backtop


Print 102 comment(s) - last by Kenenniah.. on Nov 11 at 2:04 PM

Watchdog group says new rules give insurance companies all the power

In many states in America, auto insurance is a requirement. This is a good thing since that means any accidents that happen will be sure to have coverage by both drivers. The problem according to some drivers and insurance companies is that drivers that drive more miles and have a higher chance of accidents pay the same amount as drivers who drive significantly less.

California is closer to allowing insurance companies to sell insurance by the mile to drivers. This would mean that drivers who drive more would pay more than others would. The Sacramento Bee reports that Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has released regulations that will permit and authorizes insurance companies to verify mileage as part of insurance plans based on miles driven.

The ultimate goal of the new insurance plan in California isn’t to save drivers money, but to encourage people to drive less. Less driving will reduce the pollution in California, the number of accidents and ease traffic congestion according to lawmakers. California isn't the only state with insurance plans based on miles driven. Texas has such plans provided by a company called MileMeter that offers six month policies with chunks of mileage ranging from 1,000 miles to 6,000 miles.

MileMeter CEO Chris Gay said, "We absolutely anticipate coming to California." He continued, "Our take is that half the market out there is being overcharged and underserved – and that's who we aim to address."

Conventional mileage based policies would reportedly take an estimate of projected mileage for a year and then refund or bill the driver depending on the actual miles driven. Mileage could be verified in several ways such as at smog check stations, DMV records, and via electronic devices attached to the car.

The fear with mileage based insurance plans is that there will be a push to charge drivers to drive longer distances each year more money in insurance rates. However, there is reportedly no plan to do that at this time.

Two thirds of homes in the country would save about $270 per year per car with mileage based plans according to a study from Brookings. However, Carmen Balber from Consumer Watchdog says that the new policies cater to the insurance industry and don’t require the premiums to reduce when driving does.

"I think the regulations were drafted to guarantee that insurers win, because they were left with all of the choice," Balber said.

Insurance companies are taking the new proposal seriously and Michael Gunning, VP of the Personal Insurance Federation of California said, "Given the competitive nature of the marketplace, I think this is going to be a selling point for companies."

The members of the federation write more than 50% of all auto policies in California. Drivers concerned about their privacy with policies requiring a device be connected to the car need not be concerned according to lawmakers. Regulations prevent the devices from recording location information about the vehicle. However, Balber maintains that the mileage devices give insurance companies a foot in the door to push for the right to collect other data. Future policies could possibly rate drivers higher if they drive in high crime areas frequently.

There are also proposals in the works that would regulate gas taxes on a per-mile basis using GPS tracking.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

California is stupid
By bradmshannon on 11/10/2009 11:04:50 AM , Rating: 4
I am no longer surprised at the collective stupidity of the California government. They are already like another country, so they might as well break from the herd. Too bad they need money from the other states just to operate.




RE: California is stupid
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:11:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Too bad they need money from the other states just to operate.


No kidding. When are people going to realize that its complete stupidity to copy the models of California and New York. Look at the types of people who are running these states - they make all these regulations, encourage social weirdness, increase taxes on everything until you can no longer afford to buy anything, create entitlement programs for more money than they even bring in....then they basically go bankrupt, have skyrocketing unemployment numbers, need the states who didn't follow suit to fund them...and then they try to push off all their corny beliefs and values on the rest of middle America.

The sad part...is so many people in middle America want it! I guess they were right, you can't teach stupid.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 12:16:04 PM , Rating: 4
You and bradmshannon need to stop spreading lies:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.htm...

In 2005, California only got $0.78 (NY $0.79) in spending for every dollar it gave to the federal gov't in taxes. In fact, most of the blue states did. For you to say 2009 has so radically shifted the balance is baseless speculation.

Whatever bailout CA needs absolutely pales in comparison to the >$40B/yr outflow that CA has been giving to the nation for years. Personally, though I just want higher state taxes because they impact the economy far less than claimed. I'm sick of people thinking it's okay to burden future generations with debt for selfish reasons.


RE: California is stupid
By wookie1 on 11/10/2009 12:40:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Califoria state government pays federal income taxes?! Or do you mean that the feds gave back to California 78% of what residents and businesses paid? If so, a rebate of "only" 78% is good? And now because California is large and has a large population, naturally they should be bailed out, or as you say state taxes should be jacked up. How about just returning to the spending levels (per capita) of several years ago? Even adjusted for inflation, I'm sure it wouldn't require tax increases or bailouts. Just continually increasing the size and scope of government will become a bigger and bigger weight, sinking the state financially.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 1:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
If you're so confused why don't you just read the documents? Here's more info from the same site:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/92.htm...

I'm talking about all federal taxes paid by California residents and businesses versus all federal spending recieved. The difference is what California pays to the rest of the nation to support their SS, Medicare, etc.

Reducing spending levels isn't enough, because they haven't really risen much compared to a few years ago. We need higher taxes, or have to completely eliminate programs like health insurance for children. People bitch about overpaid goverment employees but even halving their salary - which is just plain wrong and will reduce wages in the private sector, too - won't be near enough.


RE: California is stupid
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 1:10:03 PM , Rating: 3
And what does that tell you? It says there are too many liberal entitlement programs benefiting the lazy and penalizing the successful. Perhaps you SHOULD start cutting entitlement programs as a method of motivation for people to go to school, get an education, take their lives more seriously, and get a good job.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 3:20:19 PM , Rating: 2
It's nice for you to think that everyone can have a decent job, but that's not how it works. The more productive we become, the less labour is needed for the things we want (i.e. that which we will pay for).

Right now we have low interest rates, stimulus, and people desperate for work (i.e. willing to work for less). There's never been a better time to produce something that society wants. The problem is that the demand just isn't there, and I can't blame society for coming to this realization. Cheap cars are fantastic. Cheap TV's are better than ever. Cheap entertainment is on the internet. Etc, etc. What's the point in spending?

Unemployment isn't going away. Either you eliminate minimum wage to replace automation and reduce productivity per employed person (which is ass-backwards), let poor people starve to death (which will reduce demand and just create more poor people), or live with the fact that social-capitalism is an inevitability in a moral society.

I really don't see what's so bad about it. If you are educated enough to outdo your peers and secure a job, then you get a better lifestyle. If not, then you live on welfare. Just tax enough to make it sustainable.

Rich people are coming to the same realization. That's why they voted for a "socialist" president. That's why productive states are usually blue and not complaining about net outflow. There's already enough encouragement for success, and there's no need to punish lack of it when it's unavoidable for some portion of the population.


RE: California is stupid
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: California is stupid
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 1:41:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
We need higher taxes, or have to completely eliminate programs like health insurance for children.
I guess you're not familiar with how much CA government spending has increased. The CA government has more than doubled their spending in the last 10 years. More than double is damn significant. Hell, 10 years ago we were actually in the friggin green.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/California_sta...


