Insurance should be Required for the Driver not the Vehicle – Agree

If a driving safety record, plus an annual mileage count on all vehicles driven, could be factored in I think “driver” insurance could work extremely well. It certainly would be less expensive for “good” drivers, no matter how many vehicles one person owns. In my state (Kansas) and other states where insurance rates are heavily based on the newness of the car, it would also encourage poor drivers who own junk-heaps from continuing to drive like idiots.

In Kansas (no “driver” insurance available) the cost of insurance is based upon two factors: the driver’s safety rating and the auto being insured. New cars, especially sports cars, cost big bucks to insure even if the driver has a squeaky-clean driving record. And even with an ultra-clean driving record, these rates drop very slowly for 6-7 years as the vehicle ages.

Risk insurance in Kansas does depend on driving record and, although two of my own three kids spent years getting their driving records clean enough to decrease insurance – well, they asked for it. These were not one or two speeding tickets/fender benders, but seriously pushing the limit. If you drive poorly…oh well; your insurance goes up. In their case, Mom and Dad also quit paying for insurance; the kids worked to pay the insurance or we’d have taken the keys. Yes, newer cars cost more to fix, but often, it isn’t the person with the new car who causes an accident. (Incidentally, both kids immediately became better driver when they had to work to pay the premiums.)

One problem I see with many states moving to driver v/s vehicle insurance is that every vehicle in many states must be insured even if one driver owns more than one car/truck/motorcycle/whatever. Some companies give a premium break for additional vehicles. Others give discounts for excellent driving records. Some give neither. Insurance companies are not going to give up income-they can’t afford it. Like every other business, they need to have a black bottom line at the end of the year or they cease to exist. Here, at least, I think it would need to depend on additional costs for other vehicles, hopefully with some discount for everything after #1.

I seriously don’t see insurance companies in most states giving up the income from multiple vehicles without penalizing the person who only owns one-totally unfair to people like myself who have clean driving records and one car that was purchased new, with high insurance rates for six years and now has become reasonable because no one else has owned my car to ruin it and I keep it in good shape so I don’t need another new one.

I know families where two drivers own four to five vehicles. They aren’t all bad drivers, but they have more accidents because they drive more. I also know a single guy (good driver) who owns a car for work, a van for trips, an old pickup to take his trash to the dump and a motorcycle for fun. I love my friend, but he is on the road a whole lot more than anyone who owns one car or pickup and uses the vehicle only as a mode of needed transportation. There simply is more risk factor for multi-vehicle people/families. Which isn’t fair to equally good drivers who drive very little.

In today’s traffic, no one of us can totally avoid accidents. We can avoid speeding – and under-speeding. Drivers doing 20 mph in a 35-50 mph or more speed zone cause just as many accidents as people who drive 80 or more in a 65-70 zone.

I would love a fair “driver” based insurance rate! But the actual rates need to be based on safety record and the mileage driven on total cars owned. I hope Kansas grows up to this concept!