Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical • Hacker News Board

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#11

Post by raverbashing » Sun, May 20, 2012, 2:51 PM UTC

ivankirigin wrote: post #2

This is a bit of FUD IMHO Also, I've thought for some time that P2P car sharing should be over longer terms, like months.

Agreed

"That's why we can't have nice things"

Too much liability issues and because of (most likely) an irresponsible driver now they're (or better, someone that can pin any cost on the injured) goes after the car renter, car manufacturer, road authority, etc. They'll probably make a way for Steve Jobs to be liable as well if they can, I guess

"no longer theoretical" No crap sherlock. People have been getting injured in car accidents for the past 100 years.

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured or killed in a car accident. Do you want zero risk? Live in a bubble

Now his suddenly becomes a multi-million dollar cash cow for several 3rd parties.

Except for the victims of course, who'll have to deal with giant health costs (because of similar excess liability and regulation meandering by the authorities and greed by the medical industry)

Sure, liability is important, if it involved a drunk driver for example, or a fault that comes from the car maker.

But there's always a risk! And preventing some risks causes even more risks sometimes.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#12

Post by wazoox » Sun, May 20, 2012, 2:51 PM UTC

The egregious part is the limited insurance coverage ($1M from the rental company and $300K from the renter). This probably wouldn't happen in Europe.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#13

Post by nknight » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:12 PM UTC

ivankirigin wrote: post #2

This is a bit of FUD IMHO Also, I've thought for some time that P2P car sharing should be over longer terms, like months.

> This is a bit of FUD IMHO

Would you care to tell us why? As-is, I could rewrite your comment as "Java is better than C IMHO" and it would be exactly as useful.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#14

Post by sethg » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:18 PM UTC

raverbashing wrote: post #11

ivankirigin wrote: post #2

This is a bit of FUD IMHO Also, I've thought for some time that P2P car sharing should be over longer terms, like months.

Agreed "That's why we can't have nice things" Too much liability issues and because of (most likely) an irresponsible driver now they're (or better, someone that can pin any cost on the injured) goes after the car renter, car manufacturer, road authority, etc. They'll probably make a way for Steve Jobs to be liable as well if they can, I guess "no longer theoretical" No crap sherlock. People have been getting injured…

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being injured or killed in a car accident.

By getting into a car and driving you assume a non zero risk of being sued for damages caused by a car accident.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#15

Post by mratzloff » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:18 PM UTC

As an aside, I've never heard of this service but it sounds like a terrible deal for the owner. I assume the $10/hour is supposed to help offset wear and tear, although I hope the renter has to at least replace the gas they use.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#16

Post by haberman » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:20 PM UTC

It seems perverse that mere ownership of something can create liability.

If she had failed to get some maintenance that made the car dangerous to drive, that would be one thing. But there is no indication that this is the case.

If a psychopath rents a VHS from Blockbuster and then uses it to bludgeon someone's head in, is Blockbuster liable for that act of violence? Sure, a VHS is not intended to be used this way, but a car is not intended to be crashed either.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#17

Post by Nrsolis » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:21 PM UTC

jacquesgt wrote: post #9

dkrich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because that's not how car insurance works. You purchase a policy to insure your car (and in most cases other drivers in your family). Car insurance doesn't insure the individual against whatever vehicle he may be operating on any given day. That's why your car insurance is based upon the make/model/year of your car, as well as which state it is registered in, how many miles you drive it per day, etc. It also seems f…

That actually is how car insurance works. There's a property insurance component ("collision" and "comprehensive") that insures you against loss or damage to your property. Then there's a more expensive liability insurance component that insures you against liability as a driver of any car. The property insurance portion is optional as long as you own your car outright.

Correct.

Liability is the "required" part of insurance in most states. It follows you from car to car.

What has likely happened is that they person who rented the car didn't have insurance of their own. That seems likely, since it's kind of pointless to have automotive liability insurance if you don't own a car. Even more so if you're used to purchasing insurance at the point of sale when you rent a car.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#18

Post by uptown » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:26 PM UTC

I think she's extremely naive to put her new car back into the pool before finding out how the courts handle this incident.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#19

Post by newbie12 » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:27 PM UTC

RelayRides is not carrying enough insurance. Individual coverage from car owners is inadequate, and car owners can't be expected to purchase commercial car rental insurance just to participate in RelayRides.

This kind of reminds me of AirBnB, where new forms of renting rely, in part, on deceiving users about the risks. RelayRides and AirBnbB business models rely in part on the savings from inadequate insurance coverage, where individuals are suckered into taking on commercial risks while still carrying only individual insurance and having unlimited personal liability.

Re: Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

#20

Post by delinka » Sun, May 20, 2012, 3:37 PM UTC

steve8918 wrote: post #4

bcl wrote: post #3

I don't understand why they aren't going after the dead guy's insurance. He's the one who was at fault, not the owner of the car, so his insurance should be the one to pay for the injuries.

If the person didn't have their own car, I would be surprised if they had their own car insurance. The victims could sue the estate, but there might not be a lot of money in it.

In my state, you can't get auto insurance without a car. You can be a licensed driver, you can have money to hand the insurance company for your premium, but if you don't own a car, you can't get car insurance. I don't know if you could get general liability insurance that would also cover you driving other people's cars.

But if it's the car that's insured, why do specific drivers have to be listed on the policy? The way I understand it is even if I'm not listed on someone's policy and I'm driving their car, their auto insurance covers my fuck up when I cause an accident.

Doesn't seem right, but I suppose that's the way it works.