Does Bad Credit Make You a Bad Driver?

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:51 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:30:15 -0500, 127.0.0.1 > wrote:
>>
>> >>What about the cost of liability insurance?
>> >
>> >that is roughly the same amount regardless of vehicle
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> I own three vehicles. They each have different liability premiums.
>> When it came time to add my teenage son as an occasional driver to one
>> of the cars, it made a significant difference in the liability premium
>> depending on which car I "assigned" him to. Oddly enough, the car with
>> the lowest "kid" premium has a 4-cylinder engine.
>
> Interesting, lower liability premium for me (I have no comprehensive
> coverage) is on a car with a V8. The two econo-box 4 bangers I drove had a
> hefty hike in insurance cost compared to the good ole' Gal, which in an at
> fault accident (namely me hitting someone else) would cause the most damage
> out of any of the cars I've insured and therefore cost my insurance company
> the most. I'm not complaining though. I prefer to drive a real car.

Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
(3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than my
wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.

--
Keith

"keith" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:51 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:30:15 -0500, 127.0.0.1 > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>What about the cost of liability insurance?
> >> >
> >> >that is roughly the same amount regardless of vehicle
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> I own three vehicles. They each have different liability premiums.
> >> When it came time to add my teenage son as an occasional driver to one
> >> of the cars, it made a significant difference in the liability premium
> >> depending on which car I "assigned" him to. Oddly enough, the car with
> >> the lowest "kid" premium has a 4-cylinder engine.
> >
> > Interesting, lower liability premium for me (I have no comprehensive
> > coverage) is on a car with a V8. The two econo-box 4 bangers I drove had
a
> > hefty hike in insurance cost compared to the good ole' Gal, which in an
at
> > fault accident (namely me hitting someone else) would cause the most
damage
> > out of any of the cars I've insured and therefore cost my insurance
company
> > the most. I'm not complaining though. I prefer to drive a real car.
>
> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than my
> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.

I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...

"keith" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:51 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>
> > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> > news
> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:30:15 -0500, 127.0.0.1 > wrote:
> >>
> >> >>What about the cost of liability insurance?
> >> >
> >> >that is roughly the same amount regardless of vehicle
> >>
> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> I own three vehicles. They each have different liability premiums.
> >> When it came time to add my teenage son as an occasional driver to one
> >> of the cars, it made a significant difference in the liability premium
> >> depending on which car I "assigned" him to. Oddly enough, the car with
> >> the lowest "kid" premium has a 4-cylinder engine.
> >
> > Interesting, lower liability premium for me (I have no comprehensive
> > coverage) is on a car with a V8. The two econo-box 4 bangers I drove had
a
> > hefty hike in insurance cost compared to the good ole' Gal, which in an
at
> > fault accident (namely me hitting someone else) would cause the most
damage
> > out of any of the cars I've insured and therefore cost my insurance
company
> > the most. I'm not complaining though. I prefer to drive a real car.
>
> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than my
> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.

I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:01:16 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >Every young punk can afford a Mustang?
>
> More young punks can afford a $25,000 Mustang than can afford a
> $60,000 Corvette. That's why Mustangs have higher accident rates than
> Corvettes, despite the fact that Corvettes are more powerful.
>
> Actuarial statistics don't lie!

Yeah, but if you go on number of vehicles involved in accidents vs.
percentage of that vehicle on the road involved in accidents it makes a big
difference. The latter being an accurate representation of risk, the former
being a bunch of hogwash. As a whole, insuring a bunch of Corvettes and then
adding a bunch of Mustangs should not make any significant change in the
percentage of claims.

> >Regardless, I'll stick with the cheap insurance rates on my '68 Galaxie.
> >Just wait 'till I snag a 9 inch and put 4.11's and a locker in there when
I
> >do the AOD swap.
>
> Just make sure you buy those new tires first.

Consider it done.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:01:16 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >Every young punk can afford a Mustang?
>
> More young punks can afford a $25,000 Mustang than can afford a
> $60,000 Corvette. That's why Mustangs have higher accident rates than
> Corvettes, despite the fact that Corvettes are more powerful.
>
> Actuarial statistics don't lie!

Yeah, but if you go on number of vehicles involved in accidents vs.
percentage of that vehicle on the road involved in accidents it makes a big
difference. The latter being an accurate representation of risk, the former
being a bunch of hogwash. As a whole, insuring a bunch of Corvettes and then
adding a bunch of Mustangs should not make any significant change in the
percentage of claims.