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 2:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
10 years ago is not very useful as a comparison. State spending hasn't increased that much recently. It was $137B in 2006 and projected at $143B for 2010. There weren't big financing problems in 2006.

Also, I'm comparing the numbers to http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/California_stat... and I'm not sure how it all adds up. It looks like state is way in the green and local is way in the red. I guess there are transfer payments to the local municipalities? Why isn't the debt increasing by the difference between revenues and spending?


RE: California is stupid
By Keeir on 11/10/2009 1:11:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
In 2005, California only got $0.78 (NY $0.79) in spending for every dollar it gave to the federal gov't in taxes. In fact, most of the blue states did. For you to say 2009 has so radically shifted the balance is baseless speculation.


That concept has a (few) major flaw...

its not adjusted for relative cost of living (even within the states)

Consider the State of Washington. There is a dramatic cost of living (and thus wage scale) difference between Spokane, Olympia and Seattle. Most of the Federal Taxes are collected from the Seattle Area with High Profit business and high wage employees... Yet the majority is spent in -low wage- areas. So perhaps Washington should complaign they don't overpay people? Or spend money on I-90? At $0.88 per tax dollar, Washington probably gets very close to equal -value-.

Another major flaw is that the business in the State of Washington get significant value from money spent in other states. If Idaho, Montana, Utah, and the Dakotas did not have a good road system, goods from Washington would need to be shipped through the Panama Canal... which would cut into profit and thus federal taxes paid...

All that map shows is Population Density & Wealth Density.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 4:05:08 PM , Rating: 3
Look, the fact is that CA and NY pay significantly more to the feds for the benefit of the nation than they get back, so anyone complaining about other states giving money to socialist CA should STFU. Your cost of living argument is a red herring.

If the federal government just asked NY and CA for $2000 per capita per year plus SS income deductions to pay for their share of defense, road work (do feds have anything to do with this?), and SS, and let those states handle welfare, medicaid, justice, trade, etc, then they would be swimming in cash while the rest of the nation would be a bit worse off.

I'm not advocating this by any means, as I'm all for richer states like CA/NY to give a little to advance the standard of living for everyone, and I recognize that they benefitted from the flow of trade and expertise between states.

I'm just saying people should stop making BS claims that CA "needs money from other states to operate". They're like kids with an allowance complaining that their mom asked them to buy some makeup for her with "their" money.


RE: California is stupid
By Keeir on 11/10/2009 6:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, the fact is that CA and NY pay significantly more to the feds for the benefit of the nation than they get back, so anyone complaining about other states giving money to socialist CA should STFU. Your cost of living argument is a red herring.


Actually no, its not.

The fallacy is in measuring services/or benifit in Dollar amounts spent in a psuedo-geographical boundry.

So, when the Federal government gives a Nebraska Farmer a subsidy to ensure both cheap food prices AND a viable domestic farming industry, don't people in California and other blue states benefit with lower food prices? Much of the Nation's RD Science funds are spent in NM because of its remote location and lower cost of living (meaning lower over cost) than California. Doesn't California benefit from these programs as well? There is no way we can directly calculate the benefit in Dollars California receives from Federal Spending.

The distrabution of Federal Funds is what was intended during the setup of the Federal government. Rich or highly populated states can't wag the dog to ensure a higher than warranted Federal Spending in thier particular states. Ultimately, the Federal Government spending 1 to 1 dollar in California would be a negative for -California-.

quote:
I'm just saying people should stop making BS claims that CA "needs money from other states to operate". They're like kids with an allowance complaining that their mom asked them to buy some makeup for her with "their" money.


Hmmm.. Federal Dollars Collected to Support the Federal Good as decided by the House of Repersentatives, which California gets a larger influence in due to its larger size, are not equal to hand-outs to meet State Promised Goods and Services.

California, New York, and many other "Blue States" so far have been the primary beneficiaries of the TARP funds. So its not like they never receive more than thier fair share of direct Federal Spending.

California wanted a Auto Style Bailout. 'Give us money so we can sustain for a year the poor contract we wrote.' Notice that most people hate the Auto bailout's as well?


RE: California is stupid
By Solandri on 11/11/2009 5:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look, the fact is that CA and NY pay significantly more to the feds for the benefit of the nation than they get back, so anyone complaining about other states giving money to socialist CA should STFU. Your cost of living argument is a red herring.

The fed payment/benefit analysis needs to be controlled for individual income (which probably correlates closely with cost of living). The whole point of a progressive tax system is that richer people pay more. It's contradictory to tell rich people who complain about high taxes that they should shut up and pay their fair share, and in the next breath claim that richer states are somehow paying more than their fair share. The two are the same thing.


RE: California is stupid
By icanhascpu on 11/10/2009 11:14:15 AM , Rating: 3
I am no longer surprised at the collective stupidity of the American government. They are already like another world order, so they might as well break from the herd. Too bad they need money from the other countries just to operate.


RE: California is stupid
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:17:35 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Too bad they need money from the other countries just to operate.

No kidding. Perhaps its because we pay people we don't like to talk to us, we give "aid" to all these countries but no one knows where that money actually goes, we basically fund the entire UN, and now they want to give hundreds of billions of dollars a year to "developing countries" to go green...

Then our leaders make us borrow all this money and put us into debt to do the basic things for ourselves? I think its time to stop being Nanny and cut the chains...leave the others to function on their own. Stop giving away money, stop altering the way we do things, that work, to please everyone else.


RE: California is stupid
By JediJeb on 11/10/2009 3:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. So many countries chant about how much they hate the US while at the same time have their hand out to receive support from us. What would happen if for just one year the US stopped sending any type of aid outside our borders? Spent every dollar that would have been sent out to pay off our debt. Let other countries give out the money and maybe even ask for some of it ourselves.

The US spent tons of money after World War II rebuilding the world, and guess what, only Japan has every repaid any of those loans. In my opinion Japan has paid for the right to compete against us in the markets where we sell our goods. The way things seem to work though is we pay others to become our competitors, it would be like Ford giving GM $20 billion to stay afloat and GM never paying it back but becoming so big in the market to take away all of Ford's customers. Just does not seem right to me.


RE: California is stupid
By TSS on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: California is stupid
By Hink on 11/10/2009 5:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just to correct one fact. Compare the EU and US contributions to the UN budget with wikipedia and see that the EU coutries contributes with about 50% more than the US.

To help other nations is usually to help yourself, many countries buyes services from domestic companys to use abroad as aid.
This was the case with much of post-WW2 aid. Some people seems to think that it would have been better if sovjet would have given the aid(and requested other things) to ex. Europe instead of US, terrifying scenario to think about.


