Readers of this column already understand the car insurance “families” – GEICO, Progressive, et al – are mafias. The only difference between them and the Columbo, Gambino and other traditional mafias is that the insurance mafias are not only legal – they are legally enforced. You can at least legally try to defend yourself against the guido enforcer who comes around demanding you pay “protection” money; but if you refuse to pay for “coverage,” the government will come after you.
This has resulted – as ought to be obvious – in the cost of coverage being not just higher than it would be if you were free to decline to be covered. It has resulted in the cost of enforced coverage becoming so expensive as to approach becoming unaffordable. The effect of this – intentional or not – will be to force working and middle income people to give up owning their own vehicles. (Home owners – a sickly term in view of the fact that no one in this country can ever hope to actually own their home, by dint of having to pay property taxes in perpetuity – are under similar and waxing pressure. The cost of home insurance is becoming so costly that a growing number of working and middle income people can no longer afford to pay for it, effectively forcing them out of the home they like to think of as theirs.)
Part of the reason for the fast-rising cost of car coverage – aside from the fact that people are effectively forced to buy it – is that people are being forced to bear the costs (potential and actual) incurred or threatened by other people. Here I’ll use myself as an example. I own an old truck – my trusty 2002 Nissan Frontier. It is not worth much – in terms of its “book value” even though it is worth a great deal to me, because (among other things) it is paid-for and does not have expensive-to-fix “technology” I am not interested in paying to have or even to have for free, if it were given to me.
Until a year ago, I paid very little to cover my truck because it isn’t worth much and also because I have not had an accident or filed a claim for anything in decades or even gotten a “speeding” ticket in years. The cost of covering my truck – and me – ought to be very little. The same goes for probably millions of other people who have chosen to keep and to drive older, low-value vehicles because they prefer to keep their cost-of-living (and driving) low. Yet I and they find the cost of our coverages doubling or even tripling all-of-a-sudden.
What has changed?
Well, the cost of repairing and replacing the very expensive vehicles other people have chosen to buy is being shifted over to everyone else.
For instance, the ’25 Infiniti QX80 I recently test drove and wrote about (see here). This 6,400 pound Wurlitzer of plastic, steel and “technology” has a base price of of $82,450 and the one I reviewed stickered out for more than $112,00. As recently as a decade or so ago, vehicles that cost this much were exotics – and so there were very few of them on the road – and so very little chance you might run into one (or they into you). It is now common for half-ton picks ups and SUVs to sell for $50,000 on the low end and six figures optioned out. The government-pushed proliferation of electric vehicles – most of which also start around $50,000 and often cost $75,000-plus – has added considerably to the number of high-expense vehicles out there and this has increased the odds of you getting into an accident with one – whether your fault or theirs – and that potential (and actual) cost is the main reason why the cost of everyone’s coverage has doubled or tripled over the past couple of years, even if you do not own one of these expensive vehicles.
There is arguably an element of unfairness here that is similar to what are styled regressive taxes in that they hit hardest those least able to pay them.
More finely, why should “a” be made to pay more for coverage because “b” chose to purchase a much more expensive to repair/replace vehicle? This is something “a” has no control over. But “b” does. Why should “a” have to pay for that? My truck’s headlights cost about $75 each to replace if they are damaged and the front end has no cameras or other “technology” embedded in it. Some new trucks have headlights that cost $500 each to replace and the plastic front “clip” houses several cameras and if the “clip has to be replaced the cost can be several thousand dollars. 
It is of a piece with people who chose not to buy a home located in the known path of hurricanes for just that reason having to pay more for their home insurance to offset higher and more more likely losses arising from the choices made by others to buy/build homes located in the known path of hurricanes.
In both cases, the affluent are offsetting their losses by using the mafia – which uses the government – to make others pay for them.
The ideal solution would be to make no one pay for them because making anyone pay for things – and specifically, making them pay for “protection” – is nothing other than a strong-armed shakedown. It is what Sammy “The Bull” Gravano did on behalf of John Gotti, the Dapper Don. 
There are people, of course, who cannot deal with the idea of only holding people responsible for harms they have actually caused – as opposed to making people pay (endlessly) for harms they might cause. These people also believe that laws requiring all drivers to buy insurance insures – just the right word – that every driver will carry insurance. It is of a piece with the belief that laws forbidding the possession of firearms insures that people bent upon murder will refrain from carrying them.
