🚀 go-pugleaf

D.C.I. (dci1@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <mcaldon-1902961954560001@la-dial1-00.wavenet.com>
: mcaldon@wavenet.com (Don McKenzie) writes: 

: >It is a good point *if* the high-risk drivers actually have insurance.
: >Do we know what proportion of accidents are caused by such drivers?
: >I'm undecided on this issue.
: >
: >-- 
: >Don McKenzie
:                     Don,
:                     Take it from the top, no-fault insurance
:                     does not reduce rates. Studies of rates
:                     in states with no-fault stuff indicate
:                     increases, like up. up, up.

No-fault insurance does not reduce rates.  Wouldn't that be a logical 
assumption?  Since if no-fault insurance passes, won't everyone be 
insured and therefore paying a premium for that insurance?  Ie.  Calif 
has a population of 25million [I have no idea] and say 10million are 
uninsured.  You would have a rate increase for 10million drivers.

Does anyone know the percentage of uninsured drivers?

Wouldn't someone without/suspended/revoked license be considered a higher 
risk than an uninsured driver?  Most of these people won't have insurance 
because they don't have licenses in the first place.

Aren't the typical uninsured drivers poor people? [and aren't most Califians 
are poor?]  Wouldn't this be another social program?

Is this the pay at the pump insurance initiative?  Whatever happened to 
that?  Was there a fairer way to judge those more likely to get into an 
accident without looking at umpteen millions of records?
-- 
						merle@netcom.com