RE: California is stupid
By mmntech on 11/10/2009 11:23:06 AM , Rating: 2
It's baffling how a state the size of Canada (pop wise) is so deep in debt.

This mileage insurance scheme though is something that California environmentalists have been pushing for for some time. It gets people to drive less. Well, no, that's not entirely accurate. The environmentalists wanted to tax drivers per mile. Just be thankful this insurance method doesn't punish you for driving period.


RE: California is stupid
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
California environmentalists have been pushing for for some time. It gets people to drive less. Well, no, that's not entirely accurate. The environmentalists wanted to tax drivers per mile. Just be thankful this insurance method doesn't punish you for driving period.

If the environmentalists are pushing for it - then chances are it will cost you more - and provide yet another burden on your daily life all to please the enviro-whackos who want to go back to barney rubble days.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 12:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm usually railing against retard environmentalists, but this time conservatives should be joining the call.

Pay As You Drive insurance more accurately distributes the cost of driving among the people who drive. The only reason costs will rise is that insurance companies will stop being able to milk low-risk drivers to subsidize the higher-risk ones. Instead of me paying 2.5x the insurance per mile, I'll only pay 1.5x or whatever the statistics justify for low mileage drivers.

The same thing happened with cell phones. Limited competition and difficulty of portability made companies structure plans to encourage people to buy higher-minute plans for no reason. However, competition finally gave us reasonable prepaid plans, so I pay <$10/mo instead of $30+/mo for the minimum plan. Now low volume callers don't have to subsidize high volume callers.


RE: California is stupid
By JediJeb on 11/10/2009 3:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only reason costs will rise is that insurance companies will stop being able to milk low-risk drivers to subsidize the higher-risk ones. Instead of me paying 2.5x the insurance per mile, I'll only pay 1.5x or whatever the statistics justify for low mileage drivers.


But why are people who drive more necessarily higher risk? Yes more miles driven means more time on the road in which you can have an accicent, but it also means that person has more driving experience. Over the road truck drivers can drive over 100k miles per year, yet as a whole they have fewer accidents probably than drivers that only travel short distances to work and back. Also where you drive makes more of an impact on your likelyhood of having an accident than how far you drive. Driving 15 miles to work on a congested multilane freeway would be more apt to cause accidents versus 50 miles on open two lane roads in the middle of nowhere. I think there are several flaws in just basing cost on a per mile basis.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 4:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing is "necessarily" so in insurance. On average, though, people with higher mileage have more claims and casualties. It's not perfectly linear as low mileage drivers do have a higher per-mile claims rate, but the relationship is significantly stronger than the current "low mileage discount" reflects.

Here's some stats I linked to in another post (starting on page 8):
http://www.ceres.org/Document.Doc?id=432


RE: California is stupid
By Kenenniah on 11/11/2009 2:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think anyone is suggesting they use miles driven only. Your driving history, the area you drive in, and the type of expected use of the vehicle are still considered in your rates.


RE: California is stupid
By ussfletcher on 11/10/2009 11:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
It is pretty sickening what can happen when you have bleeding heart liberals just aching to hand out money to poor people. I propose that they only tax the people that vote for the entitlement programs, maybe that will get people to think twice about it.

California, from what I have seen IS another country, for all intents and purposes. I have been here for about 3 months now, and let me tell you it is nothing like the mid-west. The culture is just totally different than anywhere else I've been. Its odd because it took me a couple months to adjust whereas I've lived in other places around the country and fit right in.. though I imagine the New York area would be hard to adjust to as well.


RE: California is stupid
By Donkey2008 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: California is stupid
By d3872 on 11/10/2009 12:22:45 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...For us Californians, a lot us go to school...


I couldn't have said it better myself.

Sincerely,

Wife beating redneck (i.e. anyone who wasn't born in California, apparently)


RE: California is stupid
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 12:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
As a transplant from other states, I can attest that California does have its own mini-culture but it seems that culture is more readily apparent in the cities. The rural areas of CA are more like the other southwestern states. CA isn't the only state with its own mini-culture, the US is made up of various sub-cultures. It's just how we are. No one is better than the other although we have our own preferences. I live in CA and LOVE the geographical diversity. How many places can you go to the beach and swim and go to the mountains and ski in the same day?

I don't like CA's government at all and am willing to give up what I do like to get a better government. It just seems their sole purpose in life is to f$%k its own residents. We're constantly having to fight these guys. It's ridiculous. There's a lot of people willing to stay and fight but I'm tired of it. Moving to AZ the second I get the opportunity.


RE: California is stupid
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 12:48:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No wonder middle-America is such an economic failure (and ironically why Fox News is such a success)
And California is an economic success? LOL!


RE: California is stupid
By Donkey2008 on 11/10/2009 4:48:46 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the people at Northrup Gruman, Intel, Chevron, Dreamworks, Levi Strauss, VISA, Amgen, Apple, Taco Bell, CB Richard Ellis, Unocal, THQ, Disney, HP, Callaway, Nvidia, Jack in the Box, Google, etc...etc...etc...etc...etc...etc would disagree with that assessment.


RE: California is stupid
By mdogs444 on 11/11/2009 8:30:06 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you should reanalyze the situation that we're talking about here.

No one is saying that there are not good, well established companies in California who can make a profit. We're saying its the far left government of California (and now the US) who wants to penalize and tax to hell any company that makes a profit - then they complain about job cuts, layoffs, companies moving overseas, offshore tax havens, price increases, and companies holding out their hands for bailouts.

Its not the companies who are at fault - its the ever punishing government who changes the rules by the day and causes companies to not be able to function at margins they deem as profitable and forward looking for their own business plans.


RE: California is stupid
By n00bxqb on 11/10/2009 12:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
Baffling ?

I can't think of many other countries that have a population density as low as Canada. Combine that with public health care and other socialist policies and you have a recipe for debt.

That being said, Canada has been chipping away at its debts over the last couple of decades and is in much better shape than the US when it comes to national debt.


RE: California is stupid
By Mint on 11/10/2009 12:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
It was chipping away until the conservative gov't came in and cut taxes, justifying it with BS claims of goverment wastage that they would eliminate. Canada is in the best position regarding debt in the entire G8, because for a decade we actually payed the taxes necessary to fund our spending unlike other countries (including the "non-socialist" US).

Now total debt is estimated to rise 35% by 2014. $55B this year alone.


RE: California is stupid
By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 12:21:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was chipping away until the conservative gov't came in and cut taxes

It wasn't the tax cuts that did us in, it was the MASSIVE increase in government spending and bloat that the "Conservative" (in name only) brought in with them.

Since taking power in 2006 the Conservatives in Canada have been spending like drunken sailors, increasing government spending at an average of 7% per year BEFORE the recession hit. This year they're jacking up government bloat by something like 12%. This makes him the second most socialist/big government Prime Minister Canada has ever had after Trudeau.

