Does Bad Credit Make You a Bad Driver?

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

"keith" > wrote in message
news
> 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:
> > 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.

True, often times it's crappy drivers that cause accidents yet the slimy
*******s leave the scene when there is an accident due to their actions. It
happened to me.

> > 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.

Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.

> > 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).

What sates are they? When you say they insure the driver are we talking
about the same thing? When I say insure the driver I mean there is no
insurance paid for a car. A driver can own two vehicles and only pays to
insure himself to drive. Cost of insurance (assuming no comprehensive
coverage) would be whatever the minimum coverage cost is on the car that's
more expensive to insure yourself as a driver of.

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

True enough. *groan*

"keith" > wrote in message
news
> 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:
> > 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.

True, often times it's crappy drivers that cause accidents yet the slimy
*******s leave the scene when there is an accident due to their actions. It
happened to me.

> > 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.

Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.

> > 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).

What sates are they? When you say they insure the driver are we talking
about the same thing? When I say insure the driver I mean there is no
insurance paid for a car. A driver can own two vehicles and only pays to
insure himself to drive. Cost of insurance (assuming no comprehensive
coverage) would be whatever the minimum coverage cost is on the car that's
more expensive to insure yourself as a driver of.

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

True enough. *groan*

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:08:47 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:

>"Cory Dunkle" > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
>>presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.
>
>Comprehensive coverage is NOT for the "owner of the car", it is just
>for the car itself. It covers the car when no one is driving it so it
>can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
>individual's past claims history...


Whoops - so much for being tied solely to the car.

How much more damage can MY Chevrolet do, sitting in my driveway than
my reckless driving brother-in-law's Chevrolet sitting in HIS driveway
across the street?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:08:47 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:

>"Cory Dunkle" > wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
>>presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.
>
>Comprehensive coverage is NOT for the "owner of the car", it is just
>for the car itself. It covers the car when no one is driving it so it
>can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
>individual's past claims history...


Whoops - so much for being tied solely to the car.

How much more damage can MY Chevrolet do, sitting in my driveway than
my reckless driving brother-in-law's Chevrolet sitting in HIS driveway
across the street?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:37:11 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:

>Bob Ward > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:08:47 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Cory Dunkle" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
>>>>presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.
>>>
>>>Comprehensive coverage is NOT for the "owner of the car", it is just
>>>for the car itself. It covers the car when no one is driving it so it
>>>can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
>>>individual's past claims history...
>>
>>
>>Whoops - so much for being tied solely to the car.
>>
>>How much more damage can MY Chevrolet do, sitting in my driveway than
>>my reckless driving brother-in-law's Chevrolet sitting in HIS driveway
>>across the street?
>
>What in the world are you talking about??? Comprehensive insurance has
>absolutely nothing to do with damage caused to other vehicles or
>property. It covers only the theft of your vehicle plus any sort of
>vandalism/damage caused to your vehicle by humans, animals, inanimate
>objects and vehicles while your car is not being driven.
>
>In other words, if your car was standing in your driveway and it was
>hit by another car or a falling tree, you will be covered by the
>comprehensive part. But if you were driving and hit something, it will
>be the liability and collision parts that kick in.

And, as you said, this "covers the car when no one is driving it so it
can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
individual's past claims history..."

Don't you see the inconsistencies here?

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 17:37:11 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:

>Bob Ward > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 13:08:47 -0500, Andrew White
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Cory Dunkle" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>Well comprehensive coverage would be for the owner of the car, who will
>>>>presumably be doing 99% of the driving of said vehicle.
>>>
>>>Comprehensive coverage is NOT for the "owner of the car", it is just
>>>for the car itself. It covers the car when no one is driving it so it
>>>can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
>>>individual's past claims history...
>>
>>
>>Whoops - so much for being tied solely to the car.
>>
>>How much more damage can MY Chevrolet do, sitting in my driveway than
>>my reckless driving brother-in-law's Chevrolet sitting in HIS driveway
>>across the street?
>
>What in the world are you talking about??? Comprehensive insurance has
>absolutely nothing to do with damage caused to other vehicles or
>property. It covers only the theft of your vehicle plus any sort of
>vandalism/damage caused to your vehicle by humans, animals, inanimate
>objects and vehicles while your car is not being driven.
>
>In other words, if your car was standing in your driveway and it was
>hit by another car or a falling tree, you will be covered by the
>comprehensive part. But if you were driving and hit something, it will
>be the liability and collision parts that kick in.

And, as you said, this "covers the car when no one is driving it so it
can't possibly be tied to an individual! The rates do depend on the
individual's past claims history..."

Don't you see the inconsistencies here?