 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 28 Feb 2008 16:59:36
Message: <47c72ec7@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
> > Then who pays those things?
> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the
> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged
> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc). The only
> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any
> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.
What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 28 Feb 2008 17:07:16
Message: <47c73094@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp escribió:
> What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?
In Argentina, I bet they would keep blaming each other and leave the car
in the middle of the road for months :)
(ok, big exaggeration; but it *has* happened that two city governments
argue about who is in charge of fixing something and meanwhile the thing
doesn't get fixed)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 28 Feb 2008 18:21:55
Message: <47c74213$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:59:36 -0500, Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
>> > Then who pays those things?
>
>> The insurance company of the one who was deemed to be at fault in the
>> accident usually picks up all the direct costs (fixing any damaged
>> vehicles/property, tow-trucks, any medical compensation etc). The only
>> general cost that is footed by the government will be the cost of any
>> emergency services if they are needed on the scene.
>
> What if it was nobody's fault? What if there was no insurance?
In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's
"everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved), so each insurance
company pays some. But usually they can pin it on one party or t'other.
Or ISTR there's something called "no fault insurance" available.
If there's no insurance, part of the premium those of us who are legal
(because, at least with driving a car or owning a home, there's a legal
requirement to have insurance) end up paying a little extra to cover the
costs of the uninsured. Or maybe it's that there's a separate rider we
can pay for that covers those situations.
But at least in the case of a car accident, if you don't have insurance,
you're looking at a fine at the least. For homeowners, unless you own it
outright, the bank won't lend you money for the mortgage without it, and
if your insurance policy is canceled, they'll be notified (as part owner
in the property) and most lenders will send a nasty letter saying
essentially that if you don't correct the situation, they'll foreclose.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: scott
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 02:49:06
Message: <47c7b8f2$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> What if it was nobody's fault?
That never happens, the insurance companies always agree between them who
will pay (sometimes it's split 50/50).
> What if there was no insurance?
Not having a minimum of 3rd party insurance is illegal in most countries -
of course that doesn't mean it never happens, but it's only a very small
minority of cases. Under that situation it means the insurance company of
whoever owns the damaged property must pay up themselves - even if it wasn't
their fault. Of course you can try to sue the uninsured driver to get some
money back, but for small amounts it usually isn't worth it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 03:22:47
Message: <47c7c0d7@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's
> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)
Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
Yeah, fair.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: scott
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 04:45:26
Message: <47c7d436@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
> Yeah, fair.
Fair if you could have avoided the accident (eg by going slower or not
following so closely). If it was completely unavoidable then I can see your
point, but who else is going to pay for it? That's what insurance is for.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 11:33:51
Message: <47c833ef@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it.
What happens is that everyone's insurance pays for their own damage, in
the event that it wasn't anybody's fault. "Nobody's fault" includes
things like hailstorms, trees falling over onto your car, the bridge
collapsing from the flood while you're crossing it, etc. (Obviously,
this last one is somebody's fault, but not the fault of anyone actually
involved in the accident and taking damages.)
If it's a collision between cars, then somebody (or multiple somebodies)
is at fault.
So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so? Life isn't "fair". You catch
a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 11:55:34
Message: <47c83906@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] laptopcom> wrote:
> Fair if you could have avoided the accident (eg by going slower or not
> following so closely). If it was completely unavoidable then I can see your
> point, but who else is going to pay for it? That's what insurance is for.
That's why we pay exorbitant taxes.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Warp
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 12:13:18
Message: <47c83d2e@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> So, yeah, somebody has to pay for it, so? Life isn't "fair". You catch
> a serious disease, you have to pay to get cured too.
Not if you live in Canada, Cuba, Finland, or basically any western
country which is not the US. ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Seemingly they don't understand the concept of winter tires
Date: 29 Feb 2008 12:13:36
Message: <47c83d40$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 03:22:47 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> In the US, at least in my experience, if it's "nobody's" fault, it's
>> "everybody's" fault (everyone who was involved)
>
> Sounds fair. First you are in a dangerous car accident which might
> have even costed your life, and then you have to pay money for it. Yeah,
> fair.
Nobody ever said life was fair.
But in reality, sure, you could be killed in an accident and it could
well be entirely (or partially) your fault.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