In Canada we've developed this odd situation where the Liberals campaign on the left and govern on the right while the Conservatives campaign on the right and govern on the left.

... and now back to our regularly scheduled on-topic messages :D


This is new?
By Demon-Xanth on 11/10/2009 11:01:06 AM , Rating: 5
Funny, my mileage already affects how much I pay per year.




RE: This is new?
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:03:56 AM , Rating: 3
Yup, the insurance company asks this in their list of initial basic questions while estimating your policy.

I have no interest in this type of model though. I prefer to pay up front, for the entire year, and be done with it.

The gas tax by the mile though is nothing more than an additional tax scheme, and sour at that. They want to charge you taxation for driving your own car on your own land (think farmers), own driveway, and even private parking lots and private subdivisions - none of these areas are supported by public funds.


RE: This is new?
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:06:47 AM , Rating: 1
Not to mention - what do you do if you're out on a road trip and your policy expires without you realizing it, then you get into an accident because you went over by 8 miles?

I don't know. I guess it could be cheaper for low mileage drivers and people with second cars...but for the average 15,000 mile per year driver, I can't see this being very beneficial. Why buy a 6,000 mile chunk when you can just pay for 6 months and receive a bill during month 5?


RE: This is new?
By exploderator on 11/10/2009 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 2
Second Cars.... YES!!!

How about insurance per-person though?

Great Idea for many of us in rural areas. Per-vehicle insurance is the only hurdle against sometimes using a more efficient smaller vehicle for many people. We sometimes need a truck, but very often could do with a small car, bike, or even a scooter.

But the price of per-vehicle insurance is an artificial hurdle to our ability to make the better more flexible and appropriate choice of what to drive, when, and why. We just end up in the gas-hogging trucks all the time instead.

I have a wonderful old van that has been parked for a few years because it's too expensive to afford 14 mpg as my main vehicle, or $600/y insurance for an infrequently used second vehicle. I would buy an ultra compact and insure both if I could pay per mile (or per person - myself). It's an either / or decision that I shouldn't have to make.

That way I could hit the dump or the hardware store with my van, and spend the other 99% in an efficient compact. Best of both worlds. I have a compromise vehicle instead, that can tow a trailer, and is my only vehicle, but gets 23 mpg instead of 45 mpg for most of my driving. I would burn WAY less fuel, save tons of money, and cause less road wear and congestion in a Geo for 95% of my miles. And by buying and maintaining two vehicles, what money I would not be saving would be going to an industry that needs the business. It's not like I don't have space to keep them both parked.

I know that we rural folks are but an afterthought for the city-slicker regulators that run our world, and that smog in their rat-races is their biggest concern. But overall fuel consumption is a desperate issue for a continent with a middle east oil addiction, and rural miles in big pickups add up faster than you might think.


RE: This is new?
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 1:27:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and rural miles in big pickups add up faster than you might think
Yes they do indeed. Although my wife and I have worked in the same area since I've move here, we've managed to shave off 15k miles a year in driving between the two of us. My wife shaved off 5k just by becoming a teacher and I have yet figure why I'm driving 10k less a year. I have the same commute. The only thing I can think of is I'm taking less long trips with my car but I'm using my wife's truck instead so there should be more miles on hers but not really. We're definitely driving less somewhere.


RE: This is new?
By the goat on 11/10/2009 2:59:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But the price of per-vehicle insurance is an artificial hurdle to our ability to make the better more flexible and appropriate choice of what to drive, when, and why.


When I added a second vehicle to my insurance the, "multi-vehicle discount" was larger then the premium increase for the second vehicle. So the two vehicles together were cheaper to insure then insuring the car by itself.

Also a couple of years ago I bought a brand new truck (also new redesigned model year) and my insurance company gave me a, "vehicle experience discount." I'm not sure how I had experience driving a vehicle before it existed?


RE: This is new?
By exploderator on 11/10/2009 6:39:39 PM , Rating: 2
Lucky you, "multi-vehicle discount". I live in BC, and while our socialized auto insurance averages 30% cheaper than the privatized insurance of other provinces, it doesn't innovate creative social policies very well for rural buyers, who are only 15% of the population and shrinking. Which is sad, given that a socialized industry has the perfect opportunity to tweak policies for social reasons other than pure profit and competitiveness. Not that the privatized insurance does that either in Canada, of course.

I don't know why your insurance company sees fit to make two vehicles cheaper to insure than one. Any ideas? Customer loyalty perhaps? Pure business error? Taking the former too far by way of the latter?


RE: This is new?
By Kenenniah on 11/11/2009 2:01:01 PM , Rating: 2
Artifical hurdle? When talking about comprehensive and collision coverage, don't you think value of the vehicle matters? Of course it has to be per vehicle, as the amount of risk involved changes with the value.

How about liability only insurance? Which vehicle is going to cause more damage to other vehicles and people in an accident, a big truck or a scooter? How about safety features such as stability control, anti-lock brakes, etc. for helping to avoid accidents in the first place?

Bottom line, the vehicle you are driving affects the statistical risk to an insurance company greatly.


RE: This is new?
By SiliconAddict on 11/10/2009 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
They stopped asking me this 5 years ago. I'm never asked what my mileage is anymore. FYI- I've got Liberty Mutual in, MN


RE: This is new?
By Jeffk464 on 11/10/2009 11:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
I barely drive my car at all so I'm all for it. But ya, I also get a discount for low miles.


RE: This is new?
By 91TTZ on 11/10/2009 1:58:19 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I barely drive my car at all so I'm all for it.


Unfortunately, the law wouldn't require that they charge you less for driving less miles, but it would allow them to charge you more if you drive more miles.

And you already see how insurance companies behave, they're scammers. This will result in higher insurance prices for most people.


RE: This is new?
By Mint on 11/10/2009 4:39:31 PM , Rating: 2
Then why didn't they jack rates on you last month? And every month before that?

HINT: It's called competition.

This is about companies like Progressive and MileMeter trying to steal certain customers from other companies because they have a way of verifying the mileage and know that these people cost much less to insure than their current premiums indicate.


RE: This is new?
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 11:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I thought this was common practice! Drivers that drive more are a higher risk to insurance companies, so they usually pay a little more. I don't understand why anything is wrong with that, every time I have been insured that was one of the questions asked.


RE: This is new?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/10/2009 11:17:38 AM , Rating: 2
But the insurance company really has no way of verifying that data, right? I can't recall Nationwide ever contacting me to verify my mileage driven during the year to see if matches what I put down when I originally applied for a policy.

How does the insurance company CURRENTLY know how many miles are on your car? I mean, you could bull**** for all they know. The method proposed seems to actually verify this data.


RE: This is new?
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
How does the insurance company CURRENTLY know how many miles are on your car?

