Slashdot Mirror

The average American drives 13,476 miles each year. If they're spending 321 hours in their car each year, that works out to an average speed of 42 MPH. That's hardly bogged down by traffic, especially if you factor in time spent on local streets. I average about 20-25 MPH on local roads (after accounting for red lights). So if you figure half my commute time is on local streets, half on the highway, then I'm averaging 61.5 MPH on the highway.

The "problem" isn't traffic. It's suburbanization and high housing prices at workplace locations, forcing people to live much further from their workplace than in the past. Public transportation is great for countering excessive traffic, but less effective at countering long commute distances (the bus or train is stuck between having few stops so less time is wasted waiting, and maintaining frequent stops so you don't have to walk far when you get to your destination car-less).

It's also worth pointing out that the average (mean) for open-ended quantities (like time spent in a car per year - capped at 8760 hours) is skewed towards the high end by the few extreme persons. If 9 people in a room make $50k/yr, and the 10th person makes $5 million/yr, the average income for everyone in the room is $545k/yr. So the median number of hours spent in the car will be lower (probably a lot lower) than 321 hours.

So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?

An Internet search does reveal that it should be something to talk to your insurance provider about. Unless you want to risk being denied claims or even be charged with insurance fraud.

Just from the first page of my search:

http://www.carinsurance.com/Ar...

http://thelawdictionary.org/ar...

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb...

So no pizza deliveries on regular insurance?

An Internet search does reveal that it should be something to talk to your insurance provider about. Unless you want to risk being denied claims or even be charged with insurance fraud.

Just from the first page of my search:

http://www.carinsurance.com/Ar...

http://thelawdictionary.org/ar...

http://www.carinsurance.com/kb...

I know all about insurance. When I lived in Detroit the penalty for buying car insurance with a Detroit Zip code was in the $1,500 a year range. This site shows it's still happening. Click on a dot. If it's Detroit, the minimum will be in the $2,500-$3,100 range. The 'burbs are all below $2k, and mostly at $1,500.

As for EVs, the technology keeps improving, the costs keep going down, and used ones keep entering the marketplace. For example let's say you've got one car, but somebody needs to get to work every day and it's only a 40-mile commute. A used Leaf (available for $12k in my new suburban Cleveland home) would be perfect. If you need a car that can do gas-engine shit, then a hybrid Chevy Volt will set you back $16k used, and since you're saving about $1k a year in gas, if you use it for 10 years you basically purchased a 4-year-old-car for $6k.

Part of the problem is this areas is moving at much greater speeds then most automotive technology, so something that was true when they were first introduced four years ago is no longer true, particularly if you buy used and get half-off the original sticker price.

You are either delusional, bad at math or both. You would have to spend $1000 per month from the time you turned 16 until you were 100 for it to cost around a million dollars.

Let's see here, per month:
  * Insurance for most people: $100
  * Monthly payment on the car: $500
  * Monthly gas: $200 (based on usage of some people I know)

That's already $800 as an average figure. For some people, insurance will be much higher than that (even higher than $1000!), for others, it may be lower. Some people might buy a new car every 5 years or so (so always paying something for the car), others might use the same car for 30 years (this would make a huge difference, actually).

Now, if you factor in inflation (about 4%), in 50 years, that $800 will be $5700, so, for rough estimation, we can use the average: more than $3000, and that's more than enough to spend $1 mil, if you drive from when you were 20 until you were 70---not a terribly unlikely scenario.

Who's bad at math now?

P.S. To be perfectly honest, I came up with that $1 mil figure by squinting at my parent poster's figure of $20,000 - $30,000 that he would save by not paying for insurance, but it's not too far from the truth.

I take the client's point of view, not the providers (look, insurance can easily be a racket, right?). Since most people live in one jurisdiction over time, and have licenses most of their lives, the series of utterly necessary short transactions involving various vehicles is one long commercial relationship that involves some invasion of privacy, and thus like a lifelong transaction, so I propose that a public monopoly can do a more convenient and accountable job in these long-term situations.

Since any car on the road must be insured (here), it makes sense to tie the insurance to the registration, and thus in BC it is one 15-minute visit to a ubiquitous neighbourhood "Autoplan" franchise, where you get your plates, transfer of ownership, and insurance. It rocks! No need for multiple visits to multiple layers of bureaucracy or insurance attached to a person. Not only that, shopping is pointless (so no stress about the fine print or misrepresentation, or money wasted on advertising), and it's a decent rate compared to the national average.

As an added bonus, the public insurance corporation and its broker franchisees participate heavily in road safety programs, contributing in a realistic way to the public interest.

The situation I was referring to in Ontario, where I had no insurance for 8 months and thus couldn't easliy get service from private insurers once I purchase a car, was a carless period. It never occured to me that one might be able to operate a vehicle without insurance, but it's of course what you assumed. That's what I get for growing up in a nanny state--but in this case, with myriad fools operating 2 tons of steel at high velocity, I'm glad for the regulation.

BTW, don't believe what you hear about the BC provincial gov't--it's mind-bogglingly surreal at times. Yet some things do work well, despite (or maybe because of) the swings between socialism and free marketeering.

The problem is that running an insurance service involves many short term transactions, and the lack of competition in a gov't service breeds inefficiency (I hear magical things about how well the gov't works in BC, but I'll eat my hat if the same system worked in the United States). On the other hand, you raise a good point that if a gov't mandates a service, private providers can leave you high and dry, since they must mind their bottom lines.

In the US, there is a provision called SR-22 to help fill the gap; moreover, there is no recognized right to operate a motor vehicle, even roads are paid with taxes (thus justifying licensing and insurance mandates). Finally, being uninsured during any stretch while owning a vehicle registered for normal operation is indeed a bad sign to prospective insurers.

I think the Swiss healthcare model is an excellent example of the union between public policy and private providers. Perhaps something comparable could be devised for auto insurance.

SR-22 that's what I was thinking of.

Ok, so if you get into a crash your ass belongs to a private company who has underwritten the bond, usually secured by real estate. So there is no gov't entitlement here in the form of a long-term loan in the event you have to pay damages -- you are effectively self-insured.

Well, I've been schooled :).
A quick google search found this site which agrees with you.

But I've got to say, if you buy one of those puke-orange cars that are popular lately, you should have to pay ME for new eyes after I gouge mine out with a mellon baller.