> >Regardless, I'll stick with the cheap insurance rates on my '68 Galaxie.
> >Just wait 'till I snag a 9 inch and put 4.11's and a locker in there when
I
> >do the AOD swap.
>
> Just make sure you buy those new tires first.

Consider it done.

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:23 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:

> "keith" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:51 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>>
>> > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> > news >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:30:15 -0500, 127.0.0.1 > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>What about the cost of liability insurance?
>> >> >
>> >> >that is roughly the same amount regardless of vehicle
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I own three vehicles. They each have different liability premiums.
>> >> When it came time to add my teenage son as an occasional driver to one
>> >> of the cars, it made a significant difference in the liability premium
>> >> depending on which car I "assigned" him to. Oddly enough, the car with
>> >> the lowest "kid" premium has a 4-cylinder engine.
>> >
>> > Interesting, lower liability premium for me (I have no comprehensive
>> > coverage) is on a car with a V8. The two econo-box 4 bangers I drove had
> a
>> > hefty hike in insurance cost compared to the good ole' Gal, which in an
> at
>> > fault accident (namely me hitting someone else) would cause the most
> damage
>> > out of any of the cars I've insured and therefore cost my insurance
> company
>> > the most. I'm not complaining though. I prefer to drive a real car.
>>
>> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
>> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than my
>> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
>> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.
>
> I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...

If it's a two-door it's considered a "sports" car. Four doors puts it in
the classification of a "family" car. ...no matter what's under the hood.

--
Keith

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:23 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:

> "keith" > wrote in message
> news
>> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:51 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:
>>
>> > "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
>> > news >> >> On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:30:15 -0500, 127.0.0.1 > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>What about the cost of liability insurance?
>> >> >
>> >> >that is roughly the same amount regardless of vehicle
>> >>
>> >> Wrong.
>> >>
>> >> I own three vehicles. They each have different liability premiums.
>> >> When it came time to add my teenage son as an occasional driver to one
>> >> of the cars, it made a significant difference in the liability premium
>> >> depending on which car I "assigned" him to. Oddly enough, the car with
>> >> the lowest "kid" premium has a 4-cylinder engine.
>> >
>> > Interesting, lower liability premium for me (I have no comprehensive
>> > coverage) is on a car with a V8. The two econo-box 4 bangers I drove had
> a
>> > hefty hike in insurance cost compared to the good ole' Gal, which in an
> at
>> > fault accident (namely me hitting someone else) would cause the most
> damage
>> > out of any of the cars I've insured and therefore cost my insurance
> company
>> > the most. I'm not complaining though. I prefer to drive a real car.
>>
>> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
>> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than my
>> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
>> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.
>
> I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...

If it's a two-door it's considered a "sports" car. Four doors puts it in
the classification of a "family" car. ...no matter what's under the hood.

--
Keith

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:23 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
> >> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than
my
> >> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
> >> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.
> >
> >I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...
>
> The liability premium seems likely to be low, as a) this is not a very
> powerful car, and b) street racing punks tend to ignore it in favor of
> Civics or Mustangs.
>
> Similarly, the comprehensive premium is likely to be low, as its book
> value is only a couple thousand dollars; if anything happens to it, it
> will be declared a total loss and the owner will be paid out of petty
> cash.

Interesting. I still can't figure out why my little econo-box Calais ('86
Calais Supreme, 2.5l, 5 speed) was more expensive for liability than my
Galaxie ('68 Galaxie 500 Tudor Hardtop, 302 2v, FMX, 2.80:1 gears). I mean,
the Galaxie will do a heck of a lot mroe damage to another car in an
accident. The Gal also has a lot more get up and go, even if it is an
itty-bitty 302, but then again that power makes the car more safe. I suppose
it's probably all in stastics.

As far as my otehr econo-box being more expensive to insure, I can see why
my Prelude ('86, 1.8l dual carb, 5 speed) was more expensive, being as how
dumb-ass rice-burners probably smash those things up all the time.

I still don't get it though. Insurance should be for the driver, not the
car. What car a given person is driving does not change how they drive or
their likelihood to be involved in an accident. Insurance cost should be
based on a apersons driving record, past accidents, etc. Then for
comprehensive coverage it should be based on the car being insured, as the
value of every car is different. That would make too much sense, and of
course on one of the few things the government ought to be very much
involved in, they don't fix it. Of course the liberal a-holes try to nose
their way into every other aspect of our lives though. Go figure...

