191–195 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the same reason you don't wear remotely controlled collar on your neck that paralyzes you in case you're doing something dangerous.
A recording of whether or not a driver is distracted driving to be able to prove it is not analogous to a collar that paralyzes someone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it’s a boring thought experiment. It hardly deserves the name “experiment”.
Sure. I can’t speak for Scoundreller, but I don’t think it was meant to be particularly interesting, just pointing out to wbl that if insurance was to become perfectly fair, it will also have become pointless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. I can’t speak for Scoundreller, but I don’t think it was meant to be particularly interesting, just pointing out to wbl that if insurance was to become perfectly fair, it will also have become pointless.
There’s a pretty big leap between perfectly fair and having perfect knowledge of the future. You can know that a fair coin gives exactly 50% chance to flip heads or tails without knowing what the outcome of the flip is going to be.
It’s hyperbole of sorts, but it highlights that until such a time, raising the cost of insurance doesn’t just punish the people who actually cause the damage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A recording of whether or not a driver is distracted driving to be able to prove it is not analogous to a collar that paralyzes someone.
I don't see any difference. You can and will do harm and we just want to prevent it. The collar goes in different styles and colors, you'll love it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a pretty big leap between perfectly fair and having perfect knowledge of the future. You can know that a fair coin gives exactly 50% chance to flip heads or tails without knowing what the outcome of the flip is going to be.
The original context was unsafe drivers, with the gist of the response being that when you have everyone paying for exactly the costs they themselves incur, insurance has become meaningless. It’s hyperbole of sorts, but it highlights that until such a time, raising the cost of insurance doesn’t just punish the people who actually cause the damage.
The personal risk component can be accounted by “perfect” information and that component can get bigger or smaller depending on your definition of perfect, but there’s another component which can’t.