Not sure if the bill to help fix this problem went anywhere but if this article from just a few months ago is correct, they are indeed unable not just unwilling because legally they have to prove the car was locked which is basically impossible.

You can’t reason with someone who unironically thinks insurance companies shouldn’t be for-profit just because we’re “forced” to use them. I made a joke about nationalizing tire companies and auto shops (because you can’t legally drive with certain parts of your car in disrepair) to illustrate how dented this argument…

Insurance nobody can afford is the same as not offering insurance at all.

That is my biggest issue. Legally I am FORCED to have auto insurance, even though I drive less than 1k miles a year (combo of post covid world and change careers). Since I and other Americans are forced into the scam, it needs to be nationalized as for profit companies exist for profit...not providing what is…

At some point it will get so bad that insurance will HAVE to be nationalized, spreading the risk across the whole population of the country.

While it’s nice to hear from someone with firsthand experience the person you replied to is promoting full EVs as a replacement for hybrids. If you think Ford’s battery technology isn’t mature (not to mention all the suspension issues you brought up that have nothing to do with drivetrain) then going full EV seems…

To be fair t’s still around 200k if we go by revenue, cars sold, and cost of goods sold. You are welcome to look at their earnings statement, I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

Not sure about that analogy, Pontiac being a GM brand I imagine they honored warranties and such. I don’t think parts availability was a major issue either, especially since most Pontiacs were badge-engineered.

Almost certainly not an apples-to-apples comparison. The $338k figure is a “Bloomberg Intelligence estimate” and it’s not clear how they arrived at that number.

They’re not blatantly violating jack shit. Stop with the gamerchair lawyering.

Ultimately this is about preventing people looking for a bargain on a lightly used vehicle and making them instead shop new

Surprised to see no British cars here.

Not sure where you live, but that only occurs in some intersections here: those intersections where the pedestrian must push the button to trigger the “wall” signal.

Glad someone else caught that. Motorcyclist could have easily been killed in a head on collision and they just keep illegally passing like nothing happened.

You asked what was so hard about it, and I answered. Risk is often subjective and that’s why the keyword here is “guidelines” not “policy.”

So. Stop. Him.

It blows my mind. No wonder street sideshows and mass theft is running rampant these days. “Well if it’s not hurting anyone, the cops should just let them”.

That’s not really an argument. All of those things are reasons why insurance companies want to raise rates. What are you actually arguing, that CA residents shouldn’t be financially responsible for choosing to live in a high-risk state?

I mean... do other states have this problem? Most states generally don’t regulate as tightly as California. I’d bet there are plenty of other states where the only limitation on auto insurance rates is that of natural competition.

I don’t know how people keep reaching this conclusion. Most of the problems they’re facing, including the ones in this article, are not caused by human drivers.