Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What can we do, the parties feel like they have something to prove and are going to overstep their boundaries to prove it.

Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if rioting begins within the new year.

halonachos wrote:
Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if rioting begins within the new year.

Or the next Raiders game...........

Peter Wiggin wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if rioting begins within the new year.

Or the next Raiders game...........

Do the raiders actually have fans?

Elmodiddly wrote:You mean America was designed to be so vast that it has several different time zones? No wonder you're all screwed up. Think smaller next time, make something which doesn't take a week to drive across, like the Isle of Man; you can drive around it in an hour.

Umm, Australia is big enough to have three time zones, and we don't have anything like the population density of the US. Yet public transport works fine for many, many people here. In fact, public transport works best when considering those wide distances, because that's when train and plane become viable.

Cars are most commonly used for short trips around the city - so the necessity of cars is more a measure of suburban sprawl and decent light rail/bus servies than anything else.

Ahtman wrote:If one can't be forced by law to buy insurance, what does this mean for all the states that legally require car insurance?

Because the Federal Government doesn't make that mandate, it's a state mandate.

The Consitution doesn't give the Federal Government that power. As the 10th Amendment says, anything not granted to the Fed is within the States realm, so the States are allowed to do so. That is why the States have been the one to bring this lawsuit. Because it is the Federal Government abusing it's authority, taking that right from the States.

READ THE *%&$ING THREAD BEFORE POSTING

Ahtman wrote:READ THE *%&$ING THREAD BEFORE POSTING

It's a weird thing, that people would come to a discussion board, not to discuss, but just to post. That whole thing about reading other posts and maybe learning something is just for other people.

sebster wrote:

Ahtman wrote:READ THE *%&$ING THREAD BEFORE POSTING

It's a weird thing, that people would come to a discussion board, not to discuss, but just to post. That whole thing about reading other posts and maybe learning something is just for other people.

Well I also have myself to blame as I casually tossed out a half formed thought and rightly got called on it. Of course I didn't know it was going to end up like Office Space where everyone was going to ask if I got the memo about the TPS report.

halonachos wrote:

Peter Wiggin wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if rioting begins within the new year.

Or the next Raiders game...........

Do the raiders actually have fans?

Raider Nation foolio.

Ahtman wrote:Having a car is an option in the US? I find that idea both funny and sad.

Totally agree. And for the record I still AM against mandatory car insurance. How many accidents have I been in for the past 9 years? How many children have I killed? Oh wait, but I'm supposed to be paying money to a third party because I *could* have. Whatever. It's illegal to be homeless in many cities (they arrest you or escort you out of the city). You have to have money to live in America.

Slightly on topic rant: My tail light was out. $200 ticket. Srsly? My one tail light being out caused 200 bucks worth of pain and degradation + administrative fees?

djones520 wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If one can't be forced by law to buy insurance, what does this mean for all the states that legally require car insurance?

Because the Federal Government doesn't make that mandate, it's a state mandate.

The Consitution doesn't give the Federal Government that power. As the 10th Amendment says, anything not granted to the Fed is within the States realm, so the States are allowed to do so. That is why the States have been the one to bring this lawsuit. Because it is the Federal Government abusing it's authority, taking that right from the States.

And when it comes down to it on a practical level it doesn't matter who's doing it as long as "the government" is making me pay money that I'm having trouble acquiring because they're relying on other people to give it to me.

As I understand it, a lot of car related fines are basically a money making scheme by local government.

Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

Kilkrazy wrote:
Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

I still disagree. What percentage of driver's don't wreck or kill people? Then why are the majority penalized? I agree there should be means in place and the one at fault should have to pay (assuming they're not just getting screwed too), but there's got to be a better way. If you pay 80 bucks a month for insurance over 5 years and don't ever use it, is that money that was wisely invested or did it just take from your pocket to earn you nothing except "legal superiority?" I think there are more options to be explored personally. Mandatory insurance is a massive scam and most people can't seem to see it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

I still disagree. What percentage of driver's don't wreck or kill people? Then why are the majority penalized? I agree there should be means in place and the one at fault should have to pay (assuming they're not just getting screwed too), but there's got to be a better way. If you pay 80 bucks a month for insurance over 5 years and don't ever use it, is that money that was wisely invested or did it just take from your pocket to earn you nothing except "legal superiority?" I think there are more options to be explored personally. Mandatory insurance is a massive scam and most people can't seem to see it.

And just how would you make sure that anyone can pay any damage they cause while driving a vehicle?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

I still disagree. What percentage of driver's don't wreck or kill people? Then why are the majority penalized? I agree there should be means in place and the one at fault should have to pay (assuming they're not just getting screwed too), but there's got to be a better way. If you pay 80 bucks a month for insurance over 5 years and don't ever use it, is that money that was wisely invested or did it just take from your pocket to earn you nothing except "legal superiority?" I think there are more options to be explored personally. Mandatory insurance is a massive scam and most people can't seem to see it.

