Posted on 11/03/2009 6:43:13 AM PST by Erik Latranyi
Car insurance by the tankful?
Not quite, but California moved a step closer last month to pay-as-you-drive policies that could allow motorists to buy insurance like they do gasoline — a little at a time.
Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner released regulations permitting and authorizing mileage verification for pay-as-you-drive, without dictating what form such plans must take.
The goal is to use per-mile pricing to entice Californians not to drive so much, thus easing air pollution, relieving traffic congestion and lowering the number of traffic collisions.
(Excerpt) Read more at mcclatchydc.com ...
Conservatives want to modify government so it allows you to behave as you wish.
I think this would produce a proposition in record time.
This does make sense.
(And I am an on-the-road salesman with a car used for business.)
What about people that wish to use too much fuel?
Why? Would the program be mandatory? I would prefer to buy insurance by the mile.
If this was a permissible option for consumers to choose in order to get steep discounts for periods in which they drive particular vehicles little, it would be quite a different matter. Insurance as we know it is the very definition of a highly regulated business.
Hmmm...
Road gridlock decreases travel distance, and increases pollution from cars.
California is promoting pollution by supporting this idea!!!
/liberal logic
The knock-on question is where does this mileage data go, and who vouches for it. It should only be the insurance company’s business, but if it becomes the state’s business too we have a problem, Lucy.
Also, if the tax paid for just minimum insurance, then people could pay extra for additional coverage.
However, the way this will be implemented will be too much Big Brother, and therefore I don't think it is a good idea.
Then what I have believed for a long time is true: the Drug Warriors aren't conservative...they are big-government / we-know-what-is-best-for-you LIBERALS.
This actually sounds like they are removing a government obstacle on the insurance companies to craft whatever products they think they can sell, not trying to modify people’s behavior.
...it’s worth looking into...since I retired I don’t drive that much...I wouldn’t mind getting a break on my insurance premiums.
This proposition is counter-intuitive.
A single, pot-smoking, 60-year old hippie who drives her Prius once a month is far more likely to cause an accident than a 35-year old family man who commutes to work each day.
Granted, all other factors being equal, a driver with a 60-mile commute is more likely to be involved in an accident that a driver with a 30-mile commute.
But the initial insurance premium would have to be relatively high to cover the once-a-monthers in a cost-effective manner. This is government, though, and also CA, so nevermind.
Looking at areas of the state like L.A., San Diego, and the Bay Area, where people do a LOT of commuting, I can see strong resistance to the plan.
“This actually sounds like they are removing a government obstacle on the insurance companies to craft whatever products they think they can sell, not trying to modify people’s behavior.”
From the article:
“The goal is to use per-mile pricing to entice Californians not to drive so much, thus easing air pollution, relieving traffic congestion and lowering the number of traffic collisions.”
Clearly the goal is to modify peoples behavior.
Why? The constitutional right to privacy?
Anyone who even considers there will be a “cost savings” is simply dreaming...
The only way to modify behavior {the stated goal} is to make the undesired behavior cost prohibitive....
CHA GHING!
No..it wont make insurance any cheaper....it will justify an increase in premiums...or a fee...or some other cleverly worded price increase...
If such plans include a GPS tracking device, it will destroy privacy, for such a device will record the location of the vehicle every minute it is in motion. This must never be allowed to come to pass.
I will bet you a dollar that the pay per mile insurance thing crashes and burns BUT all the ground work will have been conveniently done, paving the way for pay-per-mile [insert current scam name] fee/tax.
“A single, pot-smoking, 60-year old hippie who drives her Prius once a month is far more likely to cause an accident than a 35-year old family man who commutes to work each day.”
I would like to see something more than conjecture and prejudice for that assertion. Far too many factors involved for one to make that statement based on anything more than dislike for hippies or Prius drivers.
Indeed, the person who has to drive every day, regardless of crappy weather, illness or stressed emotional state, etc might be quite the higher risk per mile. I don’t know either, but without data it’s unknown.
Then the mileage tax will be easier to pass. You will be taxed based on how far you drive your car as a highway use tax.
Anything government comes up with only enriches government.
