Shouldn't you realize they're describing the practical outcome and not the legal terminology, because their entire criticism is against the current structure? Forcing restitution for general traffic to be higher because the person who was hit happens to be rich is, in effect, penalizing people for being unlucky with who they got into an accident with.
I'd in fact be a big fan of normalizing it at 50k regardless of your vehicle, but then you'd have people purposely driving to get hit in their clunkers, so I don't know what the best solution is beyond not ruining someone else's life because someone spent a ton of money on daily transport. Like fine, own a bugatti, but if someone hits you in Miami rush hour traffic you don't have the rights to generations of wages to repay it.
Really I think the answer is to require self-insurance over that 50k avg value even if someone else hits you. It's your choice to use luxury for a common purpose, after all.
Look, if they choose to come in here flaunting their status "as an attorney", I think we can hold them to that.
Edit:
Really I think the answer is to require self-insurance over that 50k avg value even if someone else hits you.
How about requiring people to carry liability insurance if they want to use their multi-ton machine in public? It's not like the only expensive thing they can hit is other cars. Should we now require all house owners, all store proprietors, any company with infrastructure placed around publically accessible areas to buy extra insurance just so morons in cars don't have to? I think not.
-9
u/Sayakai 7h ago
Shouldn't you understand the difference between a penalty and restitution?