No, there is insurance for that. Motor vehicles are inherently dangerous machines, and we all take the risk of injuring someone every time we drive. Insurance distributes the risk of driving across all drivers. You should only be punished for injuring someone with a car if you were negligent.
Surely not? Cars are routinely driven by people who are not owners, and liability for traffic offences (including that the vehicle must be insured) is with the driver.
That only works if you (or your insurer) are actually held responsible to injuries done to people.
In most of the US, you can pretty much kill people with impunity with a car as long as you aren't doing something grossly in violation of traffic laws. Drivers have almost completely externalized the cost of injuries caused their excessively large vehicles.
NO, obviously not. Just like I don't think people should get seriously injured in traffic accidents. But people do and car manufacturers are not liable unless there was a defect or there was negligence somewhere.
So if someone hits someone in a car and they are just minor injuries we should’t involve the legal system? The method of injury ought not matter: car, bike, scooter, whatever — breaking road laws should be enforced and injuries should result in further charges.
According to your logic, people who ride in or drive cars shouldn't get any insured treatment if they have a crash, because they willingly indulged in risky behavior.
I've always kind of wondered what the country would be like if we held drivers materially accountable for injuring/killing other people. Ex, injuring a kid by rear ending a car was legally treated like inflicting the same injury with any other weapon.
Well yeah, if you hurt someone, you have to make it right. This has an easy fix, though: Drive safely. You can get insurance (we in Czechia colloquially call it "insurance against dumbness") if you want to, btw.
These are all different things, but the end result is that someone has been hit with a car. If your goal is to avoid people being hit with cars and someone keeps accidentally hitting people with their car, then you probably want to considering whether that person should be allowed to drive.
I injured a cyclist with my car when I was 18. I wasn't punished, and I don't think I should have been.
The cyclist ran a red light on a busy 4-lane road with turn lanes, a 45 mph speed limit and frontage roads. A box van in the left turn lane made it impossible for me to see him until he entered my lane. His leg was broken in three places and he spent six months in the hospital; something taller than the sports car I was driving probably would have killed him. He was fined for running a red light.
I don't think anybody should be criminally punished purely due to a bad outcome when they were acting with due care. Driving negligently is another matter entirely, and at a minimum, those who do it should be prevented from driving for a time.
You should only pay more if you cause actual damages. Even people who drive carefully can cause accidents. This is punishing people before they have caused a problem, and it is wrong.
A problem with your insurance incentive is that it only works for people who have insurance. It does nothing to deter uninsured drivers.
The risk of dying in a car accident isn’t enough to stop some people from driving recklessly. Why would a penalty that only applies to the rare occasion when someone causes harm be any better of an incentive for people who seem to already assume they’re not going to cause harm by their behavior?
Honestly, no they don't. If the car is following all applicable laws, no one should ever be in any danger. If someone has violated the law, they have inherently accepted the risks of their decision, and thus the car should protect the occupants.
Someone tied to the street, doesn't apply because (in my state) the car should be moving at a speed that it would be able to stop in time. Someone thrown from a bridge into a cars way isn't one either, the car should try to protect the occupants again, because that's the case where it'll do the least amount of damage to other nearby cars. In the latter case, Humans wouldn't be able to make a moral decision in that amount of time either, and thus, should default to doing the least amount of damage.
Many people are charged with crimes related to automotive accidents (DUI, for instance, or laws related to cell phone usage). We require drivers to carry insurance. We are constantly regulating things to reduce deaths and injuries in automotive accidents (seat belts, crumple zones, airbags, forced recalls, etc.) - we constantly think about automotive accidents when a human is behind the wheel. Why should we just shrug when some Tesla mows down a pedestrian while the driver is watching youtube videos?
taking actions that have some risk of killing or greviously harming others is not uncommon or monstrous. Well, at least if it is, then we should be much harsher to folks who drive cars.
What exactly is the problem with punishing people for risky driving? Or rather, let them pay a corresponding premium to cover for the (statistically expected) higher damages they will cause? Keep in mind that driving behaviour is something the user has full control of, in contrast to e.g. disabilities, for which of course no insurance premium should be paid.
I actually think this is a good idea, and would like to hear opposing opinions.
But there are some quite good markers for identifying potentially dangerous drivers beyond actual collisions. For example people who repeatedly use mobile phones at the wheel or are caught speeding. An honhest mistake is more forgivable than willfully putting people in danger.
Pewrsonally I think collisions should result in a large income based fine that is given to the victim and not paid for by insurance. We need something in between "insurance sorts it out" and manslaughter.
reply