81–90 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't work in states where the insurance industry has successfully lobbied for laws requiring that all vehicles in a household be cross-insured for every driver in the household.
I've never heard of such a thing. Which states are those? Geico's only stated recommendation is that anyone who uses the car more than once a month should be on the policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have the same bill as yours, $1200 per year, for two adult drivers. The $20k is for four kids, which is believable, since $5000 for a young driver is reasonable.
I guess I didn't realize insurance for kids was now that expensive. That's insane! I have a few years til mine is able to drive, that's going to be a fun conversation...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automakers charge what the be auto market can support. They can limit supply to keep prices high. Used car market is limited by new car market sales. Structural demographics means there are less workers every year (auto repair labor costs). Costs are unlikely to decline.
> Structural demographics Is that an euphemism for "refusing to pay a livable wage"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you confiscated my car tomorrow, I literally couldn't get to work or buy groceries. That isn't an optimization, it's a hard reality. Once you've built timely safe replacement infrastructure that can carry me from my home to my place of employment as fast or faster than my current commute, and take me to any of the shops I frequent, and do that for all of my neighbors, and do all of the above in a way that costs le…
Hey, I'm the guy who is 100% against private car ownership, and I don't want to "confiscate your car" (I mean, what would I do with that ?) or encourage anyone to do so (unless, of course, they're the bank and you're a delinquent , don't want to upset the apple cart too much...). I want you to be able to reliably get transport to where-ever you need to go, an what-ever time you need to go there, without the need to k…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposed price signal is "the more expensive, the better". So forbidding car ownership, in other words. A deeply destructive point of view.
> forbidding car ownership No need to be dramatic here. First, it's not "forbidden," just expensive. And the cost reflects the level of risk. Insurance companies aren't charities, and the marketplace is competitive, at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automakers charge what the be auto market can support. They can limit supply to keep prices high. Used car market is limited by new car market sales. Structural demographics means there are less workers every year (auto repair labor costs). Costs are unlikely to decline.
> Structural demographics Is that an euphemism for "refusing to pay a livable wage"?
Turns out we live in a built environment, not everyone can sit in a cube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Driving is hideously inefficient. It should be the most expensive option, because taking a 2-ton machine with you everywhere you go should be considered a luxury.
Not everyone lives in cities, not everyone can afford to live in cities, not everyone lives in areas well connected by public transportation and not everyone can afford to live in areas well connected by public transportation.
Looking at it from a theoretical standpoint, physically co-locating living space allows for a number of significant cost efficiencies compared to spreading the same number of people over a larger geographic area. For much of history it was the wealthy who could afford to live outside the cities while the poor had no such choice.
My guess is that if suburban and rural residents actually paid the full cost of their roads and other infrastructure (and if zoning didn't prevent organic density from forming) that living in the suburbs (as I do) would become comparatively more expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Deeply destructive, perhaps, but the norm in European countries. They prefer making driving expensive (be it via taxes, or import duties, etc). The US is still far cheaper to drive in, by comparison.
There are European countries that forbid car ownership?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All change from the status quo causes financial pain, usually for the people who can’t afford it. The OP also didn’t suggest or implement the change, but only commented that they liked the results with regard to car ownership and use
Oh, so it wasn't to be taken seriously. Well that's good, because if taken seriously you'd be talking about taking food out of my children's mouths to pay for your fantasy transportation infrastructure that wouldn't pay for itself due to population density, likely be poorly implemented while restricting my freedom of movement, and I make enough that I could eat those costs better than most. I'm annoyed at the termina…