Most insurance companies run checks on your car when you provide them with the VIN number. Then they can find out if its been in any other accidents, and the mileage on the car during service dates - all providing they were reporting as they are supposed to.

You know that some companies can charge higher rates on cars that may have already been in accidents because they are not as safe as the car was prior to that.


RE: This is new?
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 11/10/2009 11:25:09 AM , Rating: 3
If you service your car at some mom and pop shop, or perform your own maintenance (as many enthusiasts do), they wouldn't know jack squat :)


RE: This is new?
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 11:28:28 AM , Rating: 2
As i said:
quote:
all providing they were reporting as they are supposed to.


However, I do not change my own oil anymore. The car manufacturers can decline to cover your warranty work if you cannot provide proof of maintenance. Showing them a Kmart receipt for two oil filters and 5 quarts of oil does not exactly prove that you did it.


RE: This is new?
By bldckstark on 11/10/2009 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
They can also deny your warranty claim for driving over the speed limit, not changing your air filter at the specified rate, and determine after the fact that your driving type is considered to be extreme conditions and therefore you didn't perform enough maintenance.

They have a thousand ways to not pay for your warranty work. That doesn't mean that they will. You are at their mercy no matter what you do.

It is highly unlikely that an engine failure will occur that could be identified as not changing your oil often enough. At least not likely enough to be concerned about changing your oil at home.

That's just my take on it anyway. I put some thought into exactly your point and decided against worrying about it.


RE: This is new?
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 12:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Showing them a Kmart receipt for two oil filters and 5 quarts of oil does not exactly prove that you did it.
Most of the dealerships have told me that is enough. Although with my present car, I have them do the oil changes. Less hassle with disposing old oil.


RE: This is new?
By frobizzle on 11/10/2009 11:58:29 AM , Rating: 2
In New York (and other states as well) you have to bring your vehicle in for an annual safety inspection. Among other things, the mileage is recorded and sent to the state. It would require little effort for insurance companies to track individuals mileage history.


RE: This is new?
By JediJeb on 11/10/2009 2:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then they can find out if its been in any other accidents, and the mileage on the car during service dates - all providing they were reporting as they are supposed to.


I never knew they were supposed to report any servicing. Besides I have always done all my own repairs, even things like changing a rear axle and engine. Body work is about the only thing I can't do easily. But then I haven't purchased a vehicle since 1996 so maybe it is something they do now days.


RE: This is new?
By Fracture on 11/10/2009 3:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
I tend to believe that those who drive more are well-practiced and do just fine until someone who hardly drives at all crawls their way into the far left lane of an interstate to do 50 mph.

Realistically - I understand the added exposure due to driving more but this company doesn't seem to cater to the average person - a 20 mile commute 2 ways every day quickly adds up to 15k miles per year with minimal extra travel. And remember that if only the people that if this works anything like an HMO you need to offset low-cost policies with high-cost ones, only no one that drives enough to pay more will sign up with them!

IMO - Make road tests harder. Fewer drivers means fewer accidents.


RE: This is new?
By FITCamaro on 11/10/2009 5:18:13 PM , Rating: 2
Everytime that's pushed for people scream. People view driving as a right these days. Not the privilege it truly is.

But yes it's incredibly sad how pathetically easy driving tests are in most areas of the country. Mine didn't even involve going on the road. Thank god my parents taught me to drive.


RE: This is new?
By Mint on 11/10/2009 11:40:02 AM , Rating: 3
People barely get any discount for driving less. Your premium goes down around 20% for driving one third the mileage (I'm a student that does around 3500 per year).

Right now, low mileage drivers are subsidizing high mileage ones. I think one of the reasons is that insurance companies are worried about odometer fraud if they offer bigger discounts, so it's just a nominal discount right now. That's why these companies that are trying to steal these low risk, low mileage customers from the big players are requiring devices to track mileage.

I, for one, welcome the choice. I'm not paranoid about a company tracking me if they say they aren't, so I'll gladly save a few hundred dollars per year.


RE: This is new?
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 12:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's why these companies that are trying to steal these low risk, low mileage customers from the big players are requiring devices to track mileage.
I don't want any device put on my car that hasn't been R&D'd by the cars manufacturer or another VERY competent and well established aftermarket manufacturer. That said, if the device is a standalone unit, meaning it does not need to be connected to any of the cars mechanical or electronic systems, I might be ok with it.


RE: This is new?
By Mint on 11/10/2009 12:51:24 PM , Rating: 1
Then don't buy that insurance!

All I want is for someone to offer this service, not mandate it. Apparently legislation is needed for companies to offer it, so let's have it happen.

It absolutely baffles me that so many conservatives on DT are dismayed with this. Maybe they're high mileage drivers, but in that case they've been mooching off the system for years. They make all this hooplah about being against subsidies, but when the one that they've been benefitting is on track to disappear they bitch to no end.


RE: This is new?
By mdogs444 on 11/10/2009 1:07:26 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see anyone "mooching" or "benefiting" from any subsidies here.

The bottom line is that there are many insurance companies out there, so competition is alive and well. You choose who your carrier is. You choose to go with them based on the rate and services they offer. I don't see any conservatives setting the insurance premium rates for themselves, do you?

We are not against any forms of new ideas or methods for competition. What we are against is a new method being forced by legislation to encourage you to drive less. That is nothing short of social manipulation by legislation. If they want to offer this service as well as normal insurance methods - then go for it. But for the government to pass a law requiring me to put some kind of GPS device in my car to track my miles, where I go, etc .... and then charge my insurance based on it and potentially my gasoline taxes based on it...well then I have a big problem with it.


RE: This is new?
By Mint on 11/10/2009 2:25:33 PM , Rating: 1
Did you read this part of the article:

California is closer to allowing insurance companies to sell insurance by the mile to drivers. This would mean that drivers who drive more would pay more than others would. The Sacramento Bee reports that Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner has released regulations that will permit and authorizes insurance companies to verify mileage as part of insurance plans based on miles driven.

The legislation is merely allowing PAYD insurance plans with mileage verification. What else am I supposed to think when people are against this? AFAICS they don't want to pay the true cost of their mileage. There is no forcing of anything here.

If many people don't want data tracking devices, then competition will provide insurance without mileage verification, just like prepaid per-minute cell plans haven't replaced monthly plans. If/when low mileage drivers with lower claims leave them, though, they will jack up rates to stay in business, but that's the free market in action.

Regarding subsidies, read this economically focused article that mostly steers clear of environmental aspects:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/magazine/20wwln-...


RE: This is new?
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 1:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then don't buy that insurance!
Go back the read my entire post.

quote:
It absolutely baffles me that so many conservatives on DT are dismayed with this.
I'm absolutely baffled by the amount of people that can't friggin read! And who the hell said I was a conservative?


RE: This is new?
By Mint on 11/10/2009 1:58:55 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't necessarily directing that at you.


