Arthur Dent wrote:
> Taking your points into account, my suggestion is still do-able and far
> more equitable than the current system in those areas where coverage
> is mandatory.
I like it.
> A nationwide mandatory liability policy on licenses would be a good thing.
> I think there are still some states where it is possible to carry no
> coverage at all
> on the vehicle.
According to California's DMV, 40% of drivers in some areas (example:
Rancho Cordova, a fairly well-off suburb of Sacramento) have no
insurance, and another 40% have only the minimum (15/30/5, the lowest
in the country). I take two lessons from this:
1) Carry the highest uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage you can
afford, because there's a good chance you'll need it if you get hit.
2) Carry enough liability coverage to protect your assets. You
wouldn't believe how many people I talk to who own houses worth $300k
or even 500k, but carry the minimum coverage. If you make the 11:00
news -- and somebody does, at least once a week just in the Sacramento
area -- who's going to wind up owning that house?
But back to your proposal. I like the idea of having the DMV enforce
coverage, but you don't need to attach the insurance to the license
to accomplish that. Many states -- NV, for one -- attach it to the
car registration. If you let your insurance lapse, the DMV wants your
plates back -- and any cop who runs the plate number will find it
flagged as expired. They have a much higher compliance rate than we.
|