On account of these people, it is unlikely mandatory insurance requirements will ever be rescinded. But instead of forcing people who choose not buy $50,000-plus vehicles to pay more to cover the hypothetical and actual cost of repairing/replacing other people’s $50,000-plus vehicles, why not adjust the cost of the coverage paid by those who do choose to buy them? If it is not adjusted, lower and then middle income people will inevitably be forced to give up their vehicles because they will no longer be able to afford the cost of covering the cost of repairing/replacing affluent people’s vehicles. 
This may be the object. But even if it is not, it is the inevitability – unless something is done to protect those who choose not to buy $50,000-plus vehicles from having to pay the increased costs imposed by those who do.
One way to avoid this would be to add 10 cents or so to the cost of every gallon of gas and use the money to create a basic liability coverage pool that covers everyone up to a certain amount – say $30,000 – but after that, it’s on you. If a person chooses to buy a vehicle that costs more than that to replace, they would have to buy additional coverage at their own expense. Of course, they’d pay more – obviously. But only by choice as no one is forced to buy a $50,000-plus vehicle. People who have had “accidents” are already paying more on account of the fact that they have incurred higher costs. The principle is the same and does not appear unreasonable.
Another take on the same idea would be to limit mandatory liability coverage to $30,000 (for the vehicle) and leave it up to those who pay more for a vehicle to cover the difference.
Either would be at least a little more reasonable than forcing people who are trying to live within or even below their means from having to absorb the costs imposed by people who choose to live differently.
. . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
We depend on you to keep the wheels turning!
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)
If you like items like the Baaaaaa! baseball cap pictured below, you can find that and more at the EPautos store!
Don’t sugar coat it, the end of private car ownership IS (italicized) the object. The CEO of GM/Ford MIGHT (italicized) deserve a HOV stay-in-your-lane post up the ass for participating in regulatory capture!
Mandatory programs are often wealth transfers from the poor to the rich.
Insurance, EV tax incentives, solar tax incentives, mortgage and local tax deductions, and yes social security.
They take money from those with less to provide for those with more expensive cars, houses, and no debt.
Someone who can’t afford a house or nice car, yet isn’t poor must give money to those who have these things, lessening the chance they will ever reach the status of their elders.
Hi Dan,
Here’s another mandate that likely resulted in Big Pharma getting LOTS of money over the past several decades but resulted in children and young adults getting sick and/ or getting permanent, life altering injuries….vaccine mandates.
Right you are John. And COVID was the biggest wealth transfer in the shortest timeframe.
I love for people to get rich – on their own merit, not welfare.
Hi Dan,
I don’t know what it is though with some rich people who just seem to have an urge to play God and try to radically transform humanity. Think of the desire by some of them to merge humans with machines. Or even the mRNA vaccine mania.
This is a long shot but is something to think about.
The United States Supreme Court ruled that DNA sequences could be patented.
What if…
…the mRNA shots confer ownership of a person to the patent holders of the mRNA and DNA sequences inserted by the “vaxxes”. Just maybe (((they))) OWN you…
Sure sounds like slavery to me…
Hi John. One good book on the subject is Ray Kurzweil’s “The Singularity Is Near”. That first, 1/4of the book was difficult to sludge through, but the latter part was most interesting. Kurzweil firmly believed man would merge with machine and thus, live forever. He admitted he was not sure about that “bothersome” soul and spirit part of it, however. His newest book was just released “The Singularity Is Nearer With AI”. Like his first book, this first part is downright terrible to sludge through, but am hoping the latter half has more meat to it. So yes, there are people who believe playing god with the rest of humanity is perfectly fine. Power and control (and money): In the end that is what authoritarianism (ala, such as with our vehicles) is all about, and to them, we are merely the ants that need stepping on.
A lot of the increase includes damage to later model cars that incur a LOT of damage from minor impact. EVs often totaled with no apparent damage at all.
Yes, my vehicle insurance had kept creeping higher and higher and was going to be over $2,000 a year on my two old vehicles. Had the local mafia raise the deductible sky high just to get their protection fee down.
legalized extortion
I like your idea of adding ten cents a gallon onto the cost of gas. Thereby covering everyone with a basic liability up to 3OK. The good people who want to virtue signal their support of the green fever dream would be free to do so. Add additional coverage for all their devices, and end the whole ‘shared responsibility’ BS. Even though the idea of a basic coverage pool smacks of socialism, sadly, thats where we are now.
Two problems with the idea.
