🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4gohlu$216@cloner4.netcom.com> gvhunter@ix.netcom.com(Galen Hunter
) writes: 
>
>In <tweekDn8pFq.18s@netcom.com> tweek@netcom.com (R R M Tweek) writes:

>
>>See above.  My insurance premiums will be going up 500% (at least),
>not 
>>because I was in an accident, not because I have been ticketed, not 
>>because there has been an increase in motorcycle related accidents,
>not
>>because more motorcycle accidents lately have been the fault of the
>>motorcylist, but strictly because I now have to pay for the
>irresponsibility
>>of others.  
>
>When I hear someone saying their auto (motorcycle) insurance rates
will
>go up by 500% - I'm listening.
>
>You may have a good point, but, not for the reason you gave.
>
>Under "no-fault", the Vehicle Code requiring operators of vehicles in
>California to satisfy the finanical responsibility law by obtaining
>*liability* insurance - I would assume, would be changed to require
>operators to obtain the basic "no-fault" policy (?) Or, would the
>financial responsibility law by dropped all together?


I was in the Coast Guard in 1976 in New England. Massachusets had a No
Fault insurance law. It was written almost exactly like this one.
Here's how it worked and how this one probably will.

 If you didn't have insurance you didn't get registration. If you got
insurance, got your car registered, then cancelled your insurance, the
insurance companies would contact DMV and they would suspend your
registration. If stopped with suspended registration the police would
seize your vehicle. These provisions are written into the proposed
California law and police have already seized a few unregistered
vehicles as test cases. 

Here's the good part. No fault, was your fault. No matter what
happened, even if someone backed into your car in a parking lot,
You contacted your Insurance company who paid claims. If you filed a
claim in Massachusetts you could pretty well figure on your premiums
(already the highest in the nation at the time) tripling. If you filed
more than one claim in a three year period, you would be cancelled. If
you were cancelled by a company, no one else would write you a policy.
The Insurance industry could effectively suspend your right to drive,
even to and from work, if you filed claims against them. 

Conspiring to refuse insurance to people who filed claims had no
financial impact on the Insurance industry. With forced compliance,
they had many more clients than before. Consequently the people of
Massachusetts paid the highest insurance premiums in the nation, while
driving around with dents in their cars, afraid to file valid claims.
The insurance companies simply collected the highest rates and if
someone filed a claim, got their right to drive suspended. 

This is not fiction or hypothesis I was there and SAW it. Massachusetts
voters recalled the no fault initiative. Read Prop 200 it can easily
work this way here. 

>
>Anyway, my point is - for *motorcycle* operators to satisfy the
current
>law, liability by itself is only about $100 a year. If you include
some
>medical for yourself and uninsured motorist coverage (which is medical
>for yourself) on your current motorcycle insurance policy - the
premium
>is closer to $500.
>
>So, I can see your point. If your paying $100 a year now because you
>just have liability - and carry no medical insurance.  Under
>"no-fault", liability becomes history and the relatively good rate you
>have for liability (because you operate motorcycle which can cause
>relatively less damage) becomes history.  Your cost for insurance
under
>no-fault increases because you have to buy, in effect, medical
>insurance for yourself - which is more expensive than liability on a
>motorcycle.
>
>Wait, I think I see your point about motorcycle operators vs. auto
>operators, - because motorcycle operators are much more likely to get
>hurt (higher medical bills) compared to auto operators - the insurance
>marketplace may adjust to this by relatively higher rates for
>motorcycle no-fault policies compared to auto no-fault policies.
>
>Just trying to think this through.
>
>Galen Hunter
>http://www.hntr.com/paradigm/
>