Is it smart to drive without insurance?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guns Guns Guns
  • Start date Start date

Is it smart to drive without insurance?

  • Yes, because if you drive carefully you don't need it

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, because it's illegal

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    3
You earn min wage or slightly more, that is, when you do work. The source? Anyone so stupid and so afraid to take a position on anything isn't worth more than minimum wage. Employers aren't that dumb, unless you work for the government, but they at least require you to show up. And anyone who spends most of the day posting here doesn't have time for work.

Really? So it's all wishful thinking on your part.

TopDoper doesn't work for the government, and he says his job is embarrassingly easy and allows him to surf the internet all day, so your claim is refuted.

Cite your evidence that I spend "most of the day posting here", while you're at it.
 
No, it isn't smart to drive without insurance.

This guy says he's smarter than people who are licensed and pay for state-mandated auto insurance.

...I don't drive distracted and cause accidents, therefore don't damage property or injure people. AND I do all that WITHOUT having a license. gee, who'd have thought that an unlicensed driver drives better than hundreds of thousands of others in this country???? should make people think.
 
Really? So it's all wishful thinking on your part.

TopDoper doesn't work for the government, and he says his job is embarrassingly easy and allows him to surf the internet all day, so your claim is refuted.

Cite your evidence that I spend "most of the day posting here", while you're at it.

You're embarrassing yourself now.
 
This guy says he's smarter than people who are licensed and pay for state-mandated auto insurance.


He takes a calculated risk to make a point based on something he believes. That's something many Americans can respect. Have you ever done that, or do you carefully follow every rule and beg for more government handouts at every opportunity?
 
He takes a calculated risk to make a point based on something he believes. That's something many Americans can respect. Have you ever done that, or do you carefully follow every rule and beg for more government handouts at every opportunity?

He's gambling with the lives and property of others. I don't do that.
 
He's gambling with the lives and property of others. I don't do that.
In CO, at the least, it is your own insurance that pays your medical bills... With that in mind can you tell me one thing?

How does car insurance save the lives of others?

Considering that not having insurance doesn't change his liability towards their property, it sounds like he has put his own personal financial well being on the line.
 
In CO, at the least, it is your own insurance that pays your medical bills... With that in mind can you tell me one thing? How does car insurance save the lives of others? Considering that not having insurance doesn't change his liability towards their property, it sounds like he has put his own personal financial well being on the line.

I didn't say insurance saves lives. I said he's gambling with other peoples' lives and property. He also doesn't live in Colorado, but you knew that.


If he's involved in a crash without insurance and others are hurt or killed, he will have no way to make restitution to the injured parties, who may suffer catastrophic damages in excess of his assets/ability to pay.



If he's imprisoned, injured or killed, the burden will fall on his wife.


You call that responsible?


[h=3]PROPERTY DAMAGE LIABILITY (PD):[/h]Covers you if your car damages someone else's property. Usually it is their car, but it could be a fence, a house or any other property damaged in an accident. It also provides you with legal defense if another party files a lawsuit against you. It is mandatory in most states.



[h=3]UNINSURED MOTORIST BODILY INJURY (UM):[/h]Covers you, the insured members of your household and your passengers for bodily/personal injuries, damages, or death caused by an at-fault uninsured or hit-and-run driver. If you are involved in an accident where the other driver is at fault but has no insurance, your policy will cover your medical expenses, up to the limit on your policy


[h=3]UNDERINSURED MOTORIST BODILY INJURY (UNDUM):[/h]Covers you, the insured members of your household and your passengers for injuries, damages or death caused by the negligence of a person with insufficient insurance. If you have an accident with a person whose coverage cannot meet your damages, your policy will meet the difference-up to the limit of liability listed on your policy.


[h=3]UNINSURED MOTORIST PROPERTY DAMAGE (UMPD):[/h]Covers your auto when property damage is sustained by an insured and the negligent operator does not possess insurance. If you don’t have collision coverage, uninsured motorist property damage coverage pays up to a certain amount for repairs to the insured car (some states have limits at $3,500; some are lower and some are higher). If you have collision coverage, uninsured motorist property damage coverage only pays your collision deductible (in some states).
Uninsured motorist property damage alone is not enough to cover all potential car repair/replacement costs, and only applies if you are involved in an accident caused by a driver without insurance coverage.

