🚀 go-pugleaf

Galen Hunter  <gvhunter@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <tweekDn6rvz.GMu@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (R R M Tweek) writes: 
>
>>It no longer pays to be a low risk because
>>your premium now has to cover the mistakes of others.

[Flipping the order of your response]

>About this first point, (good drivers rates with no-fault will go up),
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Actually, I sadi "Low risk" which includes "good drivers", but extends
beyond that definition. 

>another writer in this thread made the observation (I hope I'm doing it
>justice) that this point is good only *if* high risk drivers all had
>insurance under the current system - that paid for their at-fault
>accidents - so the good drivers the bad drivers ran into - didn't have
>to pay for those - not-at-fault accidents - that the good drivers will
>have to pay for under no-fault.

I am 35, male, been driving since 1977, one speeding ticket in 1978, one
in the 80's, one accident in the 80's.  I no longer drive a car.  My sole
vehicle of motorized transit is a motorcycle.  My insurance, while being
based on my past driving record, realizes a greater benefit in lower
insurance rates due to the amount of damage I can inflict in an accident.

I am already on the losing side of the odds when you consider that a
car or truck can cause much more damage to me and my property than
I can cause to anyone else.  I accept the physical risk, and the
possibility that I am responsible for my own screwups, but I do not
feel that I should have to pay for the risk that some car driver
might not be paying attention and turns left in front of me.

"Fine" you might say, "No skin of my back if you want to ride dangerous
motorcycles."  Let's show you the great equalizer...  I am to your car,
what your car is to a Big Rig.  The current proposal to be voted on as
Prop 200, makes no difference on the type of vehicle...  a motorcycle is
a car is a Semi.  (Of course, you have the odds in your favor due to the
quanity.)

If there were as many trucks as cars on the road (not even talking about
being outnumbered), would you feel it fair that _your_ no-fault premiums
were based on the damage a big rig, on the road for 10-12 hours a day, 
could inflict on you and your vehicle?  A private citizen's premium 
covering the liability for a commercial trucker?  

>What I want to know is if "no-fault" is
>possibily - say, more perfect - the sense of "in order to form a more
>perfect union ..."  This may sound corny, but that's how I think.
>
>
>Few *high risk* drivers in California now have liability insurance -
>that would pay for their at-fault accidents.  Good driver are now
>paying for the at-fault accidents of high risk drivers through the
>uninsured motorist part of the good drivers premium.

Do we need No Fault in order to force all to have insurance?  I fail
to see how mandating no-fault will force the uninsured to aquire
insurance any better than a separate tougher law on mandatory
insurance without any no-fault provisions.

>I just don't see how this point againt no-fault holds any water.  If I
>am missing the mark about the merit of this one point - I need to know
>it now - so if someone asks me about it later - I want to give out the
>right information.

See above.  My insurance premiums will be going up 500% (at least), not 
because I was in an accident, not because I have been ticketed, not 
because there has been an increase in motorcycle related accidents, not
because more motorcycle accidents lately have been the fault of the
motorcylist, but strictly because I now have to pay for the irresponsibility
of others.  

I can sense a lot of folks out there thinking "Let's stick it to the
bikers, since it is their choice to mingle on the roads."  I suggest
you rethink this while substituting cars for bikes, and trucks for
cars.  Whould you find it fair if you and your car were outnumbered
by trucks the way bikes are outnumbered by cars?  

Think about this very carefully.  Think about the fairness first, and
if you reach the conclusion "Yes, but..." think about how much the
premiums of the motorcyclists are really going to affect the entire
pool.  Not much IMO, a drop in the bucket, but a major burden for
the individual biker.  If you still feel that No-Fault is the way to
go, then you might be interested at least, in a no-fault bill in the
assembly which *does* make a distinction between motorcycles, cars
and trucks, and realizes that the liability is as different as the
difference between owning a cat and a pitbull.

Yes, you could stick it to us minority bikers and there probably 
isn't a damn thing we can do about it, but are people really that
vicious today that they want to screw a whole class of people just
because they can?  Please, think very carefully about whether you
really want No-fault, and if you do, take a look for one which is
fairer than what Prop-200 presents.

Do you really thing that a parrot owner should have to carry the
same liability insurance as a pitbull owner?  (Hey, don't laugh,
is the idea of city mandated pet ownership insurance that far off?
The way things are going, I don't think so.)  (Of course, maybe
bicyclists should also have to get no-fault coverage too?)






-- 
tweek@netcom.com    tweek@io.com     |  "Well, you and I would differ on 
DoD #MCMLX       tweek@ccnet.com     |   what's ignorance and educated."
WWW: http://www.io.com/~tweek/       |         - Senator Ernest Hollings