RE: This is new?
By FITCamaro on 11/10/2009 5:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
What conservatives generally are against is the government mandating things. I know I sure as hell don't want a GPS tracking device on my car that the government has access to.

I think its fine for the government to allow certain plans to exist. But to mandate them for the purpose of making people drive less due to the inability to afford the higher insurance rates? No. I don't think it should matter how many miles people drive. I drove nearly 30,000 miles one year and didn't get in a single accident. Why? Because I'm a good driver and pay attention to whats going on around me. Sure that won't stop someone from smashing into me as I sit at a stoplight. But I don't think I should be punished for the actions of others. If I cause an accident, punish me. If I don't, leave me alone.


RE: This is new?
By aj28 on 11/10/2009 8:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think the point was that nothing has been mandated (yet), which makes all of the above bickering a little nonsensical and pointless. Neither the words "mandate" nor "require" exist anywhere in the article, and don't even appear until about twenty-or-so comments down... Let's all be friends when we can, yeah?

Opening up an opportunity for the free market to stretch its legs while simultaneously encouraging drivers to drive less thus helping preserve the environment and ease traffic congestion... It sounds pretty much like a win/win to me.


RE: This is new?
By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 12:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I know I sure as hell don't want a GPS tracking device on my car that the government has access to.

As a point of note GPS tracking is not necessary for this system. Progressive Insurance, as an example, merely takes mileage from your cars OBD-II port.

As far as the cost of insurance, as I'm sure you know it's ALL statistics and statistically speaking the more you drive the more likely you are to get into a collision. What's more, governments have put in place numerous other things that limit what statistics insurance companies can use. For example most states no longer allow insurance companies to use a drivers credit rating to determine insurance. It turns out that people who are financially responsible tend also to be more responsible drivers, but some felt that this discriminated against people with poor credit ratings. Other states have restricted setting insurance rates by a customers home address saying it discriminated against certain economic or even ethnic groups.

The end result? Insurance companies have to place more emphasis on what statistics they have left. You might not like it, but that's how the insurance industry operates.


RE: This is new?
By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 12:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Funny, my mileage already affects how much I pay per year.

Actually it probably doesn't, or at least not in a very meaningful fashion.

The insurance industry has, generally speaking, found that customers claims of mileage are HORRIBLY inaccurate (whether intentional or not) and therefore tend to just toss those numbers in the garbage. Try getting a quote sometime for 10,000 miles per year vs. 30,000 miles per year, with most companies the difference will be next to nothing.


Hogwash!!!...
By MrBlastman on 11/10/2009 11:09:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
drivers that drive more miles and have a higher chance of accidents pay the same amount as drivers who drive significantly less.


It took this lady:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572853,00.html

950 tries to pass her driver's license test!

Would YOU want to live anywhere near her? She had to score a 60 out of 100 to pass. She might drive only on occasion, but still, should SHE be paying less than someone who is a very diligent, cautious, attentive driver who drives hours a day?

While it sounds neat to justify charging drivers who drive more higher rates (and USAA already does do that but it isn't a huge difference), I do not think you can safely say that it is a completely fair measure of projecting rates.

In one study, 52% of accidents were within 5 miles of home, 69% were within 10 miles of home:

http://www.carinsurance.com/Articles/content31.asp...

I could quote statistics all day, but the fact is a bad driver is a bad driver, regardless of how many miles they drive. Some people are just dangerous in a car and do not belong on the road ever, but, being a free country they get to drive as long as they do not get in wrecks. Penalizing those who drive long distances I don't think is completely fair. It is like a zero-tolerance policy (and we know those don't work too well).

I think some form of balances and measures needs to be put in rather than just equating premiums to distance traveled.




RE: Hogwash!!!...
By therealnickdanger on 11/10/2009 11:31:15 AM , Rating: 2
The simple truth is that crashes typically increase alongside accesses. The more driveways, alleys, and intersections you have along a stretch of road, you increase the chance for a crash that much more. Combined with the fact that areas with more accesses have greater populations, you also get more drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians thrown into the mix.

The reason that most people don't crash more than 20 miles from their home (17% according to that link) is that very few people live further than that from a population center. We can toss statistics around all day, but I am sitting on approximately 30 years of Minnesota crash data that says that long-distance roadways (like Interstate highways) inherently have the lowest crash rates of any roadway system. The highest crash rates? Pick any street in downtown Minneapolis or St. Paul.

So if we had a law in Minnesota that taxed people per mile, claiming that the further they drive per day, the more "responsible" they are for crashes and the impending crash cost, we would in fact be punishing many drivers (commercial drivers specifically) that traverse many miles per day along this state's safest roadways? Leave it to the government to come up with something so bass-ackwards.


RE: Hogwash!!!...
By Mint on 11/10/2009 1:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
Look here:
http://www.vtpi.org/paydsum.pdf
http://www.ceres.org/Document.Doc?id=432 (especially pages 8-13)

Some quotes:

Higher-annual-mileage motorists tend to have lower per-mile crash rates, and lower annual-mileage motorists tend to have higher per-mile crash rates, but these factors can be reflected in premium structures.
Within a particular rating category there is a strong positive relationship between annual mileage and annual insurance claims.


Mileage is one of several factors that affect crash rates. Mileage cannot be used instead of other rating factors by charging all motorists the same per-mile fee or
funding insurance through fuel taxes, but accuracy improves significantly if annual mileage, incorporating additional rating factors, becomes the basis for premiums.


It's not linear, but the relationship is certainly a lot stronger than is reflected by insurance pricing. Imagine yearly premiums like $300 + $0.12 per mile instead of $1200 for the low mileage driver, $1500 for the average one, and $1800 for the high mileage. Then you will actually see the cost per mile that you are putting on the system.

Moreover, even though downtown Minnesota will have more crashes per mile than rural areas, it will also have fewer serious injuries or fatalities per mile. How all these factors are weighted is up to the insurance companies and their actuaries.


RE: Hogwash!!!...
By therealnickdanger on 11/10/2009 3:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How all these factors are weighted is up to the insurance companies and their actuaries.

True. Which is why they can't be inherently trusted to do the right thing. I guarantee that they will definitely do the financially profitable thing.

quote:
Moreover, even though downtown Minnesota will have more crashes per mile than rural areas, it will also have fewer serious injuries or fatalities per mile.

False.

Urban Minnesota has many more serious injury and fatal crashes per mile than rural Minnesota. Even after you calculate in vehicle miles traveled (VMT), the overall crash rates and injury-specific severity rates are still higher in the urban centers.


RE: Hogwash!!!...
By Mint on 11/10/2009 4:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
They don't need to be trusted to do the right thing. They just need to offer PAYD insurance. If it's cheaper (as it is likely to be), then I along with others will switch over. Offering lower rates to low-risk drivers that are with other insurance companies does indeed bring them more profits, so this time the profitable thing is the right thing.

