to others significantly. Why, if risk to others is not a problem as long as nobody gets hit (by a speeding car, by a stray bullet)?
Simple, you have the right to keep and bear arms but not to randomly discharge them whenever you feel like it. Limiting how and where you discharge your weapons therefore is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms (something collectors do for example). However as it is impossible to exercise the right to drive without actually driving you cannot be forced to pay for a service that is unrelated to that right.
How is tax money not "being forced to pay for a right"?
Tax is collected for the public good, for example roads you would drive on, it is not a precursor to the ability to exercise your rights. If you are unemployed, don't own any property, live in the woods and subsist by foraging you will pay no taxes yet you do not waive any of your rights.

The two aren't really comparable, your free speech doesn't wreck someone's car.
It's true you can do much, much worse with free speech than simple destruction of property.
Different tangent: Is that speech really free if you have to fear prosecution?
Freedom to do something is not freedom from consequences.
 
Simple, you have the right to keep and bear arms but not to randomly discharge them whenever you feel like it. Limiting how and where you discharge your weapons therefore is not an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms (something collectors do for example). However as it is impossible to exercise the right to drive without actually driving you cannot be forced to pay for a service that is unrelated to that right.

So with guns you're okay with limits to mitigate risks, but with driving you're not okay with limits to mitigate risks? :?

Tax is collected for the public good, for example roads you would drive on, it is not a precursor to the ability to exercise your rights.

Just call your "mandatory insurance fee" a "mandatory insurance tax" in your head and be happy?

If you are unemployed, don't own any property, live in the woods and subsist by foraging you will pay no taxes yet you do not waive any of your rights.

Doesn't sound like a frequent driver to me :no:

Freedom to do something is not freedom from consequences.

Using that logic, you have the freedom to steal, murder, whatever - you possibly just have to deal with the consequences. That doesn't make sense :no:
 
So with guns you're okay with limits to mitigate risks, but with driving you're not okay with limits to mitigate risks? :?
Sometimes I really wonder if your thinking is that linear or you just like to play it that way. I'll spell it out for you I suppose, nothing can be required from you monetary or otherwise in order to exercise a right. You can have regulations such as traffic control and speed limits* but you cannot have mandatory insurance or inspections.

*As I previously said in current form they couldn't really be enforced as enforcement is tied to licensing, but if properly modified they would not be unconstitutional.
Just call your "mandatory insurance fee" a "mandatory insurance tax" in your head and be happy?
If that were the case then every single person of driving age would be covered from damages and the rate would be the same for everyone (or tied to income like with income tax). As it stands the rate is based on whatever they want to charge, I have actually gotten quotes that differed as much as 700% (not a typo) for same exact coverage (same limits, same car, same driver, same location, etc...)
Doesn't sound like a frequent driver to me :no:
Regardless he would have the right to do so, say if he borrowed someone's car. Would also still have the right to free speech, to not be arrested for no reason, to not be a slave, etc....

Using that logic, you have the freedom to steal, murder, whatever - you possibly just have to deal with the consequences. That doesn't make sense :no:
If you think that is logical then you might want to seek help.
 
How is "mandatory traffic control" different from "mandatory inspection"? The two seem like different words for effectively the same thing - the man looking at your car. Say you get pulled over for an actual busted tail light - isn't that an inspection of your car during traffic control?
 
How is "mandatory traffic control" different from "mandatory inspection"? The two seem like different words for effectively the same thing - the man looking at your car. Say you get pulled over for an actual busted tail light - isn't that an inspection of your car during traffic control?
Only in your very strange mind. Traffic control is lights, speed limits, lanes, etc... Lights on my vehicle are not part of that, in fact a busted light would not even be enough probably cause to pull me over if driving was in fact treated as a right.
 
Last edited:
The idea is that since traveling is a right and driving is a common mode of travel driving itself becomes a right, the below links contain a collection of SCOTUS and local court rulings that support that idea.
(...)

In order to maybe come back to the core of the "problem".

The argument that's being applied here is - to my understanding - along the lines of "X is a common mode of travel, travel is a right, so X should be a right as well". And now this basic right is at stake because it costs money (beyond the purchase of the car) to exercise it.

Initially, we shall ignore money. Basically the level of regulation depends strongly on the amount of damage an individual could cause and the number of lives that are at stake. So when you want to drive a car, which equals to a huge metal box with a mass of around 1 to 2 tons, there should be some check-up on the driver before they are set free on the road. And the cars should be checked regularly one way or the other. Because many people either don't care or don't know enough about their cars to recognize problems that might become huge dangers to them and others around them. I guess nobody would want to get on a plane that had its last service about two decades ago and the pilot happened to be some random dude with one arm, no legs and surprisingly bad eyesight.