Cory

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:23 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
> wrote:
>
> >> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
> >> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than
my
> >> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
> >> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.
> >
> >I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...
>
> The liability premium seems likely to be low, as a) this is not a very
> powerful car, and b) street racing punks tend to ignore it in favor of
> Civics or Mustangs.
>
> Similarly, the comprehensive premium is likely to be low, as its book
> value is only a couple thousand dollars; if anything happens to it, it
> will be declared a total loss and the owner will be paid out of petty
> cash.

Interesting. I still can't figure out why my little econo-box Calais ('86
Calais Supreme, 2.5l, 5 speed) was more expensive for liability than my
Galaxie ('68 Galaxie 500 Tudor Hardtop, 302 2v, FMX, 2.80:1 gears). I mean,
the Galaxie will do a heck of a lot mroe damage to another car in an
accident. The Gal also has a lot more get up and go, even if it is an
itty-bitty 302, but then again that power makes the car more safe. I suppose
it's probably all in stastics.

As far as my otehr econo-box being more expensive to insure, I can see why
my Prelude ('86, 1.8l dual carb, 5 speed) was more expensive, being as how
dumb-ass rice-burners probably smash those things up all the time.

I still don't get it though. Insurance should be for the driver, not the
car. What car a given person is driving does not change how they drive or
their likelihood to be involved in an accident. Insurance cost should be
based on a apersons driving record, past accidents, etc. Then for
comprehensive coverage it should be based on the car being insured, as the
value of every car is different. That would make too much sense, and of
course on one of the few things the government ought to be very much
involved in, they don't fix it. Of course the liberal a-holes try to nose
their way into every other aspect of our lives though. Go figure...

Cory

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:27:19 -0500, Cory Dunkle wrote:

> "Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 10:20:23 -0500, "Cory Dunkle" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> Several years ago (perhaps '95-'98) my '93 Eagle Vision TSI
>> >> (3.5l DOHC 24V ~280HP) cost much less to insure (even liability) than
> my
>> >> wife's crap-box 4cyl 2.2l Chevy Barretta. The bottom line was that the
>> >> Barretta was a 2-door, where the Vision was a 4-door.
>> >
>> >I wonder if a Geo Metro cost more to insure???...
>>
>> The liability premium seems likely to be low, as a) this is not a very
>> powerful car, and b) street racing punks tend to ignore it in favor of
>> Civics or Mustangs.
>>
>> Similarly, the comprehensive premium is likely to be low, as its book
>> value is only a couple thousand dollars; if anything happens to it, it
>> will be declared a total loss and the owner will be paid out of petty
>> cash.
>
> Interesting. I still can't figure out why my little econo-box Calais ('86
> Calais Supreme, 2.5l, 5 speed) was more expensive for liability than my
> Galaxie ('68 Galaxie 500 Tudor Hardtop, 302 2v, FMX, 2.80:1 gears). I mean,
> the Galaxie will do a heck of a lot mroe damage to another car in an
> accident. The Gal also has a lot more get up and go, even if it is an
> itty-bitty 302, but then again that power makes the car more safe. I suppose
> it's probably all in stastics.

The last sentence says it all.

> As far as my otehr econo-box being more expensive to insure, I can see why
> my Prelude ('86, 1.8l dual carb, 5 speed) was more expensive, being as how
> dumb-ass rice-burners probably smash those things up all the time.
>
> I still don't get it though. Insurance should be for the driver, not the
> car. What car a given person is driving does not change how they drive or
> their likelihood to be involved in an accident. Insurance cost should be
> based on a apersons driving record, past accidents, etc.

Not everyone will have an accident. Not even crappy drivers, yet they
are more risk to the company. They've shown correlation between certain
cars, drivers, and behavior and risk. They charge based on that risk.

> Then for
> comprehensive coverage it should be based on the car being insured, as the
> value of every car is different.

Comprehensive isn't *just* about the car either. The location, driver's
history, and now driver's credit rating may be part of the risk
calculation. Of course collision is in this category too.

> That would make too much sense, and of
> course on one of the few things the government ought to be very much
> involved in, they don't fix it. Of course the liberal a-holes try to
> nose their way into every other aspect of our lives though. Go figure...

It depends on the state. Some do insure the driver, but what the driver
drives is part of the statistics used (see above).

Before you decide that it's government's role to "fix" the insurance
business, consider how New Jersey has "fixed" auto insurance.

--
Keith