1. I’m sure a bunch of filthy lawyers would whet their beaks in the writing of the bill. The new agency administering the program would be full of NGO, Harvard lawyer types. In the end, we’d be stuck with some new Ponzi scheme, monstrous grift on par with SS.
2. Govcos addiction to lack of fiscal restraint would remain the same. Within a couple months our wise overlords would find a way to syphon off the new found scrilla to the murderous dogs of war in Ukraine and Israel, as well as broke dick street shitters everywhere.
Nothing can be truly fixed until the majority of humanity realizes, then acts on the idea, that the only reason we need lawyers, is because of lawyers.
And, once the camel’s nose is under the tent with $0.10 per gallon, it would somehow turn into $0.50 or more. Then, once that’s maxxed out to its political limit, a giant PR campaign would follow claiming that it’s just not enough, so they would once again mandate auto insurance for liability above that provided from the additional gas tax. The inefficiencies and administrative costs would make the current situation even worse. The way to limit the grift is for the insureds to feel and be aware of the grift as much as possible, not bury it in the price of gas.
EP’s gas tax idea a good one, but it assume a good faith desire to solve a problem that we’re told exists. That’s just not the case here though. It’s a grift racket that will continue to max out the grift. That’s what these mafia fuckers do. They aren’t interested in efficiently solving a problem in a cost-effective manner. Their raison d’etre IS the grift.
Exactly. The apparatchiks running this shit show are predictable as the flies that gather around their stink
True. Once you get a gas tax implemented, it will never do anything but go up. And also, does anyone seriously believe that such a ten cent “gas tax” will go for what it is supposed to? Hell no. It will go for “educashun” (deliberate misspell) or disappear into some crooked politician’s pocket.
Why not scrap the present-day model of “car insurance” and start fresh by insuring the driver instead of the vehicle. Since one can only drive one vehicle at a time, this would make perfect sense. An additional policy for vehicle coverage would be optional.
But that would limit it to one liability policy per person. How’s the insurance mafia going to max out the grift with that plan?
Dumb question of the day, did people in the old days insure their horse and buggies? or what about the farmer that bought a new freight wagon, did he have to insure it? if not how did they survive the financial loss if the wagon was damaged? why is insurance required at all? if I wreck my 2006 Nissan Frontier that I paid a $1000 or my 2004 Chevy Silverado or my 1985 Chevy C10 OH well, I would go find another cheap truck. When did insurance become mandatory for vehicles?
Hi SCWS,
Why, when the Clovers took over! I can recall when – at least – one could easily “get away” with not paying the mafia. All one had to do was lie to the government (no moral wrong in that) by checking the little box that said you are “covered.” So long as you didn’t wreck, no harm was done anyone. Then the mafia wheedled the government to suss out people who did not pay the mafia. The mafia narcs out anyone who cancels their policy. And the government constantly checks to make sure you pay the mafia.
This is what comes of letting the Clovers run amok.
Eric: “All one had to do was lie to the government (no moral wrong in that) by checking the little box that said you are “covered.”
I’m old enough to remember when even that wasn’t necessary. You bought insurance or you didn’t based on your aversion to risk. But we were a lot closer to being “The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave” back then. “Hardly a man is now alive……..”
“One way to avoid this would be to add 10 cents or so to the cost of every gallon of gas and use the money to create a basic liability coverage pool that covers everyone up to a certain amount.”
Oh, come now, Eric, do you really expect the government not to embezzle that liability coverage pool, then claim “We don’t have enough money to cover!” and raise gas taxes by an additional 10 or 20 (or 40) cents?
Of course not!
But I offered it up to make the point that it’s not really about “covering” anything. It’s about screwing over everyone!
Has anyone seen the latest testimony in Congress regarding Allstate Insurance racket? I’m not a fan of squish republican Josh Hawley but he had Allstate under central scrutiny regarding their denying claims, criminal practices of screwing policy holders mainly for home insurance. Mayhem guy said if you go to *cut rate* insurance you may not be covered…well so shall it be with Allstate. You are going hand to hand combat when you put your trust in their hands.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/KZul3V6r5SY
Hi Hans,
I have come to the conclusion – supported by facts – that insurance as it exists is nothing more than a racket. It has leveraged the power of the government to screw people over. I am convinced that one of the main reasons many people are near broke is because they are being bled white to pay for “coverage” – car, home and health.
I refuse to spend my life working to pay for insurance. Cold fish heads for them all.
