Insurance Says: Predict the Future, Or Else

You ever wonder if insurance companies have their own internal physics engine, distinct from reality? Because the latest build notes from r/MaliciousCompliance suggest an almost alien approach to fender benders. Specifically, a Toronto incident concerning a left turn, a red light, and a system that apparently runs on precognition.

The core logic, detailed by one user, is a masterpiece of bureaucratic recursion: the driver, turning left, was “deemed equally at fault. She should have anticipated someone would run the red light.” This isn’t just a rule; it’s a mandatory psychic ability check. Failing to foresee another motorist’s impending vehicular delinquency is now a primary offense. It’s like a tutorial boss requiring you to dodge an attack that hasn’t even rendered yet.

This protocol effectively transforms every intersection into a Schrödinger’s crash scenario. You’re both guilty and innocent until someone else decides to violate traffic law, at which point you’re retrospectively culpable for not being a time traveler. The general consensus, as CoderJoe1 puts it, is that “It’s a racket, for sure.” Which, when your legal obligation is to predict random acts of vehicular idiocy, feels less like insurance and more like a poorly designed ARG. marcocanb isn’t wrong: “Dash cams are a necessity now.” Not for proof, mind you, but perhaps as an external precognitive module.

So, while the provincial government apparently failed its quest for a “public-owned no-fault insurance syste…” (vibraltu), they’ve certainly perfected a system where fault is distributed like leftover Halloween candy, regardless of actual road conduct. The real malicious compliance here isn’t getting a clean record; it’s driving at all, knowing the game expects you to speedrun clairvoyance.