I have thought about this many times, cars are a bit of a hobby for me and I have several. Obviously not going to drive them all at once.... I've often thought it is pretty unfair I have to pay for registration and insurance on all of them instead of just having one registration and one insurance policy.
I don't even really mind multiple registrations, mostly. There's a bit of silliness there when statists claim it's because we need to maintain roads, though. That one is always precious. Yep, the three parked cars are just wearing out those roads, while we drive the fourth car, aren't they? LOL.
(Really anyone pro-big-government always defaults to the road thing whenever challenged about growing government in general. They don't like it much when you point out the roads and bridges are crumbling, so the money must not be going to that.)
It's the whole "paying for liability coverage for something I'm incurring no liability from while it's parked" thing that annoys me.
Of course, it's caused by government mandating liability coverage on all *vehicles*, vs mandating coverage on *drivers* which is where liability coverage belongs. A slight tweak of the law would be useful.
The insurance person freaking out here about someone ramming their own cars with their other vehicles was a good laugh, though. a) I doubt the actuaries see that too much, and b) It's not a liability claim anyway. It's a comprehensive or collision claim. I could see a company saying you need to keep those active on all vehicles, but not base liability. Not to mention c) The vast majority of vehicle enthusiasts who have more than one vehicle wouldn't do that anyway.
Give me a break. What a silly rationalization. Insurers write limits into policies all the time, just disallow payouts for ramming your own stuff... problem solved.
Liability should be assessed to the driver, not the vehicles.
But let's play that one out. Drivers get liability coverage instead of cars. Now some awful driver who couldn't keep the thing between two lines of cones on a simple parking lot course at 5 MPH gets tagged as a risk and their rates go up drastically, like they should.
There'd be someone screaming that person was discriminated against and that basic transportation is a "right" and that the system that tied real dollar liability risk to that driver was "unfair" and going to collapse the social fabric, or somesuch poppycock.
Or take that further and try making Americans take a defensive driving class. Just one. Or any driving class, actually behind the wheel. A weekend two day-er that is mandatory if they don't want high liability rates, and watch the "social justice" weenies come unglued.
Because... and here's the dirty little secret... it's the car enthusiasts' job to pay extra to cover the idiots. That's the unwritten rule nobody wants to say out loud.
Got four beaters and only drive one at a time? Pay up, four times, you nutty responsible person. We'll make up some "cool story bro" reasons that you're a "higher risk".
As the bumper sticker hanging in my garage says, "Don't ban high-performance cars. Ban low-performance drivers."
Ramming all the cars into the other ones, LOL. YGBFKM. Comedy gold, there.
