Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

maxmautner.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#31

Post by Gibbon1 »

jeffbee wrote: post #23

> In-car dongles that track jerky driving, crash event recorders, and driver monitoring systems now let an insurer observe behavior directly and price it. Uh, but not in California, because of 1988's Prop. 103. Telematics for insurance pricing are completely unavailable in California.

Because of Prop 103 California has reasonable insurance rates especially considering cost of living. California's laws and regulations are oriented around forcing people to have at least some coverage. I suspect that the laws annoy insurance companies because they conflict with MBAs craven impulses. But those impulses when not pushed back against eventually result in collapse.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#32

Post by jjav »

mrtesthah wrote: post #9
lostlogin wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Forget the ridiculous minimum coverage requirements, a huge percentage of Americans drive around with no insurance whatsoever Here in New Zealand you aren’t required to have insurance at all, although every gets healthcare and lost wages paid for (ACC) in cases of injury, which is a kind of insurance.

So in order words, non-drivers are forced to subsidize drivers (who risk the lives and property of others)? Here’s a comparison of US public subsidization of the costs of driving, from the same blog: https://maxmautner.com/2026/09/10/paying-for-driving.html

Did you know insurance works by pooling and sharing the risk amongst a group?

The larger the group to share the risk and cost, the more efficient it becomes.

If you try to buy health insurance for all your employees as a tiny employer, costs are higher than if some employer with hundreds of thousands of employees seeks to buy the same insurance.

Because that huge employer is sharing the risk of some employee having to get very expensive treatment across all those employees.

You know what is the largest group available? All the citicens of the country in a single insurance plan. That is the point of maximum efficiency (least cost). As a bonus, you can remove all the middlemen of insurance companies, further increasing efficiency.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#34

Post by GenerWork »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #8
kube-system wrote: post #3

You basically need to insure yourself when using US roads. Forget the ridiculous minimum coverage requirements, a huge percentage of Americans drive around with no insurance whatsoever -- 20% or more in some states.

Something people that bitch about the high cost of California vs Florida won't mention is how high auto and home owners insurance is in Florida. Florida is a high risk state with a lot of fraud.

The reforms that were passed a few years ago are actually working somewhat OK. I'm 3 miles from the beach on the coast and pay under $2k for private home owners insurance.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#35

Post by mslate »

jeffbee wrote: post #23

> In-car dongles that track jerky driving, crash event recorders, and driver monitoring systems now let an insurer observe behavior directly and price it. Uh, but not in California, because of 1988's Prop. 103. Telematics for insurance pricing are completely unavailable in California.

[dead]

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#36

Post by porkshoe »

robotnikman wrote: post #22
deepsun wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who pays for that?

Taxpayers. Imo if we didn't have such high national debt in the US, those interest payments to the debt could have instead been used for something like national health insurance. The politicians of the past really screwed us all with the debt.

Politicians of the past?

We're on track for an annual deficit that exceeds everything but the 2020/2021 covid era. The politicians of the present are the issue.

It turns out that even broad consumption taxes in the guise of tariffs aren't enough to offset gigantic permanent tax breaks for the wealthiest.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#37

Post by philip1209 »

Making cars a requirement for participating in society, across all socioeconomic levels, was a mistake. Now, lacking a car can put people into economic crisis.

We can correct this by investing in public transportation and getting rid of government-provided free parking.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#38

Post by charlieyu1 »

rpdillon wrote: post #21
mrtesthah wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So in order words, non-drivers are forced to subsidize drivers (who risk the lives and property of others)? Here’s a comparison of US public subsidization of the costs of driving, from the same blog: https://maxmautner.com/2026/09/10/paying-for-driving.html

Non-drivers benefit from roads and vehicles, since they are part of society. Many non-drivers order from Amazon, for example, and are reliant on someone being able to actually deliver what they ordered. I'm responding to you, because this smacks of the same rhetoric I hear with schools: "Oh, all the non-parents have to subsidize the education of other people's kids?" Well, yes, those kids grow up and deliver your mai…

This is a very different thing though. People ordering from Amazon already paid for the insurance for the trip with delivery fees. And I don't think you can bring up public services as an example. Non-drivers should not be paying for damages caused by reckless drivers, the drivers should pay for insurance, especially when drivers are the same group of people who complain about fundings of public transport.

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#39

Post by Apreche »

Barrin92 wrote: post #24

is that accurate? Here in Germany minimal Kfz-Haftpflichtversicherung is I believe 7 million in personal injuries and 1 million in property damages. So if a broke guy in the US runs you over and causes you half a million in health damages, puts you out of work and totals your car you'll get 30k from their insurance? How can you legally let people on the road like this

Yes, it is accurate. Welcome to USA!

Re: Killing with a car costs $1.6M, California requires drivers to carry $30K

#40

Post by throw0101a »

robotnikman wrote: post #22
deepsun wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who pays for that?

Taxpayers. Imo if we didn't have such high national debt in the US, those interest payments to the debt could have instead been used for something like national health insurance. The politicians of the past really screwed us all with the debt.

> The politicians of the past really screwed us all with the debt.

Between his first term and his second term to date (2+ more years), Trump is responsible for more that one quarter (29%) of US debt (USD 11.6T / 40T):

* https://time.com/article/2026/08/21/national-debt-trump-bide...

There was a bit of a mitigating circumstance of COVID (for Trump and Biden), which caused the debt to jump for many countries as well (and not just the US), but it's not like Trump et co are helping the math along with all the tax cuts and asking for a US$ >1T military budget.

Post reply on HN