[nobody31415926]

They did it because they made motor insurance mandatory and it would be unfair to force someone to have something that the market didn't have to provide.

In europe it's essentially impossible for anyone under 21 to get insurance ( without tricks like being listed on parent's cover ) even though the law says you can drive at 17. Typical rates for liability-only on a 17 year old are $10K/year

Imagine living in a rural part of BC where work and shopping is 20 miles away and the insurance companies all charge $10K for drivers under 21.

Yes it's unfair that as a middle age driver I pay 2-3x as much as I would in europe in order to cover a west vancouver millionaire's kid in a ferrari. But it's also unfair that I'm paying for elementary schools for someone else's kid or subsidizing somebody else's cancer treatment.

[snowwindwaves]

The difference in car insurance from vancouver to victoria is 50%. People drive more expensive cars in vancouver and apparently are more likely to have accidents.

[nobody31415926]

And nobody in Victoria drives at more than 30km/h !

[alsocasey]

Hold the phone, motor vehicle insurance isn't mandatory in the US?

[amalcon]

No. It's mandatory for residents of most individual states, but (for example) New Hampshire does not require it of its residents.

[KaeseEs]

Varies from state to state, with almost every state requiring at least liability coverage.

[nobody31415926]

I think the difference is that if a US law maker said "but wont this have a bad effect on the poor?" everybody else in congress bursts out laughing!

Technically insurance isn't mandatory in the US if you are rich enough. At least in Ca if you could show enough assets you can self-insure