[h=3]UNDERINSURED MOTORIST PROPERTY DAMAGE (UNDPD):[/h]Covers when property damage is sustained by an insured and the negligent operator possesses insurance, but the limits of liability carried by the negligent driver are not sufficient to cover the damages.
If you don’t have collision coverage, underinsured motorist property damage coverage pays up to a certain amount for repairs to the insured car (some states have limits at $3500, some are lower and some are higher). If you have collision coverage, underinsured motorist property damage coverage only pays your collision deductible (in some states). Underinsured motorist property damage alone is not enough to cover all potential car repair/replacement costs, and only applies if you are involved in an accident caused by a driver without enough liability insurance coverage.

[h=3]PERSONAL INJURY PROTECTION COVERAGE (PIP or MEDEX):[/h]Covers within the specified limits, the medical, hospital and funeral expenses of the insured, others in his vehicles and pedestrians struck by him. It is only available in certain states. Depending on the state, the covered parties and the amount of protection may vary.

http://www.carinsurance.com/CoverageDefinitions.aspx
 
So you are saying that having insurance doesn't save lives but he is somehow gambling with them because Rootbeer really wants it to be so?

And his wife has the ability to decide whether she believes that to be an acceptable risk, not you. It is their decision to make.
 
So you are saying that having insurance doesn't save lives but he is somehow gambling with them because Rootbeer really wants it to be so?

Don't be specious. Life insurance doesn't save the life of the insured, it provides for the support of the beneficiary. Likewise, mandated automobile coverage mitigates damages - as much as is humanly possible.

The lives of people injured or killed by uninsured motorists can be hugely damaged, in some cases permanently. Their lives are not "somehow" degraded or ended by someones' betting they won't have a crash - they are faced with medical or funeral expenses, loss of income, physical and emotional pain, and if injured badly, a lifetime of diminished capability. Insurance won't prevent these things, but will provide a financial cushion.

I don't say so, statistics say so:

http://www.google.com/webhp?complet....,cf.osb&fp=d7b956ae481847f3&biw=1024&bih=530

Nationwide, drivers paid $10.8 billion more to cover those without insurance.


http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-more-...sts-into-the-billions-20110912,0,764281.story



And his wife has the ability to decide whether she believes that to be an acceptable risk, not you. It is their decision to make.

Yes, you are correct, it is. I genuinely hope they never find out what a poor decision it is.

I also note that you choose not to make the same choice. Your wife and daughters are fortunate.
 
Don't be specious. Life insurance doesn't save the life of the insured, it provides for the support of the beneficiary. Likewise, mandated automobile coverage mitigates damages - as much as is humanly possible.

The lives of people injured or killed by uninsured motorists can be hugely damaged, in some cases permanently. Their lives are not "somehow" degraded or ended by someones' betting they won't have a crash - they are faced with medical or funeral expenses, loss of income, physical and emotional pain, and if injured badly, a lifetime of diminished capability. Insurance won't prevent these things, but will provide a financial cushion.

I don't say so, statistics say so:

http://www.google.com/webhp?complet....,cf.osb&fp=d7b956ae481847f3&biw=1024&bih=530

Nationwide, drivers paid $10.8 billion more to cover those without insurance.


http://www.kdvr.com/news/kdvr-more-...sts-into-the-billions-20110912,0,764281.story





Yes, you are correct, it is. I genuinely hope they never find out what a poor decision it is.

I also note that you choose not to make the same choice. Your wife and daughters are fortunate.

I disagree with him, I believe that states have such power. Including licensing.

There are several things you do not know and are assuming.

Does SmarterThanYou have a cushion of his own that would mitigate some of these negatives?

I'll also note you didn't answer the original question. Is there anything that you believe in enough that you would take a similar risk or do you cowardly follow whatever the government tells you to do regardless of what you believe?

