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

SendMeYourTaTas@sh.itjust.works

pelespirit@sh.itjust.works

882

A cut, sure, but the whole fuckin thing? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by Stamets@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works

193 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] some_kind_of_guy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] siipale@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] yakko@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago

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.