Weight does make a difference.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I know I've mentioned this before, but if you can afford it and your state allows it, you can always limit your insurance coverage to not pay for your car in the event of actions that are your fault (my insurance specific vocabulary has abandoned me this morning for some reason). If you know you're a safer driver than they are saying you are and can afford to replace your car should the worst happen, there's no reason to be paying a premium for it. It the risk weren't worth less than the premiums, the insurance agent wouldn't make a profit. I do this on my vehicles. It was easy before since I drove used high mileage cars that you could total by keying them, but the math made sense on my Accent too.

[theholycow]

That's called "collision" insurance. There's also liability (required by law in most places) which covers anybody who has a claim against you (other drivers, passengers in your own car, pedestrians, property owners, etc), "Comprehensive" (which basically just covers you for theft and a few other things), Uninsured Motorist, and a few minor ones I can't remember.

For me, with high liability coverage limits required by my home insurer (so that in an auto accident, someone doesn't try to sue me for my house, etc), almost all of my insurance cost goes to liability. I stand to save a tiny amount by removing Collision and Comprehensive.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Thank you for the terms! Living in a very different area than you, about 2/3 of my insurance quote was for collision and comprehensive. Quite a difference.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

I assume you are talking about the "liability only" insurance. you also lose comprehensive in doing that which covers deer and tree (if they fall on your car)

I have liability only on my cav because it is worth only a few hundred dollars or about the cost of a cheap riding lawnmower.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I figure the premiums are still worth more than the risk even for deer and trees. Although that elm has been giving me dirty looks lately...

[dkjones96]

When I hit 25 I'll get full coverage but until then I can't see spending $200 a month to have full coverage when I've got zero tickets and no accidents up until December, and even then neither of them were my fault. I have liability and uninsured motorist coverage (I've never been able to trust others to have insurance).

I just take the difference from full coverage to liability and throw it in savings. So far I'm ahead by doing that.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

Insurance companies do seem to use a pretty wide brush. You'd think there'd be ones targeting good younger drivers to try and steal 'em away. Maybe even offer you lower premiums if you're willing to take a more stringent driving test or something.

Thinking about it, I guess some people like the peace of mind that comes from having insurance, even on stuff they can afford.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by maximilian

Maybe even offer you lower premiums if you're willing to take a more stringent driving test or something.

That is the best idea I've heard in a long time. Not only would it save money, it would make the roads safer. Who wouldn't want to save money on their insurance? Require them to take European-style courses and tests to get the lower rates, with it all being run by insurance companies or 3rd parties. That effectively gets European-style licensing into the US without denying people their need to drive or expecting the government-run DMV to deal with that kind of testing.

[GasSavers_BEEF]

but then you have to ask yourself, what would this 3rd party company charge, would it even be worth it in insurance savings, how often would you have to renew the course in order to keep the reduced rate?

I do think it is a good idea but most driving courses are pretty expensive (if I remember right). if the course was $500, for example, it may take a while for it to pay for itself.

also, would your discount be taken away if you did get into an accident, one that was your fault?

it raises a lot of questions about the situation. if it were government run, the price could be capped and regulated but then it would take you forever to get the opportunity to take the class.

[GasSavers_maximilian]

I'd pay $500 if I could recoup it across a lifetime, but it would be tough for younger drivers who are cash strapped. Maybe it could be tax deductible? Hmmm...also not much use for the cash strapped. Tax credit maybe instead. Safer drivers couldn't help but save taxpayer money, so there's justification for it. Perhaps the test could be in stages, so you could get a few levels of certification? Then you could spread the cost and effort over time. Might provide some sort of social bragging rights too!

I think the way discounts would have to work is there'd have to be separate risk assessment data for those who've taken the test. If it were closely modeled on a European country's test, you could use risk stats from their market as a starting point until some were gathered here. With that data, you'd have some context on how to interpret the meaning of an accident.

A hobby of mine is coming up with public/private hybrids. It's fun, but complicated, but that's part of what I like.