As for urban vs. rural, I just assumed that it was similar to the trends of the rest of nation, e.g. page 8 here:
http://www.ceres.org/Document.Doc?id=432
Maybe MN is a special case, but the negative y-intercept of that trendline tells you that urban areas have lower per-mile casualty rate than rural areas across the nation.

OTOH, I do know that Toronto has higher insurance rates than the rest of Ontario simply because there are more lawyers around to game the system :(


By KingConker on 11/10/2009 11:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
'Simples' as they say here in the UK.

Please don't accuse me of being sexist neither, your picture says it all....




By Amiga500 on 11/10/2009 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 3
They pay less....

Even though women probably stick more dents in the car... when fellas crash, they tend to do it properly (i.e. serious damage to the car/truck).


By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 1:06:59 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know about sexist, but certainly inaccurate for North America at least.

Men, on average, are much more likely to be in a car collision than women. A large part of this is simply due to the fact that men, on average, drive more miles than women. Men also have much higher rates of drunk driving (your insurance probably won't cover you if you smash into a tree while driving drunk, but they usually will be required to pay liability if you smash into another vehicle).


By KingConker on 11/11/2009 6:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing that British humour does not always translate well...

Irony (from the Ancient Greek e????e?a eironeía, meaning hypocrisy, deception, or feigned ignorance) is a situation, literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity, discordance or unintended connection that goes beyond the most evident meaning.

Made me chuckle anyhow...


Taking advantage of those that NEED to drive
By Kakushya on 11/10/2009 12:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Typically I feel frustrated at the decisions Politicians make in regards to policies surrounding the individuals they are supposed to serve (as representatives); and in this case I want to do everything I can to stop them.

I do not live in California, and I feel much pain for those that do. If something like this occurs, for people like me that have to drive 400+ miles in a week, it would be disastrous.

In my case, my mileage is based upon the need to spend time with my daughter (who does not live close to me). If this was outrageously expensive (as I believe it would be), then it would send a clear message to me that I SHOULD NOT spend time helping my daughter become a independent, productive member of society. One could ask, "Why not take the bus"; and the simple answer is that there is no bus service that goes where I need to go; and also bus service takes sooooo long to get you where you need to be that it's the same as spending no time with her at all.

All too often Politicians are so far removed from reality and what people experience in their life, that they have no clue about the consequences of their policy decision making. We (the people) need to take the power back away from Politicians by all means peaceable (if possible) and restore our government to the idea that we are a society of individuals (not automatons).




RE: Taking advantage of those that NEED to drive
By japlha on 11/10/2009 2:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
I understand your situation as I have to take a 4 hour flight to see my son. Perhaps I should pay less on airfare because I "need" to see my son compared to someone taking the same flight for frivolous reasons?

We all have a "need" to drive. I "need" to drive to the grocery store to buy food. The pizza delivery guy "needs" to deliver pizzas so he can support himself or family. Do we discount premiums when we drive for a "need". Do I get charged more per mile when I drive to a movie theatre? Is entertainment a need? How do we even define a need?

The reality is the more you drive the higher the risk of being in an accident regardless of the reason for driving.

This is just another factor in an insurer's calculations to predict risk.

My guess is premiums will not change for lower mileage drivers. Instead the premiums will increase for higher mileage drivers.


By 91TTZ on 11/10/2009 3:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
Who will get to decide who is a "low mileage driver" vs. a "high mileage driver"?

If you leave it up to the car insurance companies, they'll probably decide that the vast majority of the public are high mileage drivers since that will earn them more money.


By IcePickFreak on 11/10/2009 7:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Just a hunch here, but I think he people who have been in a lot of accidents are the ones who are more likely to be in another. If you drive 30,000miles a year and haven't had an accident in 10 years why should you pay a high premium? On the flip side someone who only drives 6,000 miles a year, mostly because their car is in for repairs for 5 months out of the year because of 5-6 accidents a year, gets a deal? What's the differential, the guy with the accident maybe pays as much as the person who drives 5 times as much yet has no accidents?

How about we apply this to local taxes. I have no kids, I should get a tax break since I have none at school. I mean if I have no kids I'm not likely spending and of that tax money (ie. making a claim) used in schools am I? I should have to pay less of a 'premium' (ie. taxes). Currently it's the exact opposite.

I don't even know where you were trying to go with the "need" argument. People live in tree huts (in a jungle no less) and wear almost no clothing and apparently have all they need, should we tear down all the buildings and move back to that? Might not be bad since everyone has to pitch in their fair share, unlike the 'civilized' western world.


why would extra devices be needed?
By kattanna on 11/10/2009 3:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
if all they want is to obtain mileage, then why would an extra device need to be added to the vehicle. we already have a device that does that, the odometer.

i smell something more.




RE: why would extra devices be needed?
By aj28 on 11/10/2009 8:40:03 PM , Rating: 2
Because paying someone to physically come and reed your odometer is a lot more expensive, involves a lot more liability, and is a much bigger invasion of your privacy than strapping a mindless GPS device to your car.

Which side are you on, anyway? Suspicious of a GPS? You'd rather have someone come and physically look at your car? That's the only alternative, because you sure as hell can't trust people.


RE: why would extra devices be needed?
By aj28 on 11/10/2009 8:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Hah!

Okay, *read.

That was pathetic on my part...


By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 12:56:59 AM , Rating: 2
With relatively few exceptions your odometer doesn't report ANYTHING to the insurance company. At best it's dependent on your service shop accurately reading and reporting your mileage, and there's no guarantee that will happen on a regular basis.

An extra device could either calculate your mileage by GPS or by your cars OBD-II port. GMAC also has a program to get mileage data through OnStar on some GM models.


Simple Test
By KeithP on 11/10/2009 11:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
Any new insurance system that has as much support from the insurance industry as this seems to have will not work in favor of the consumers.

-KeithP




RE: Simple Test
By scrapsma54 on 11/10/2009 1:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess we will just have to get rid of this corrupt system one way or another.


RE: Simple Test
By Masospaghetti on 11/10/2009 4:38:06 PM , Rating: 2
Amen...If the insurance company is pushing for it, they are going to make money on it. The money they make is the money the customer is losing.


Pfft..
By RivuxGamma on 11/10/2009 6:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
I have an easy fix for this:

http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.8758

Just turn it on when you get in the car. Turn it off when you get home. Zero mileage.




RE: Pfft..
By aj28 on 11/10/2009 8:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite. If they receive no signal at all, they would be more likely to send a service technician to your location or threaten a penalty charge, all in the form of a nicely-worded, seemingly well-meaning letter.

Good luck breaking the rules, bud. People like you are what drive up the cost of systems like insurance where we all share the burden.

