Why does car insurance also insure for injuries rather than only insuring the car itself?











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.



What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?










share|improve this question


















  • 4




    Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
    – Charles E. Grant
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
    – Moo
    3 hours ago










  • @Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    @JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
    – Moo
    1 hour ago










  • @Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago















up vote
1
down vote

favorite












At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.



What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?










share|improve this question


















  • 4




    Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
    – Charles E. Grant
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
    – Moo
    3 hours ago










  • @Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    @JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
    – Moo
    1 hour ago










  • @Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago













up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.



What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?










share|improve this question













At the very least here in British Columbia car insurance is very expensive because of substantial payments towards injury and rehabilitation compensation. To me this doesn't make much sense, as in theory car insurance and disability/health insurance should be two completely separate products.



What are the reasons behind such policies? Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate insurance for injuries?







car-insurance






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 5 hours ago









JonathanReez

1,01021120




1,01021120








  • 4




    Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
    – Charles E. Grant
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
    – Moo
    3 hours ago










  • @Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    @JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
    – Moo
    1 hour ago










  • @Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago














  • 4




    Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
    – Charles E. Grant
    4 hours ago








  • 1




    Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
    – Moo
    3 hours ago










  • @Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago






  • 2




    @JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
    – Moo
    1 hour ago










  • @Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
    – JonathanReez
    1 hour ago








4




4




Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago






Do you appreciate that while it's called "car insurance" it's really a form of liability insurance? That is, if you are responsible for an accident, the sense of the law is that you, as the cause of the accident, should be on the hook for paying the costs.
– Charles E. Grant
4 hours ago






1




1




Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago




Why should I pay for my life long care if you crippled me with your car? That's why these limited liability policies like you get in the US are ridiculous - your insurance should cover 100% of the cost of making your mistakes correct, even if that costs tens of millions to support a quadriplegic for the next 75 years.
– Moo
3 hours ago












@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago




@Moo I guess the question why not force motorists who are afraid of those risks to take out a separate policy and insure their own health.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago




2




2




@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago




@JonathanReez And pedestrians? And passengers? In the real world we prefer to let the liability lie with those liable - the one that cause the injury or loss. And rightfully so - driving a car is a responsibility, treat it as such.
– Moo
1 hour ago












@Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago




@Moo a lot of things can go wrong when you step outside - a tree might fall down on you, a wild animal could attack you, a building could collapse, you might fall on ice, etc. If you want insurance, buy it out of pocket. Makes sense to me as opposed to only targeting motorists.
– JonathanReez
1 hour ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote














Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
insurance for injuries?




Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.



If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.



So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.



Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.



So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "93"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103017%2fwhy-does-car-insurance-also-insure-for-injuries-rather-than-only-insuring-the-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    4
    down vote














    Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
    insurance for injuries?




    Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.



    If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.



    So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.



    Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.



    So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      4
      down vote














      Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
      insurance for injuries?




      Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.



      If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.



      So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.



      Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.



      So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        4
        down vote










        up vote
        4
        down vote










        Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
        insurance for injuries?




        Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.



        If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.



        So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.



        Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.



        So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.






        share|improve this answer















        Why not only have the drivers insure their car and then let everyone purchase separate
        insurance for injuries?




        Because people are idiots, cheap and bankrupt. And cars are dangerous 1.5 ton weapons.



        If you lose control of your car and hit a group of people then you as the driver are liable. You also are totally unable to accept that and have not saved up the millions in damages you just caused. Which means that you cause other people non recoverable loss, financially. Welcome to the real world where shitty decisions have really shitty outcomes – and in terms of cars that can mean a lot of harmed life.



        So, in most civilized countries (except to my knowledge the USA) the lawmakers have decided you must have a full liability insurance and call it a car insurance. It is not to insure the car, it is to ensure all the damage you can cause out of extremely comical super errors are covered. And yes, that includes injury and rehabilitation compensation for the group of people that got seriously hurt in the bus your crappy 20 year old car was just pushing off the road. Just to give an example where a lot of people may go in for half a year rehab and the cost goes into the millions. And it is the driver's fault.



        Also the insurance has to cover damage done by car. You are totally drunk – insurance covers it. Your driving license is toast, etc., but the damaged party is made whole and that costs.



        So, the main reason we do not give you the choice is that while everyone touts democracy and free will, history shows people do not consider the long tail freak accident. Yes, most car accidents are cheap – but some are extremely expensive and no, you do not have the money to pay for that.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited 2 mins ago









        chirlu

        21226




        21226










        answered 2 hours ago









        TomTom

        1,9261113




        1,9261113






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Personal Finance & Money Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmoney.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f103017%2fwhy-does-car-insurance-also-insure-for-injuries-rather-than-only-insuring-the-ca%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

            Mangá

            Eduardo VII do Reino Unido