Small cars and small overlap front crash test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.

So if you're driving along, not doing anything wrong, and some idiot smashes into you (his fault) and he has no insurance, and he has nothing of value to sue over, basically leaving you to pay for your damages out of pocket when you did absolutely nothing wrong. You'd be ok with that? Even if it cost you thousands to fix or replace your car, and thousands more in medical treatments? Yeah, I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy paying for that yourself.
smirk.gif
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


Insurance companies can do what the gov't/ DMV cannot: Discriminate. Four OUI's? Space them out enough and you can still get a license, but insurance might be a tall order. As it should be.

And there are 100's of insurance companies to choose from. If they are all too expensive, maybe it's time for some inner reflection.
 
From the NMA's website on why they do not approve of mandatory insurance:

1. It increases the cost of auto insurance.
2. It increases the regulation of auto insurance.
3. It adds more punitive sanctions to be applied against motorists, even if they have auto insurance.
4. It reduces the number of companies offering coverage in a given state.
5. It does not necessarily increase the number of insured vehicles.
6. It does not guarantee coverage of catastrophic losses.
7. There are better ways to protect responsible motorists from serious losses attributable to uninsured motorists.


"The principal reason vehicle owners do not have auto insurance is the cost of insurance. Passing a law that increases the cost to administer, sell, and buy auto insurance does not constructively address the main reason people aren't buying insurance in the first place, cost."


http://www.motorists.org/insurance/
 
Originally Posted By: eljefino
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell
I've always believed that any kind of mandatory insurance should be illegal.


Insurance companies can do what the gov't/ DMV cannot: Discriminate. Four OUI's? Space them out enough and you can still get a license, but insurance might be a tall order. As it should be.

And there are 100's of insurance companies to choose from. If they are all too expensive, maybe it's time for some inner reflection.


The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.

Driving is just one example, others are work place safety, building safety, medical services, discrimination against specific groups, building safety, etc etc.

I hate insurances, but I hate irresponsible individuals who wants to free ride the rest of the society without paying for the liability even more.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.



Exactly; a grossly expanded government and more regulations are just what this country needs...
 
Originally Posted By: antiqueshell


I'm not saying I would never have an accident that was my fault, however it is highly UNlikely that any accident I would be involved in would be my fault because I practice personal responsibility, many folks do not, and that mandatory insurance also may be a subconscious factor when it comes to them driving in a irresponsible manner.


Boy I'm glad people like you aren't in charge of anything more than your keyboard.

So, lets see if I understand your point:

If insurance wasn't mandatory, the world would be a better place, according to your logic.

There is one glaring flaw with your idea, and that's the fact that if you remove the insurance requirement, then you will only INCREASE the number of bad drivers on the road who do not carry insurance. Not a single bad driver will actually become a better driver.

Your logic is that if a bad driver uses his insurance policy as a safety net for bad driving habits, and if you remove the safety net, then they will miraculously become a better driver instantly, because suddenly they won't want to get into accidents anymore.

Your logic is actually based on YOUR DESIRE to not pay for auto insurance.
I can understand that piece of the puzzle. Why should I have to pay for insurance when I don't get into accidents, and I don't cause other people to have accidents?

You just want your money to stay in your pocket, which I understand.

But don't try and pawn off your desire as some sort of reasonable assumption on other people. It doesn't fit. If the world went the way you wanted it to go, I would guarantee that the hit and run rate would easily quadruple in a matter of months.

"Oh crud, I just had an accident, and I don't have insurance, so I better get out of here as quickly as I can. Too bad for the motorcyclist I just t-boned, hopefully he's dead so he can't tell the police what I look like, or what car I was driving."

That sequence already happens too many times a day, and in your "utopia", it would skyrocket.

Thankfully, you don't run the world, and never will.

BC.
 
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Originally Posted By: PandaBear

The government has been too loose in terms of doing the right things to protect people in the country from their daily activities and stupidities, and since everyone demands the private sector and market economy, insurance companies are doing what the law should have done anyways.



Exactly; a grossly expanded government and more regulations are just what this country needs...


New Regulation 1 - No one should be allowed to have anymore children.
That way, we can guarantee that the stupid people will eventually all die off.

I think we're long overdue with this government mandate.

New Regulation 2 - Anyone who currently has more that 2 children of the same sex will have to turn them in to a recycling center. Your can only have 1 make child, and 1 female child out of your current brood. Your spare children will then be offered up for adoption across the country to those who want them in order to fill their child quota, or will be destroyed.

New Regulation 3 - All children between ages 2 and 18 will be sterilized.
Chances are they are an idiot, and we really don't want to risk them having exponentially stupider children in the future. According to some, the Founding Fathers of this country were the most brilliant people ever, and today's kids are way dumber than they were back in the late 1700's, so that means that the kids of the late 2000's should be prevented from being born.

New Regulation 4 - If you get into a vehicle accident, or a multi-vehicle accident, regardless of who's at fault, all parties involved in the accident should be executed on site, regardless of fault. Passengers in the vehicles, too. Family members, friends, and neighbors should also be executed, as they would suffer loss and grief, so we must eliminate that outcome from occurring, also.

Nice world.
Who wants to sign up?

BC.
 
Yup, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the subject...

Quote:

If it sounds asinine that a car that previously was “safe” now “isn’t,” it is. The IIHS’s small-overlap test won’t gain significant meaning in assessing relative safety until most or all cars are designed with the test in mind, at which point they’ll all probably do quite well. This is the unfortunate cycle in which the industry finds itself: Cars are deemed “safe,” a government or watchdog agency formulates new standards that indicate otherwise, the automakers engineer their next generation of models to ace the latest tests, and we start all over again.
 
Originally Posted By: MCompact
Car and Driver's take...





Great retort by Car and Driver on this media hype about this test. Here's the short version MANY new mid sized cars fail the same test but are still considered "top safety picks".
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top