8 of 9

Disagree

Write now Article Tools

Answering the question of whether insurance should be required for the driver instead of the vehicle is about as easy as answering whether the United States should have made the decision to invade Iraq or not. I am old enough to remember a time when I firmly believed that the government of the United States should not be so hasty in making decisions that would come to affect so many lives.

That was before I had been rammed by the first person who had no insurance and no way to pay for the damage they had done to my vehicle. It's easy to argue, based on this event, that nobody should get behind the wheel of any car without at least liability insurance. It is also necessary to point out that liability insurance does, in fact, insure the driver and not the vehicle. It is not only possible, but legally required that a driver be insured, if they expect to get behind the wheel of any vehicle (even if they don't own a vehicle.) Check with your local insurance agent if you have doubts. Better yet, try to talk your way out of a "failure to maintain financial responsibility" ticket because the friend who lent you the car you are driving (because you don't have your own transportation) has liability insurance.

This brings us to the guts of the debate: should the vehicle be insured? The answer is simple: if you do not currently own the vehicle in full, then you better cover the investment your car loan company has entrusted you with. This "insures" that you will be able to keep driving the vehicle, no matter whose fault it may be, if the vehicle is damaged in an accident.

The main argument for insuring the driver and not the vehicle seems to be based on the cost. The price of liability insurance, which is the minimum "financial responsibility" required, is indeed based on the driving record of the individual being covered. All other types of automobile insurance are based on the protection of an investment, which most drivers are still paying for while enjoying the freedom to drive their investment down streets shared with far too many people who don't even possess the minimum "financial responsibility."

Here is the reason I liken this argument to US involvement in Iraq: it would be nice if, going into the deal, we knew we could do something that would allow us to overcome the lasting negative effect of any unforeseen event. The difference is that you do have a way to do that when you purchase a new vehicle on a loan-insuring the auto, not just the driver. The driver should be insured as a minimum. If you want to protect your transportation, you should require yourself to cover your vehicle as well. If you don't, the only protection you have any hope of enjoying is going to come from the minimum requirements of the driver who just rammed your car.

Learn more about this author, PR Clepper.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Insurance should be required for the driver not the vehicle?
We want to hear your view. Write now!