So now the big question is: who is doing the regulating and the check-ups? The pretty obvious question: the government. Now as we all now, shit ain't free. So you are left with two possibilities:

You can either make the driving tests, the inspections, insurance and so on free for everybody. That sounds pretty sweet for all the people that have a car or want a car. But the government still has to spend money on all these things (because in the end, people are employed to do license tests and inspections, and people - outside of communism - usually like to get paid for their work, even if they work the government). So where does the government get the money from? Well, obviously through taxes. And now you can either apply this "drive for free" tax to all people* - even those that aren't excersing the right of driving - or you only apply it to those that actually own a car. In either case, "driving = additional cost".

So the government decided to go down the other route, and hand over as much cost-handling as possible to companies. The government simply makes the regulations on driving.


If you want driving to have no additional cost beyond the car itself (and the fuel, obviously), you have to get rid of all mandatory inspections and tests (of the car and the driver). And the alternative - totally unregulated driving - doesn't sound all that appealing to me to be honest. Because as others already tried to explain - there has to be a balance between the rights of a single individual and the rights of all the individuals around him or her.


*note: by applying the tax to "nobody" and just taking it out of "general public funds", you also apply it to everybody, because everybody pays taxes.
 
The argument that's being applied here is - to my understanding - along the lines of "X is a common mode of travel, travel is a right, so X should be isa right as well".
As per the court cases linked upthread.

cd82 said:
And now this basic right is at stake because it costs money (beyond the purchase of the car) to exercise it.
That's not the problem, the basic idea is that if something is a right it cannot be licensed by the state on any level as that right automatically exists, which in turn means that no one can require you have insurance, even if it were free.
Basically the level of regulation depends strongly on the amount of damage an individual could cause and the number of lives that are at stake.
Potential damage is irrelevant, every single person is allowed to have children, they don't need to be licensed or pass a test or go to a maternity class (sex ed in the US is, for the lack of the better [non curse] word, is not so good). Yet the potential for damage is quite high.

So when you want to drive a car, which equals to a huge metal box with a mass of around 1 to 2 tons, there should be some check-up on the driver before they are set free on the road. And the cars should be checked regularly one way or the other. Because many people either don't care or don't know enough about their cars to recognize problems that might become huge dangers to them and others around them.
There is nothing preventing schools from teaching how to drive and maintain vehicles along with a whole bunch of things they don't teach.
I guess nobody would want to get on a plane that had its last service about two decades ago and the pilot happened to be some random dude with one arm, no legs and surprisingly bad eyesight.
Commercial activity can be regulated, so a long haul trucker or a for hire driver can be licensed as they are no longer exercising a right but engaging in commerce. Same for a pilot who is presumably not giving people rides for fun.
So where does the government get the money from? Well, obviously through taxes. And now you can either apply this "drive for free" tax to all people* - even those that aren't excersing the right of driving - or you only apply it to those that actually own a car. In either case, "driving = additional cost".
There are plenty of things I am taxed on that I personally don't use. US hasn't been militarily attacked since Perl Harbor yet a good chunk of my taxes goes to defense spending. In a more down to earth example I never needed an ambulance (and hope to continue that trend) yet some of my taxes are going there. So yes the cost would have to be distributed everywhere but it's a moot point as all other public costs are also distributed, whether specific individual uses them or not.
a balance between the rights of a single individual and the rights of all the individuals around him or her.
Absolutely, however we are talking about a potential impact, I need to have insurance because I someday might get into an accident, I need to be licensed (read:tested) because I *might* not know how to drive a car, my car needs to be inspected because it *might* become unsafe at some point during operation.

At the same time the fact that I have a license and a car in full working order and insurance in no way prevents me from doing a hit and run. Or putting e-bay spacers on the car that will separate at 60mph and cause me to sail into the back of a family minivan.
 
Only in your very strange mind. Traffic control is lights, speed limits, lanes, etc... Lights on my vehicle are not part of that, in fact a busted light would not even be enough probably cause to pull me over if driving was in fact treated as a right.

For once, I'll chalk that up as lost in translation. Traffic = Verkehr, control = Kontrolle, so traffic control = Verkehrskontrolle - cops checking up on traffic.


Without cops checking up on traffic, how do you manage drunk drivers, unlit cars, bald tyres, etc.?
 
Last edited:
Top