> |A bit silly, but just a thought: What about having insurance companies
> |invent and enforce traffic rules - everyone is required to carry some
> |policy, but you choose which and are only bound by your providers
> |regulations. There's a competitive pressure then on insurers to issue
> |as few tickets as possible, so as to attract customers, but also to
> |maximize safety and avoid paying out. That's the trade off we're trying
> |to make, and If anyone's in a position to figure out what's
> |legitimately dangerous driving and what's not, it's people selling
> How do you suggest conflicts between two people with different providers
> should be solved?
I don't think that's a problem - you retain the notion of fault, so if
I get drunk and hit you I'm responsible for your damages. If I put you
in hospital for 6 months my liability is huge, and therefore my
insurers is too, since I'm required to carry some significant amount
of coverage for injuries I may potentially cause other people. It's
then in his interest to prevent me from driving like a maniac, even if
I own a tank full of airbags.
In cases where fault is disputed, then our insurers can take each
other to court - usually though you'd hope it could be solved by
mediation, since both sides would want to save to cost of litigation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:31 MDT