Hi Eric,
If anyone has seen the footage in Congress, you would think these guys would be under indictment. But no…these squish republicans like making noise in their committee hearings but nothing ever comes of it. Payoffs and back door deals keep these pricks out of prison.
Yup. And insurance results in moral hazard and higher prices for the goods and services for which insurance claims pay. This in turn causes more of a need for insurance “coverage.” It’s a vicious cycle. Medical services are a prime example of this. One used to be able to afford medical services 50 years ago. Now, a trip to the emergency room could potentially bankrupt you (therefore, you’d better spend your disposable income on “health” insurance).
There’s so much fucking dead weight in this grift economy of ours.
Here is some data from the insurance mafia. For each state, it shows how many annual auto accidents occur, as a percentage of the total number of drivers in the state:
https://postimg.cc/VrX0691R
The national average looks to be around 4.5%, meaning 1 in 22 drivers is involved in an accident each year.
Statistically, this accident rate is quite stable and predictable. Without question, vehicle owners are going to pay for these accidents. It’s just a matter of how the cost is apportioned — self responsibility, universal liability insurance, or some messy melange of the two (the current status quo).
Three times I’ve been broadsided by drivers who apparently didn’t see me. One claimed that I ‘came out of nowhere,’ as he pulled out of a side street and rammed my rear door. And so it goes. None of these side-impact accidents were avoidable. The other party’s liability insurance paid for my damage.
About half of drivers can’t even pay an emergency expense of $400. If these folks drive without insurance, the rest of us are going to have a lot of unexpected expenses to cover, which weren’t our fault, but become our problem.
Morning, Jim!
Everything you say is valid. That said, I’d like to be free to run risk of being hit by someone who can’t pay – and not be forced to pay because I might hit someone. That’s freedom. There’s risk in it. But also reward.
Some rough maff: If I had back what I have been forced to hand over to the mafia for say the past 20 years, I’d have about $6,000 in my bank account that I haven’t got – because I was forced to pay the mafia. I could use that $6k to pay for the slab I need to pour and for a pressure washer I need and also to pay for a couple of big trees I need taken down. Instead, I can’t pay for those things right now. Because I had to pay for harms I didn’t cause… but someone worries I might have.
Jim K: These are not “accidents.” They’re acts of negligence. Insurance causes moral hazard. If drivers had to personally incur the expenses of their own negligence, they would learn to drive non-negligently.
Besides, one not willing to risk being damaged by an uninsured negligent driver can always obtain an uninsured motorist policy. Having learned to be hypervigilant from riding a motorcycle for years, I am of the opinion that one can avoid most, if not all, crashes. For this reason, I’m comfortable with the risk of not having “coverage.” To each, his own I suppose.
‘They’re acts of negligence.’ — Mister Liberty
Yes. Probably not avoidable, though.
Two weeks ago, the local Baptist preacher and his wife were returning home in early evening on the two-lane mountain highway to our town. Suddenly a drunk in the oncoming lane swerved across the centerline and smacked them hard. The highway has no shoulder, and a steep dropoff beyond the pavement edge, so evasive action was not possible. Both had to be airlifted to Phoenix with critical injuries.
The steady accident rate of 4 to 5% in most states (Massachusetts, with its crazy-ass drivers, wins the booby prize at 6.1%) shows that unfortunately, negligence can’t be eliminated with technology, fines, judgments or jail sentences. We will have to continue, literally, picking up the pieces. 🙁
The elephant in the room remains a lack of consequences for one’s actions.
I agree that insurance should be voluntary (or if required per contract) but there needs to be repercussions for not having insurance and causing damages.
What’s the current option? To sue? Good luck with that. Someone driving around with reckless abandon & zero assets care not about who they harm.
Until people start landing in prison or forced to pay for damages they incur, I feel this point is moot.
Debtors prisons would then need to make a comeback.
I agree, completely, Flip – and not just as regards insurance. The core problem is the transference of responsibility for costs and damage onto the shoulders of those who had nothing to do with it…
Cause damage and can’t pay? Good ole’ indentured servitude for you. Might change a few behaviors.
You also have to catch them.
Which is sometimes possible, but unlikely if they are smart enough just to drive off. Like the last person who rear-ended me. Yes there are detectives who specialize in that sort of thing…but I called to ask if they had any leads etc. and no one ever called me back…
Cameras won’t save you, if they’re too far away and/or there is something obscuring their view and/or the vehicle is moving too fast to get a good description or a plate.
