🚀 go-pugleaf

E. Faubion wrote:

> danthman@umich.edu (Daniel I. Manes) wrote:
>
> >So, while I may not be as good a driver as I think I am, I can at least
> >say I take my driving seriously.
>
> Fortunately we have more drivers like us than not.
>
> >Well, I know they rate drivers based on age, gender, traffic violations,
> >accidents, years or driving experience, consecutive years of being
> >insured, and make/model of vehicle.  But I think it should be totally
> >illegal for insurance companies to use traffic violations.  Why?  Simply
> >because the punishment does not fit the "crime."
>
> Like I said, sit down with an agent sometime.  Most can readily
> explain the basis for their rate structures.

For my part, I don't have to, since Allstate has never taking _tickets_ into
account, only accidents.

On the latter part, the unfortunate concept that they use is that they are
insuring the _vehicle_ so  if the _vehicle_ gets into an accident, even with
your buddy driving it, then you get to pay increased rates for 3 years.
Bummer.  That's what happened to me in 1986 when, after getting tired of
driving, I let my buddy drive and he proceeded to rip off the left front fender
in downtown Chicago! <G>  Only upside to that was that the people he hit were
also insured by Allstate, so the deductable was waived.  OK, the OTHER upside
was that it was a very low speed crash, and nobody was hurt.

Yes, rates should not go up with frequency of tickets.  Speeding, when done with
alertness, is not significantly more dangerous than staying with the flow of
traffic (also speeding, but not generally considered that by most except cops.)
I've got an _amazing_ lifetime array of _tickets_ but no major accidents in 35
years of driving.  Ya just gotta pay attention to what your doing, that's all.

DPH