If that car being towed belongs to a minimum-wage mom of three teens, let’s see, she makes 12,000$ a year and the insurance for three teens can reach 8,000$,(according to a Montana Interim report.) She would have to spend 70% of her income on car insurance. I think you are going to have resort to torture to get her to buy car liability insurance. Why not pass a law allowing the “waterboarding” of uninsured motorists who refuse to spend 70% of their income on auto insurance?
Why should this hypothetical person be allowed to put the general public at greater risk by not being required to maintain the state’s required minimum amount of liability insurance as other responsible drivers? What makes it OK for such a person to cause harm to others and then just shrug and say to the injured party, too bad for you? If they can’t afford to lawfully operate a car, then they need to find alternate and less expensive transportation.
I agree with Mark above. I am an insurance agent and I did a bit of checking. I used a hypothetical example of a 40 yr old mom and 3 teenagers. Mom has poor credit and lives in SLC. 17 year old son has 4 minor violations and all 4 residents share 1 car. ( I basically tried the worse case scenario that is still reasonable) The annual price is $2556 per year. Not cheap but far from the example given by Don.
If that car being towed belongs to a minimum-wage mom of three teens, let’s see, she makes 12,000$ a year and the insurance for three teens can reach 8,000$,(according to a Montana Interim report.) She would have to spend 70% of her income on car insurance. I think you are going to have resort to torture to get her to buy car liability insurance. Why not pass a law allowing the “waterboarding” of uninsured motorists who refuse to spend 70% of their income on auto insurance?
You’re correct, ruining people’s bodies and properties should be more affordable.
Mom and three teens living on 12k/year? No chance 4 people with one car runs 8k/year in premiums. Maybe 4 cars but not one unless it’s a Lambo.
Why should this hypothetical person be allowed to put the general public at greater risk by not being required to maintain the state’s required minimum amount of liability insurance as other responsible drivers? What makes it OK for such a person to cause harm to others and then just shrug and say to the injured party, too bad for you? If they can’t afford to lawfully operate a car, then they need to find alternate and less expensive transportation.
I agree with Mark above. I am an insurance agent and I did a bit of checking. I used a hypothetical example of a 40 yr old mom and 3 teenagers. Mom has poor credit and lives in SLC. 17 year old son has 4 minor violations and all 4 residents share 1 car. ( I basically tried the worse case scenario that is still reasonable) The annual price is $2556 per year. Not cheap but far from the example given by Don.