> (Brent P) wrote:
>> I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>> insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.

I agree. Although then there would be more disputes after a hit-and-run
when the car can be identified but the driver can't. (Not to mention the
case where it's parked and rolls down a hill -- yes, the last driver is
liable but good luck finding out who he was!)

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
> carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
> drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.

In some states this is already required. Even where it isn't, you can
buy "non-owner" coverage, & without it most rental car companies won't
rent to you.