this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2025
882 points (97.3% liked)
People Twitter
8322 readers
2417 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's the way you do it, if it must be done at all. And despite my antipathy towards cars, it seems it must.
I would think it would disincentivize driving?
Drive less > less chance of accident > fewer payouts > bigger refund check > adjust forecast lower for next year > lower premiums > GOTO 1
Or maybe it's closer to zero sum. because some think that way while some asshole cough Alberta uses the money on extra tires and gasoline to drive even more.
Why would you pay for a car to not drive it but instead collect the refunds? It would be cheaper to not have a car. I think it would incentivize driving more as the premiums are low and when that causes premiums to rise higher it would disincentivize owning a car.
Not surprising that the refund check doesn't reduce driving in practise. If memory serves - you can't reward a behaviour into extinction, just like you can't punish a new behaviour into existence.
At least, that's if you credit what they teach in applied behaviour analysis courses. I don't get to use my degree much, except at times like this.