And just how would you make sure that anyone can pay any damage they cause while driving a vehicle?

Edited: Pointless rant about nothing in general.


Best way to cut the cost of cars is to get rid of them. Make bitches ride a bike instead of living 34092823049238 miles from work.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

I still disagree. What percentage of driver's don't wreck or kill people? Then why are the majority penalized? I agree there should be means in place and the one at fault should have to pay (assuming they're not just getting screwed too), but there's got to be a better way. If you pay 80 bucks a month for insurance over 5 years and don't ever use it, is that money that was wisely invested or did it just take from your pocket to earn you nothing except "legal superiority?" I think there are more options to be explored personally. Mandatory insurance is a massive scam and most people can't seem to see it.

Given that the only asset you have of any dubious value (as per your updates of your housing situation IIRC) you could not afford to pay to repair or injuries caused by an accident. Insurance is mandatory because if it so happens that you do get into an accident those payments can, after you fight with your insurer be made.

Insurance, at least auto insurance, isn't for you. It's to defray other people's costs. Because you really aren't worth the millions it will cost to keep little Timmy alive on a vent after your brakes failed.

efarrer wrote:
Insurance, at least auto insurance, isn't for you. It's to defray other people's costs. Because you really aren't worth the millions it will cost to keep little Timmy alive on a vent after your brakes failed.

Since that's ever happened. Again, "just cuz it could!" is a crappy argument. You could walk near a construction site and something might fall on you so you should probably have to have "falling tools" insurance. You might do something that indirectly damages someone else while at work so you should probably have to have "tripping or other minor mishap insurance." Where does it stop?

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And just how would you make sure that anyone can pay any damage they cause while driving a vehicle?

Restructure insurance. If someone goes 10 years without a wreck and has a fender bender, they've more than paid enough to be able to cover it. Have something like: If you have X amount in "Insurance credit" you only have to pay 5 bucks in administrative fees to keep it on hold. Does that make more sense? I'm not saying people don't need to be liable for damage they cause, but nothing else that's mandatory assumes you're going to eff up like auto insurance does. It's a big chunk of the average American's income to go to waste for most people that have it.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

efarrer wrote:
Insurance, at least auto insurance, isn't for you. It's to defray other people's costs. Because you really aren't worth the millions it will cost to keep little Timmy alive on a vent after your brakes failed.

Since that's ever happened. Again, "just cuz it could!" is a crappy argument. You could walk near a construction site and something might fall on you so you should probably have to have "falling tools" insurance. You might do something that indirectly damages someone else while at work so you should probably have to have "tripping or other minor mishap insurance." Where does it stop?

construction companies have ridiculous amounts of insurance, and companies generally have insurance insurance to cover damages to employees or customers. They're not for them there to cover the damages caused to others.

The examples sucked but the point stands. Accidents are not a passive thing. If two people are driving, nothing says they will be in an accident. It takes something actively happening for accidents to occur.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The examples sucked but the point stands. Accidents are not a passive thing. If two people are driving, nothing says they will be in an accident. It takes something actively happening for accidents to occur.

And accidents happen.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Third party insurance should be mandatory since if you do crash into someone they have to pay the costs incurred by you, if you don't have it.

I still disagree. What percentage of driver's don't wreck or kill people? Then why are the majority penalized? I agree there should be means in place and the one at fault should have to pay (assuming they're not just getting screwed too), but there's got to be a better way. If you pay 80 bucks a month for insurance over 5 years and don't ever use it, is that money that was wisely invested or did it just take from your pocket to earn you nothing except "legal superiority?" I think there are more options to be explored personally. Mandatory insurance is a massive scam and most people can't seem to see it.

I don't understand how you don't see this. People don't go out to have an accident. You wake up and brush your teeth and think "Today I am going to ram a car. Godd idea I just might do that later".

Accidents are just that, random convergence of stupidity or negligence. In order to get your insurance credit, which you thought about as an example, you must pay insurance in the first place and not make claims, that is what a no claims discount is for.

So are you saying that you should pay for insurance after the accident or not pay insurance at all? Ever?

The insurance industry is a complete scam. We've accepted it as part and parcel of life that we should pay someone every month in case something bad happens.

Health insurance $170
Auto insurance $100
Renters insurance $75

Thats idiotic, and I don't even hold a candle to what most people pay what with home owners insurance, earthquake insurance, tornado insurance, fire insurance, theft insurance, etc etec etc


Its such crap and it infuriates me that we even allow such a corrupt system to exist.