“Debtors prisons would then need to make a comeback.”
Apply the Thirteenth Amendment.
Debtor’s prisons are alive and well, media just doesn’t cover it and courts don’t report it. Read Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America and you’ll discover a thriving industry revolving around men who’ve either been forced into ‘fatherhood’ or out of their own families via unilateral divorce. Failure to pay ‘child’ support (in reality mom support) results in prison without charge or trial, and goes unrecorded. The numbers are considerable, especially affecting black men.
‘car insurance “families” are mafias.’ — eric
And they too belong to a larger family of mafias, headed by the US fedgov. Now, under the Orange Emperor, they are building out the Panopticon:
‘In March, President Trump signed an executive order calling for the federal government to share data across agencies, [potentially] compiling a master list of personal information on Americans.
‘Officials have quietly put technological building blocks into place to enable his plan. In particular, they have turned to one company: Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm. The push has put a key Palantir product called Foundry into at least four federal agencies, including D.H.S. and the Health and Human Services Department.
‘In an interview last year, Mr. Karp, Palantir’s chief executive, said the company’s role was “the finding of hidden things” by sifting through data. During the pandemic, the Biden administration signed a contract with Palantir to manage the distribution of vaccines through the C.D.C.’ — NYT
https://archive.ph/4DyVk#selection-1119.155-1119.290
Compared to Palantir and its network of third-party data brokers, the IRS is a dinosaur. It relies on wages reported by employers, interest reported by banks. capital gains reported by stock brokers, etc. But it’s just numbers on paper — they can’t really see you and me.
Palantir can fulfill a long-time goal of the IRS — lifestyle profiling — which the agency lacks the talent and resources to implement. If a household’s expenses are $12,000 a month, but they are reporting only $50,000 a year of income, Palantir’s database is going to paint a red laser target on them.
Palantir knows your monthly mortgage payment, your credit card balances, your vehicle fleet (including boats and other money pits), and how much restaurant dining and entertainment you do.
Welcome to the Panopticon — courtesy of the cuddly, orange-haired Trumpy Bear. Now bend over for your rectal exam.
That’s not going to end well.
You and I — and pretty much aleveryone who comments here — can see that. So can a few others.
Unfortunately, nowhere near enough, and nowhere near powerful enough.
I am coming to the conclusion that for everyone else to “get it,” they are going to have to experience it, firsthand, good and hard, repeatedly. And even then, a fair number of them will think it’s the greatest thing ever. F—king fantastic. I would be happy to let them enjoy that, if they wouldn’t insist on dragging me into it.
The sad reality is that none of this changes without a gigantic worldwide crack up that anyone versed in Austrian Economics can see coming. When it will come; no one knows. But rest assured; it’s coming.
It’s going to be uncomfortable and hard to survive for a whole lot of people.
I think the word for the current situation is unsustainable.
That’s what the so-called DOGE agency was really about. I Remember seeing the news clips of Elon Muskrat’s H1B kids taking their laptops into government buildings while guards stood outside and kept everyone else out. Who knows how much info they managed to steal about us.
Some new trucks have headlights that cost $500 each to replace…
And there’s no aftermarket alternatives either. At least none that the insurance company will pay for. And even if they did, if the other guy is paying you’re not going accept anything but OEM.
The alternative is still working it out amongst yourselves, as long as both parties are OK with not getting the mafioso involved. Amazing how that little dent becomes less important when you start to think about the paperwork, time and effort needed to get it fixed by the insurance company. Then the inevitable rate increase.
There is an additional problem with driving without insurance. in FL, for example, the law enforcement or the sheriff’s deputy can just read your license plate and find you’re an offender and pull you over. It happened to me, I got pulled over because my registration had expired the day earlier and I thought I had time till the end of the month to renew the reg. in FL there is the “executive director” of FLHSMV (highway safety and motor vehicles) who is basically a pimp for the insurance industry. An innocent infraction gets a letter from this jerk threatening serious consequences,harming NO ONE.
Hi MAUP,
Yup. The solution may be to just do as the illegals do – and stop giving a shit. Let ’em arrest you. Make yourself judgment proof – make yourself po’ (on paper) so there’s nothing for them to get. Drive an old beater and let them have it. Then buy another. Screw them. I tire o f being screwed by them.
To paraphrase Patric Henry “If this be socialism, make the most of it!”. As we all know he never actually said this but this idea can be said to sound like socialism.