His stance is something most Americans can understand, even if they do not agree with it.

Are you truly "angry" at STY, or do you have no more ability than to attempt to use "gotcha" (the lowest form of political dialogue) in all things?
 
there is no way legion has a job, no one with a job spends all day, everyday on a messageboard. and that is just this board, he belongs to dozens of others.
 
I disagree with him, I believe that states have such power. Including licensing.

But if he hit one of your kids, you'd be OK with his inability to pay for her treatment?

There are several things you do not know and are assuming.

Enlighten me.

Does SmarterThanYou have a cushion of his own that would mitigate some of these negatives?

I doubt it. Have you seen the size of medical bills and jury awards in related cases?

I'll also note you didn't answer the original question. Is there anything that you believe in enough that you would take a similar risk or do you cowardly follow whatever the government tells you to do regardless of what you believe?

I would never knowingly put others' lives, health or property at risk unneccessarily, whether the government "tells me" to, or not. That's personal responsiblity, and that's what I believe.

His stance is something most Americans can understand, even if they do not agree with it.

I'm not "most", then, although I suspect you can't substantiate that statement. I know some people who refuse medical treatment for their children on "religious" grounds. I don't understand or agree with that, either.

Are you truly "angry" at STY, or do you have no more ability than to attempt to use "gotcha" (the lowest form of political dialogue) in all things?

I don't see the relevance of that question. I truly pity STF (and his family) for taking such a huge risk. There's nothing political in it. Politics doesn't make a reasonable person act irresponsibly when operating a motor vehicle.
 
But if he hit one of your kids, you'd be OK with his inability to pay for her treatment?

If he hit one of my kids he'd be here. Their care would be paid for by my insurance. I also hold coverage for underinsured motorists.


Enlighten me.

I asked questions instead.
I doubt it. Have you seen the size of medical bills and jury awards in related cases?

You "doubt" but do not know. Did you also know that you can cover yourself against such instances?
I would never knowingly put others' lives, health or property at risk unneccessarily, whether the government "tells me" to, or not. That's personal responsiblity, and that's what I believe.
It is likely that you and he have a disagreement on what is necessary.

I'm not "most", then, although I suspect you can't substantiate that statement. I know some people who refuse medical treatment for their children on "religious" grounds. I don't understand or agree with that, either.

I believe you do understand it, but want to try to troll him into "anger" on a message board.
I don't see the relevance of that question. I truly pity STF (and his family) for taking such a huge risk. There's nothing political in it. Politics doesn't make a reasonable person act irresponsibly when operating a motor vehicle.
Nor does insurance make them act responsibly.

Your attempt to personalize the dialogue on the site is impressive. I don't think STY will fall for your attempt to troll him, but I've been wrong on that in the past.
 
If he hit one of my kids he'd be here. Their care would be paid for by my insurance. I also hold coverage for underinsured motorists.

You're assuming that he never leaves Texas and your kids will never leave Colorado, aren't you?

You're also forgetting that some authorities estimate that perhaps 1 in 7 motorists are uninsured, which means plenty of STF-a-likes are riding down your streets.

Your insurance has no coverage limits? Awesome.

I asked questions instead.

And what were the answers?

You "doubt" but do not know. Did you also know that you can cover yourself against such instances?

Yes, I doubt, despite not knowing. Yes, I know that very foolish people think they can self-insure.

It is likely that you and he have a disagreement on what is necessary.

I think our disagreement is more likely to be on the practicality of preferring principle over personal responsibility. His principles won't feed his family if he's in a coma and has no insurance.

I believe you do understand it, but want to try to troll him into "anger" on a message board.

You "believe", but do not know.

Nor does insurance make them act responsibly.

Which is why I didn't say it would. The act of procuring the insurance is the responsible action.

Your attempt to personalize the dialogue on the site is impressive. I don't think STY will fall for your attempt to troll him, but I've been wrong on that in the past.

Why, thank you...I think.
 
Back
Top