Maybe, until you understand that this is just another justification for creating tracking infrastructure that will allow the fedgov to monitor our every move. EVERY government initiative lately is a push in the same direction. Look into the medical proposals, and you will find that the end result is that all your health records will reside on a computer owned by the feds. If it was just State Farm selling you a GPS along with your insurance policy, it would be a different matter, but it isn't.
Most likely heavily subsidized.
Some policies permit you to state your maximum expected driving for the policy period. Better rates may be had that way for collector or second cars, or cars not usually driven to work. Your agent won’t necessarily tell you about this if you have come down from a higher mileage bracket.
Put it another way:
Liberals believe that humans inevitably fail and require a government nanny to save the world.
Conservatives believe that humans inevitably succeed and require the freedom to do it.
this foes not make sense to me and I too am a salesman who racks up the miles.
Backdoor to legislation allowing the nannies to follow you around.
Besoides, my insurance costs ain’t killing me and I carry 150/300/150
The only way this would be acceptable would be a scheduled periodic visit to an insurance agent’s office where the agent physically looks at your odometer and keeps the data private to the insurance company except for showing it back to you on your bill.
I disagree. Professional drivers, who tend to be safer drivers, will be penalized just because they drive more. Age and marriage status are still the most salient factors in determining driving habits. I can’t tell you the number of young men 16 or 17 years old who wreck their vehicles and kill themselves within 6 months of getting their DL.
Don't worry about your truck. When Obamarx signs the kyoto treaty, your truck, my truck and everyone elses will be destroyed in the name of saving the planet.
Don't you feel better now?
Oh Great!!! I’m a contractor and I drive from one end of San Diego county to the other. If this passes I’m screwed, with the building industry suckin wind I’m cutting my profit margin as it is ! This is another cost which will screw everyone. What about all the over the road haulers , courier services and businesses that depend on cars and trucks. They will be forced to raise prices !! Do we need any more reason to vote the Dems out ?!!!
On the other hand, what exactly is a mile worth? Is a mile spent inching along the I-5 at 5:30 equivalent to a mile spent speeding through the desert on the way to Vegas?
ex San Diegan, here
I agree. There is no reason why an insurance policy should not be charged by the primary risk factors. The current simple policies are a reflection of the limits of old technology. It makes sense to price a policy by (a) a flat rate reflecting your demographic characteristics, where you drive and what you drive and (b) a variable portion based on how many miles you drive. In reality that is already done in Massachusetts where you receive a discount if you drive less than 7500 miles.
However this should be a private insurance contract and the governmment should not be involved in anything except for ensuring that you carry sufficient liability insurance/bonding and the person has a valid, up-to-date license.
really? they say in the article that behavior change is their goal.
If this is about allowing private insurers to choose to offer this option at competitive free market prices, I’m fine with it.
Actually, it would be better if they did it as per gallon. Then you could put the tax on at the pump...
Perhaps, but their mechanism is by actually removing restrictions that they already place on insurance companies. The insurance industry is heavily micromanaged by the government.
This is what I thought also. I keep my driving skills up by driving! It seems as if you would be more likely to cause an accident by driving infrequently.
I’m a Californian. The state can kiss my a##. Guess I’ll never buy a new car. Don’t want the tracking system.
I agree with you (having State Farm sell you a GPS still allows State Farm to collect and share the data, and potentially allow government access to it).
Dude. They’re not going to give you a break. You think gov’t is trying to be flexible & reasonable? It’s about controlling your life & getting more of your $$$.
Well, since their stated purpose is to reduce peak traffic, obviously the first will cost a LOT more than the second.
Molon labe. I love that truck. It gets all of a couple hundred miles a year on public roads, so it would be nothing to me to send in the plates... OOO! but it'll need camo too!
California has never had a problem distributing taxes to its visitors. Just look at the hotel and rental car taxes they already have.
What is so different about this than “pay by the minute” long distance service?
Those who talk more should pay more. Right?
Why should a dentist who walks next door to work pay the same price for insurance on a car that an on the road salesman drives 50,000 miles each year?
(I do have a pet pieve about car insurance.... They don’t give you any discounts for buying a high mileage car. But when it comes time to value the car when it is totalled, they decrease it’s value according to mileage. Ugh!)
....good point....I’m about ready to shop for a new insurer anyway...between health,home owners,auto insurance it’s my biggest expense.
Lighten-up, Francis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.