Maif? (Baltimore, North Beach: insurance, buy, tax)

[emmiesix]

My friend just got rear-ended by someone who is on the MAIF insurance. She was driving a giant SUV, talking on her phone, and slammed into his car without looking. Shouldn't people who are uninsurable be banned from driving, or at least mandated not to drive SUVs (or cars over a certain tonnage)? Does the MAIF program cost taxpayers money or is it self-supported? I had not heard of it before now.

[B.K.]

As I understand it, MAIF is a quasi-governmental agency that is funded independently through its insureds' auto premiums. They sell insurance to people who have such bad driving records they can't get insurance anywhere else. Their website claims that they do not receive any taxpayer subsidy to help insure their customers. However, they are a governmental office with a board of trustees, a director, several departments, a large staff and brick and mortar buildings, and all of that stuff costs money. I'd never heard of such a program in any other state in which I've lived.

[MrRational]

Originally Posted by emmiesix

Shouldn't people who are uninsurable be banned from driving,
or at least mandated not to drive SUVs (or cars over a certain tonnage)?

Why stop there?
Lets ban the use of any large vehicles for personal use.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by B.K.

As I understand it, MAIF is a quasi-governmental agency that is funded independently through its insureds' auto premiums. They sell insurance to people who have such bad driving records they can't get insurance anywhere else. Their website claims that they do not receive any taxpayer subsidy to help insure their customers. However, they are a governmental office with a board of trustees, a director, several departments, a large staff and brick and mortar buildings, and all of that stuff costs money. I'd never heard of such a program in any other state in which I've lived.

PA has (or used to have something similar) an assigned insurance fund. MAIF does not receive taxpayer funding. All those costs of doing business you mentioned are paid for like any other insurance company, with premium revenues. MAIF also doesn't insure the people directly, insurance is placed through private insurance companies at a very high premium and the risks are pooled from there.

As to the OP's wish list. There are plenty of people who shouldn't drive SUVs. If the person who ran into your friend had Allstate would you want the same limitations? A wreck is a wreck.

A lot of people have to use MAIF not because of accidents but speeding tickets. It doesn't take too many to kick you over to it.

[boomtownfunlover]

There are probably more MAIF drivers out there than you think. (there are probably more uninsured drivers out there, as well) Good luck with your claim.

[emmiesix]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

PA has (or used to have something similar) an assigned insurance fund. MAIF does not receive taxpayer funding. All those costs of doing business you mentioned are paid for like any other insurance company, with premium revenues. MAIF also doesn't insure the people directly, insurance is placed through private insurance companies at a very high premium and the risks are pooled from there.

As to the OP's wish list. There are plenty of people who shouldn't drive SUVs. If the person who ran into your friend had Allstate would you want the same limitations? A wreck is a wreck.

A lot of people have to use MAIF not because of accidents but speeding tickets. It doesn't take too many to kick you over to it.

I was speaking in jest out of irritation, but I am really shocked by the terrible driving in Baltimore. At some point, if someone proves themselves to be incapable of safe driving, I don't want them on the road, and certainly not driving a large heavy car that could crush my son in the backseat because we drive a more economical model. In reality, I'd just vote to raise the gas tax to Europe's levels, and let people figure out how important driving a giant SUV or van really is to them.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by emmiesix

I was speaking in jest out of irritation, but I am really shocked by the terrible driving in Baltimore. At some point, if someone proves themselves to be incapable of safe driving, I don't want them on the road, and certainly not driving a large heavy car that could crush my son in the backseat because we drive a more economical model. In reality, I'd just vote to raise the gas tax to Europe's levels, and let people figure out how important driving a giant SUV or van really is to them.

So you basically want to limit what vehicle choice people have because you don't like the vehicle.


I personally think that people who drive econoboxes should have to pay an extra tariff due to the inherent lack of safety of those vehicles (makes as much sense as you).

[emmiesix]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

So you basically want to limit what vehicle choice people have because you don't like the vehicle.

No, I want to limit the weight of vehicle that people who have proven themselves to be dangerous drivers should be allowed to drive. It's about conservation of momentum. If someone driving a heavy SUV collides with a pedestrian, bicycle, or smaller car, it is far more of an impact for the latter than if the bad driver were driving something smaller. I would actually advocate taking repeat offenders off the road entirely, but I'd settle for keeping them from driving very heavy cars.

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

I personally think that people who drive econoboxes should have to pay an extra tariff due to the inherent lack of safety of those vehicles (makes as much sense as you).

Except that I, as an driver of an economical car, am contributing far less harm to the environment AND have not had an accident, ever (knock on wood). So, why should I be punished, exactly?

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by emmiesix

No, I want to limit the weight of vehicle that people who have proven themselves to be dangerous drivers should be allowed to drive. It's about conservation of momentum. If someone driving a heavy SUV collides with a pedestrian, bicycle, or smaller car, it is far more of an impact for the latter than if the bad driver were driving something smaller. I would actually advocate taking repeat offenders off the road entirely, but I'd settle for keeping them from driving very heavy cars.




Except that I, as an driver of an economical car, am contributing far less harm to the environment AND have not had an accident, ever (knock on wood). So, why should I be punished, exactly?

So this really isn't about MAIF, it's about you not liking SUVs and pickups. You ask why you should be punished yet you are advocating punishing others. Why should I be punished because you've chosen to drive a vehicle in which you're afraid?

I don't have MAIF, by the way, but where do you draw the line? Follow your reasoning out: Driver A is assigned to MAIF, he has a Ford Explorer. Under your plan he'd have to sell it and buy a smaller vehicle, say a Focus. So, not only is he hit with much higher premiums but now, under your plan, he also has a car payment.

[emmiesix]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

So this really isn't about MAIF, it's about you not liking SUVs and pickups. You ask why you should be punished yet you are advocating punishing others. Why should I be punished because you've chosen to drive a vehicle in which you're afraid?

I don't have MAIF, by the way, but where do you draw the line? Follow your reasoning out: Driver A is assigned to MAIF, he has a Ford Explorer. Under your plan he'd have to sell it and buy a smaller vehicle, say a Focus. So, not only is he hit with much higher premiums but now, under your plan, he also has a car payment.

I have no problems with people driving SUVs or pickups, especially if they need them and/or are safe drivers. So if you're a safe driver, no, I don't want to take your car away. And I'm not talking people who have had one accident. I'm talking about the 10% of drivers that are responsible for 85% of all road accidents. These people, honestly, should take public transit.

It's not strictly about MAIF, but the link is that MAIF is for people who otherwise WOULD NOT DRIVE because they couldn't get insurance. I'm not really in favor of state-sponsored efforts to put people who have proven themselves uninsurable back behind the wheel. Of course as long as I'm dictator, I would also have a very well-run public transit system so these people could still shop, get to work, etc. It's really NOT about punishing them, it's about removing a *proven* danger to public safety, at least for some time.

Bottom line: driving is a privilege, not a right.