Post #3195111

2026-06-01 10:45 UTC

@jeffowski@mastodon.world Good point but bad example. Car insurance is only legally required if you have a car. A better blow to that industry would be to stop building places that require a car to get around. As a bonus, that would also be a big fuck you to the oil industry.

Replies (3)

@SuperMoosie@mastodon.au 2026-06-01 11:35

@gbargoud@masto.nyc @jeffowski@mastodon.world You can drive a car, without burning oil.

Open ##3195112
@adaliabooks@ohai.social 2026-06-01 12:07

@gbargoud@masto.nyc @jeffowski@mastodon.world That's missing the point though. Sure it would be great to eliminate or greatly reduce the need for cars, but that's a fairly massive undertaking. Whereas as it stands anyone who uses a car needs car insurance, the cost of which makes some private company and it's investors profit. If instead there was a single national car insurance provider than it could be cheaper and that money could go back into the government's coffers rather than the pockets of private industry.

Open ##3195115
@RantingCanuck@mstdn.ca 2026-06-01 12:19

@gbargoud@masto.nyc @jeffowski@mastodon.world In Canada and the US nearly all construction since WW2 has been centered around having a car. We desperately need to start building in a manner that doesn't require a car but even if we shifted immediate (i.e. today) to a focus on all new development being walking/transit friendly, rather that car-centric, it would still take decades to fix the problem. Until that time for many (honestly most) people car ownership will remain essential for full participation in society, and with car ownership comes the requirement for insurance. Thus insurance should be a public service.

Open ##3195117