In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:01:50 -0600,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article .com>, wrote:
>>> 1.Why do I have to pay seperate liability for each car, when all i can
>>> do is wreck one at a time? Anyone have one good reason other than
>>> insurance companies making more money?
>>
>>I've always thought this to be ass-backwards as well. We really should
>>insure drivers for liability, not vehicles.
>
>If we did it that way, then every licensed driver would be required to
>carry insurance, even if they do not own a car and choose not to
>drive. After all, you might rent or borrow a car at any time.

No more than you need insurance to simply own a car. A licensed
driver without a car would only need insurance if he DID borrow a car.
Occasional renters would likely be able to purchase insurance at
ridiculously high prices at the rental counter, just like now.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.