Better technology means less rule-breakers and less cost for those of us who have been doing the right thing from the start.


RE: Pfft..
By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 1:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Fat load of good that will do for reading mileage from your car's OBD-II port, which is how at least some companies are doing things.

That being said if you really want to block GPS you don't need to go to that sort of extreme, 3 or 4 anti-static bags wrapped around the antenna will do the trick (try it out with a Garmin or TomTom sometime). Of course if an insurance company really wanted to detect such GPS blocking techniques it would be pretty trivial to do.


Per Mile Tax
By btc909 on 11/10/2009 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 2
So how many more state workers will be needed to support this? The privately run FasTrak transponder toll road crap is undergoing a 40 million dollar lawsuit. I can just imagine CA have some mileage tracking devices in vehicles how much of a cluster that would be.

Why would I take my car to a dealer for service who will report my mileage. I'd rather wait & take the hit every 4 years for the smog check to let than insurance company know what my mileage really is.

CA already raised the DMV tags in 09. It failed the first time. Vehicle tags went up around 40-50%. No matter how old your vehicle is. Can't imagine why I see expired tags or temporary tags all of the time.

CA isn't a small state, penalize people from driving & the ecomony will slow down dramatically. The freeways were nice & empty when gas hit $4 a gallon.

Insurance rates in CA have been going down in CA for several years due to insurance regulation & stiff competition. I'm sure the Insurance companies are pissed about this.

This pay per mile insurance makes sense for vehicles that won't be used very often as long as this isn't manditory.

This is just another money grab.

Oh one more, CA is witholding 10% of your income but you get it back at the end of the year assuming the state has any money. But starts all over again year & year. Sounds like a tax to me.

Come on move to Kalifornia!




RE: Per Mile Tax
By Hoser McMoose on 11/11/2009 1:31:55 AM , Rating: 2
Pay per mileage insurance and pay per mileage taxes are two VERY different beasts in my mind. The former I think is a reasonable idea, the latter is wasteful and stupid.

Pay as you drive insurance will be entirely private-sector (assuming you don't have government run insurance like some folk up here in Canada have). It offers another option which, in a free market, is a good thing in my mind. People can vote with their wallet and select to use or not use this product.

Pay as you drive tax (particularly as a replacement for gas taxes) is just dumb. It's needlessly complex and will be subject to massive government waste and incompetence. I also don't much like the idea of the government tracking me by GPS. While this COULD be done by simply measuring mileage (as is common with PAYD insurance), ALL the government-run programs seem to insist on GPS tracking.

What's more though it doesn't really make any sense from the point of view of any stated objectives. If the goal is to reduce fuel consumption than charge more tax for gasoline. MUCH simpler and much more effective. If the goal is to reduce pollution than tax based on actual pollution produced. If the goal is to reduce wear and tear on roads then this is best served by a factor of miles driven and vehicle weight, but a REALLY simple and accurate approximation here is gasoline consumed (heavier vehicles tend to use more gas, and more miles obviously uses more gas), so raising gas taxes again is a much simpler and easier solution.

All of these could be used by governments to increase revenue from consumption tax and reduce the amount of income tax they charge (yeah yeah.. I'm dreaming in Technicolor here, I know).

Of course, if the goal is simply to charge more tax and bloat the government then pay-as-you-drive tax makes sense.


Here is a novel idea...
By Masospaghetti on 11/10/2009 4:31:29 PM , Rating: 2
How about taxing the driver based on his or her driving history?? People who are bad drivers would get charged more, people who are good drivers get charged less. This sounds strangely like the system we use now...

I drive a lot every day, but have never gotten a speeding ticket or been in a collision (knock on wood). Assuming I continue this, why should I be charged more because I drive more? I cost the insurance company less than the joker next door who drives once a month but crashes every time.

On another note, it's already ridiculous that the insurance company charges PER VEHICLE and not PER DRIVER - I have 3 old cars and am charged an additional fee for each one.




RE: Here is a novel idea...
By aj28 on 11/10/2009 8:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
Pfft... That would make sense.

Fact of the matter is, they need good drivers to keep paying them money and receiving nothing. At the same time, they need the bad drivers to stay customers and (hopefully) pay off their debt one of these days.

The logic they use is the classic "Is it cheaper now?" scenario. Rather than replace your computer with an upgraded model for $300, a warranty company would rather repair it for $250 and hope that it doesn't break again. Even if it does break again and costs them another $250, it's still cheaper to fix it than giving you the $300 computer. This is the way all large insurance-type companies work their logic.


One Question
By gmyx on 11/10/2009 11:47:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have but one question: Why is she smiling after driving her car into a boat? It's barely hanging on!




Keep voting liberal.
By Cerin218 on 11/10/2009 12:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know for the life of me why you people keep voting for liberals. They are all about control. This isn't to help people that drive less pay less, it's to do exactly what the article says, control how you drive. If it costs you more to drive you won't. That's what the liberals want. They are on this whole climate control kick and they believe cars are killing the planet. They want to raise gas to $8 a gallon so that you buy green cars. Cash for Clunkers was about green cars. Except the top trade was an old F-150 for a new F-150. When will you realize that liberals are a party of undelivered promises where they try and tell you they are doing something for you and most of you are completely willing to give up your personal freedoms to get what you are promised. Liberals don't deliver. Cap and Trade, Health Care reform, insurance by the mile. Open your eyes and understand what they are doing. California is a crappy state at this point. It's like a giant hippie commune. They are having a State garage sale to raise revenue for pete's sake. Yet you people see this and say we love it, only do it bigger. Maybe one of you liberals can explain what it is you love about your leadership so much that you are willing to give up everything to have someone else make your decisions and think for you. I just don't understand.




Genius
By Ammohunt on 11/10/2009 2:14:32 PM , Rating: 2
yet another reason to move out of California hard to pay down the states debt when the state does everything to encourage its tax payers to move to other states.




Ha!
By Soulkeeper on 11/10/2009 3:07:19 PM , Rating: 2
I only drive my truck about 3 times a month(usually only a few miles), since I work from home.

Does this mean I should only pay 1/10th what the other people pay ?

something tells me I wouldn't be so lucky ...




Ridiculous
By galerts3 on 11/10/2009 11:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Couldn't you say that those who drive more are also more experienced drivers, and therfore their insurance should be lowered? You can spin this any way you want. These insurance companies already make tons of money off of us. This will mean that people need to make sure they are comparing auto insurance rates every year to get the best rate, and company. Check out www.discount-auto-insurance-rates.com for comparing rates. There are a lot online, that is just one I came across.




Can someone 'splain this to me
By drewsup on 11/11/2009 9:58:42 AM , Rating: 2
If 75% of all accidents occur within 10 miles of your house,( insurance stats), then why penalize drivers who drive further?

http://www.insure.com/




"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki