2 of 7

Agree

Write now Article Tools

The current system we have of insuring the vehicle itself leaves too much up to interpretation when problems do happen. The insurance is only good for certain individuals who are driving the vehicle, not anyone in general. In fact, an individual with multiple vehicles has to insure each one, which in a sense taxes people who have more cars that have taken on more responsibility. Insurance companies should not be able to benefit from such a system. As far as property values, an automobile isn't that valuable to begin with. Besides the city already makes a nice amount of money on property taxes to begin with.

Insurance is something that needs to be simplified; for example, the government themselves, which on some level, insures everything from Medicaid to Social Security, has a nice loophole out of insuring individuals or automobiles when it comes to transportation because they do not have a responsibility to provide anything more than the public transportation that has already been provided for us. Anyone can get on a bus for a dollar to perhaps $3.50 and ride somewhere because the expenses of public transportation has already been insured by the government through taxes collected by the people. Anyone can send a letter or other correspondence to a nominal fee. But when you want to have your own transpiration that isn't shared with everyone else, you have to be insured to protect everyone in your vehicle, and everyone else on the road, when you have already proven to the DMV that you are worthy of driving that vehicle in the first place. Because you already have your license. On the other hand, there are plenty of drivers on the road who aren't paying insurance but are driving other people's cars, for whatever reason. Yet it is the responsibility of the owner to protect their property when they aren't the ones that are using it at the time.

A system which could not be so easily circumvented would require some protection to those victims of an automobile crash at all times because the DMV would collect something from the driver to begin with. Individuals who wanted full coverage could continue to do so through the insurance companies that are already in place, effectively paying for anyone to have their vehicle replaced or paid off if they were the ones who were responsible for the wreck. Otherwise they would only be paying for the repairs of the one who was not at fault. All of the extra perks of insurance, such as loaner vehicles and rentals and such, simply would not exist at all whatsoever. Okay well maybe that part doesn't work as easily, but it is a start in a different direction. In any event, this may be an option to look at.

Learn more about this author, Christopher Kendalls.
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!