On the other hand it could possibly be a solution to uninsured motorists that have accidents. Aside from the high cost of vehicles there is the cost of medical treatment to consider. I seriously doubt $30K would cover all those things but as the current system is failing perhaps it’s time to think outside the box.
Another problem will be avoiding the bureaucracy that will be created to implement it will be insane and if not at the start then for sure a few years down the road.
Amen, Landru –
I favor the application of consequences. If a person chooses to not buy insurance, he assumes the risk of doing that. If he wrecks, the cost is – should be – entirely on him. Indenture him, if need be, to pay off what he owes others. What’s both tiring, stupid and obnoxious is this forcing people who’ve not harmed anyone to pay the mafia. The obnoxious part is obvious. Also the tiring. The stupid ought to be. Forcing everyone to buy insurance does not prevent uninsured driving – nor the latter causing harms they can’t or will not pay for. All it does is impose higher costs on the people who don’t cause harm. I’ll be self-referential here. I have done nothing to justify the near tripling of the cost of the basic liability-only policy I am required to buy. No accidents. Not even a “ticket.” So why the hell am I paying almost three times as much now for the same “coverage” I had three years ago?
Everything has gone up in price. I still remember 28 cents a gallon gas. Medical costs have skyrocketed. A heart valve replacement will set you back $250,000. Yes I know the insurance only pays $50,000 to the medical industry. If this price inflation/money devaluation keeps up, we’ll all be Millionaires in the near future. I remember back in Italy in the mid-seventies when two beers would set you back 20,000 liras.
The government will just have to lop off a couple of zeroes otherwise some time soon we’ll need wheel barrows to hold our money just to go shopping. Yea I know all our money will be electronic digital.
Insurance companies pay out in crumbs, you pay through the nose for those crumbs.
Let them eat cake!
That cake was not cake, the cake was the crumbs that were baked onto the wood-fired ceiling of the ovens deep in the bowels of the bakeries in Paris.
Crumbs for you, croissants for thee and Marie.
Heads rolled in 1789.
Heads roll in 2025.
Get with the program, Trump the Dunce is toast.
Morning, Drump!
I was talking about this with Bill Meyer the other day; I told him I think people will soon being to just ignore the requirement to buy insurance – just like the illegals do. Why not? There is no moral offense in it. By not paying the insurance mafia, who have I harmed? By being forced to pay the mafia, I have been harmed. The distinction matters. To be VERY CLEAR – for the sake of the drive-by commentators I expect my column to trigger: If people cause harm then of course they ought to be held responsible for that. But it is both an absurdity and a crime to hold people responsible for harms they have not caused, because someone worries they might cause them.
Eric, you are probably going to treated like a piñata over the penultimate paragraph in today’s offering. I understand the point you’re making so I won’t go that route.
However, the idea that people be held responsible for their actions is simply not going to happen. The most obvious example of this is the severe punishment for those who have intoxicants in their system while those who are incompetent are given a slap on the wrist for the same harm caused. People recoil in horror at the thought of Granny getting sentenced for Second Degree Murder because she pulled in front of a motorcyclist causing their death. But, these same folks are good with prison time for someone with a BAC of .08 that causes no harm.
Causing actual harm is often times punished more severely than harming the sensibilities of 50+1% of the electorate.
Morning, Mark!
Probably so. I don’t mind. In fact, it’s why I decided 25 years ago to “light out” on my own – go freelance – rather than stick with a salaried job working for a newspaper or magazine. I realized then that if I didn’t “light out” I’d be forced to accommodate my employer. Now I am free to write what I think and damn the torpedoes, full steam head. Most seem to like it. I know I do!
Competence is difficult to prove or disprove in court. The breathalyzer produces a number, based on “science” that can be proven in court. Getting a psychologist or MD to go on record saying that so-and-so shouldn’t have been driving due to mental decline is extremely difficult in this time of not sticking your neck out any further than necessary to get along. Have to keep up the boat payments and there’s no way the administrator is going to allow you to risk exposing the HMO to malpractice by testifying. So dazzle ’em with enough weasel words to make your testimony stand up to cross examination and keep the jury clueless.
Of course I’m talking about the typical mouth-breather chosen for jury duty, not someone who’s able to comprehend common sense. After all, a significant portion of the population was convinced Joe Biden was competent enough to lead the free world, even if it was only because the alternative is a threat to their status quo. These are your peers.