The Infinite Dunes
12-01-2005, 16:33
Is the idea of only playing for the miles you drive a good idea? Should those who drive less often or in less dangerous areas or at less dangerous times deserve cheaper car insurance?
Well, to be honest, I don't care as I don't drive. Bur do you?
Linky (http://money.guardian.co.uk/insurance_/motor/story/0,1456,1388621,00.html)
You Forgot Poland
12-01-2005, 16:52
This is already figured in to some degree, isn't it? Every time I've insured a vehicle, there have always been mileage questions. State-to-state rate shifts illustrate the relative risks in areas (e.g., for a driver with my record and history Alaska runs about $90 a quarter, while New York is around $300 a quarter). As for "less dangerous times," I don't know about this. Anecdote isn't evidence, I know, but I've seen more and more horrific crack-ups at three in the morning than at rush hour.
Also, I suspect that micromanaging this stuff (by neighborhood instead of state; by 100-mileage brackets instead of 10,000-mileage brackets) would interfere with the "pooled risk" aspect of insurance. For example, Progressive and a number of other nationals don't operate in New York. How would this translate when we identify smaller, higher risk areas? Who would insure (and who could afford) that? NY as a large pool is bad enough, when you start singling out the highest risk areas you might create a system that's more fair, absolutely, but that becomes impractical.
Henrytopia
12-01-2005, 16:55
I would surely think the commute on a weekend after the bars and pubs have closed would be an A1 risk don't you think? I would prefer driving in the middle of rush hour with senior citizens at the wheel than drive home with the gang of drunks on the road on a typical weekend. :)
Pantylvania
13-01-2005, 06:35
I used to have car insurance that was based in part on number of miles driven per 6 months. Now I've got an insurance provider who uses credit rating as the main factor and ignores the number of miles driven