Why does car insurance also insure for injuries rather than only insuring the car itself?
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.
What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?
car-insurance
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.
What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?
car-insurance
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
4
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
1
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
3
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
1
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.
What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?
car-insurance
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.
What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?
car-insurance
car-insurance
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
asked 5 hours ago
JonathanReez
1,01021120
1,01021120
4
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
1
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
3
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
1
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
4
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
1
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
3
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
1
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago
4
4
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
1
1
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
3
3
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
1
1
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago
|
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?
Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.
If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.
So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.
Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.
So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "93"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103017%2fwhy-does-car-insurance-also-insure-for-injuries-rather-than-only-insuring-the-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?
Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.
If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.
So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.
Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.
So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?
Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.
If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.
So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.
Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.
So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
add a comment |
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?
Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.
If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.
So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.
Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.
So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?
Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.
If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.
So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.
Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.
So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
edited 4 mins ago
chirlu
21226
21226
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
answered 2 hours ago
TomTom
1,9361113
1,9361113
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103017%2fwhy-does-car-insurance-also-insure-for-injuries-rather-than-only-insuring-the-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
4
Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago
1
Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago
@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago
3
@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago
1
@JonathanReez: Except for the wild animal part (maybe even then) you can sue the owner of the tree/building etc. for causing injury because it was not your fault that the building fell on you. Same with cars - you hit me I sue you. You cause me injury I sue for you to pay, not me, I won't cash out my insurance if I can force you by court order to cash out yours
– slebetman
16 mins ago