In other words, it is ridiculous to require by law that people limit their risk of being financially ruined by a lawsuit, but it is impossible to effectively require by law that people limit their risk of being ruined by bad stuff happening to them. Even if the bad stuff happens when they're in a car.
It's not intended to limit
your financial risk. It's intended to keep you from screwing some other poor schlep out of
their financial life just because you don't like being responsible enough to have proper liability coverage.
And, yes, bad stuff does happen in a car so let's break that down... 1) By direct association the operation of an automobile means that said bad stuff will be happening on public roadways. 2) Public roadways are normally also crowded with other motorists in their automobiles. 3) Operation of an automobile means said bad things will involve large masses moving at speeds that can exceed 70 mph, and in a potentially uncontrolled manner. 4) Motor vehicle accidents routinely involve large expenses, ranging from thousands to tens of thousands in non-injury accidents, and amounts from tens of thousands to millions in the case of injuries. 5) Insurance and accident data unequivocally shows persons with the highest accident rate also generally represent the group most likely not only to be uninsured, but also to be involved in incidents averaging a higher claim amount and/or involving injury to others.
In other words the operation of an automobile represents a known potential hazard to members of the general public, a hazard which involves significant threat to life, limb, and/or livelihood. That being the case it goes to reason that operation of a motor vehicle involves the inherent moral and ethical obligation of taking reasonable precautions to shield others from negligence in the event you are the at-fault party. Unfortunately those most most statistically likely to be involved in an acccident are also those most likely to willfully disregard that obligation, choosing to drive uninsured and representing a significant financial threat to others on the roadway and representing a statistically higher threat of both injury and financial loss. That being the case the states have enacted, and ligitimately so, the requirement for mandatory liability coverage
Also there's this...
If you want to limit your risk of *expletive deleted* happening to you, be careful. Buy insurance--for your risk, or for your risk of liability, whichever. If you want to avoid clogging up the courts with auto accidents, then sure, limit those cases.
Translation: Don't blame the person who caused the accident, or expect them to be responsible enough to have liability against their actions. Blame the victim and force them to bear the financial burden.
Relative to fuel taxes, it is insignificant. Remove the cost to administer licence plates and the delta is even tinier.
From the TXDOT FY2007 budget statement:
Revenue source / percent of total (dollar amount)
State Motor Fuel Tax / 21.2 ($1670.33 million)
(adjusted to account for the roughly 25% of total fuel tax revenues that go to public education. Total before adjustment was $2227.1 million)
Vehicle Registration / 12.6 ($969.8 million)
Registration revenues are less than fuel tax revenues, true, but hardly "insignificant" in relative terms.
Oklahoma started just such a verification database a few years ago. I think our "Tag Agents" (OKs version of DMV) can access it when you renew your registration.
Same for Texas, but they still require you to have your physical proof of insurance. IIRC the plan is for that to become unnecessary once the system becomes fully integrated.
Yes, but YOU can buy insurance to cover that risk. It is often called uninsured driver insurance.
If I severly damage your house through my negligence (non-automotive), do you expect me to have insurance to cover that? Would you ask the government to mandate that everyone have personal liability insurance that covers all acts of negligence?
Homeowner's liability and automotive liability are not comparable issues as the kind of accidents, amounts involved, and threat to life and limb differ radically. Breaking someone's window or knocking down a section of their fence with your lawnmower is a far cry from breaking someone's neck when you knock their car off the road.
Mandating reasonable coverage for not only known but
expected liabilities, liabilities that routinely include significant financial burden and loss of life and limb? Yes.
Brad
