Reference no: EM131439503

Would the accident rate be higher or better if states did not require drivers to carry liability insurance?

If people were not required to have liability insurance I do not feel that it will affect the occurrence of accidents. Accidents are called accidents for just that reason, they are simply unpredictable occurrences of which have no direct result from the existence of insurance. I feel that there would be a slight increase in accidents initially followed by an equal decrease and eventually balance out. The initial data for accidents is also lower than the actual number of accidents that occur due to people agreeing to settle it without the involvement of insurance agencies. This happens because people are more willing to negotiate the terms of the accident that paying higher premiums from involving the insurance companies. The ability to not have insurance would provide more people with the ability to purchase cars that they otherwise would not be able to afford due to high insurance premiums. This would include vehicles that are of higher performance which have a higher probability of getting in an accident. The tradeoff however would be that because there would be no insurance the individual would be less willing to drive the vehicle during peak traffic hours due to the ability to lose it without replacement in the event of an accident. I feel the sharp increase in accidents would be due to the learning curve of this instance for those who cannot figure it out beforehand followed by a drop in accident rates because they have nothing to drive to which an enlightened equilibrium would be reached.

Please reply for this post in 150 words