Earlier quoted context omitted.
On a societal level, we externalize most of the costs associated with auto crashes. I suspect that if we better rolled the true cost of injuries into the cost of car ownership (say, by increasing the minimum liability insurance to the cost of several statistical lives) the cheapest cars to own would be small and fairly new.
> say, by increasing the minimum liability insurance to the cost of several statistical lives I still remember arguing with some people on the internet about how irrelevant what insurance someone bought was if you got hit by them. After all, you'd have to get into quite the accident to exceed the liability limits on car insurance. I was so sure I was right. Then they introduced me to the idea you can drive in the US…
Yup. I mean, obviously, many people would not be able to afford reasonable levels of insurance, so instead of subsidizing public transit, or even directly subsidizing auto insurance or something, instead we leave it so that the costs of accidents are borne by victims who are unlucky enough to be hit by people who are carrying minimum driving insurance.
This means that if you are a responsible driver, you not only carry substantial liability insurance, in case you hurt someone else, but you also carry substantial 'uninsured motorist' coverage, which covers you in case someone who has minimum insurance hurts you.
Because of this, the cost of insurance varies radically; from almost nothing to rather more than the cost of a new compact car. And it scales, usually, with income, which is fine, really, but I think the way we do it (by throwing people who can't afford that rather expensive 'uninsured motorist' coverage or people who are hit outside their cars under the bus) is pretty messed up.