tandempower

What if drivers could get car insurance that only covers trips that cannot be done car-free? If insurance companies could reject claims by establishing that the trip in question could have been done car-free, they could provide lower-cost policies to car-light drivers. But what criteria would be used to determine (in court) which trips could have been done car-free and therefore reject claims and lawsuits on accidents that occurred during such a trip?

Another way to look at this is to imagine you were part of an LCF focus group invited by an insurance company seeking to create policy options for its car-light policy-holders. How would you define a trip as being something that could reasonably have been done without driving?

wolfchild

This would be an attack on our "freedoms of choice"...We already have enough laws which restrict our freedoms... and insurance companies are already restrictive enough and difficult to deal with... Insurance companies have no business deciding which form of transportation somebody should use....Every single idea which you have proposed so far on this forum is just to make lives more complicated and restrictive.

tandempower

More policy options expand freedom of choice. Currently, the car-light option is somewhat limited by policies that cover any and all trips; so a driver that is car-light effectively has to cover other drivers who drive more frivolously. By creating a special policy for car-light drivers, those drivers could pay less as they would only be covering other drivers who avoid trips that could be accomplished car-free.

What you're saying is that insurance policies that cover all-or-nothing in terms of how much you drive would be simpler and therefore better, but how would you like it if you could only choose one all-inclusive rate that covered you for unlimited mileage, included comprehensive coverage, and spread the costs off all accidents/claims equally to all drivers, regardless of accident history, points from tickets, etc.? You want everyone to pay the same rate regardless of how much they drive, how they drive, etc. for the sake of simplicity, and call that "freedom of choice?"

I-Like-To-Bike

But oh so entertaining! For more eye rolling "ideas" take a peek at some of those floated directly to the P&R list.

Remember, every day is an April's Fool Day for some jokers.

steve0257

It's still in the early stages, but some insurance companies are looking at the option of billing per mile instead of per month. If all car insurance were like that it would help cut down on miles driven.

https://www.valuepenguin.com/should-...-car-insurance

kickstart

There's no such thing as a trip that can't be done by personally driving, but......

Each individuals requirements for time, distance, safety, security, comfort, convenience, obligations, values, and health is different and subjective. It would be virtually impossible for one person to decide that objectively for another.

jon c. 

Most insurance companies offer reduced rates for very low mileage drivers. There really isn't any need to make it more complex.

To delve into the specifics of how the individual customer drove those miles would be far too expensive an undertaking. And would create more conflict than the company would prefer. Although they can be combative when necessary, it is in their interest to avoid that when possible.

gregf83 

It's not clear why anyone would buy such a restrictive policy. It's certainly a good deal for the insurance company though!

CliffordK

Interesting. I may have to look at that further. However, the "base rates" being discussed seem a bit high, and would likely be a significant part of the bill.

I.E. Those that drive 100 miles a month might get hammered with paying $50 for insurance (about $2 per mile), but those driving 1000 miles a month would only pay for example, $100, or about $0.10 per mile. And those that leave the car parked, and still pay that $50.

Deciding what kind of a trip is necessary to take a car is complex. My average one-way trip is about 10 to 15 miles, and I can easily hit 40+ miles RT. A lot of pencil pushers might deem that as impossible. So far my longest day trip has been about 180 miles (with some cargo). I know, pretty pathetic, but I'm working on extending my range.

The trips that scare me are 200 to 300 miles each way, and necessitating carrying 50 to 100 pounds of bulky cargo. Oh, and unattended "parking" for a couple of days. Perhaps I'll try it this year.

Oh, and exceeding 500 pounds of indivisible cargo is also a problem.

Rushing somewhere by bike can be a problem, and one must budget a little extra time.

Passengers?

Machka 

I live about 300 metres from a little grocery store and pharmacy.

Suppose my insurance company deems that is a walkable distance based on some formula they have. And sure ... it is ... most of the time.

Now suppose ...

-- I bang my knee badly so that walking is painful
-- I have massive heavy period so that walking is awkward and painful
-- I start coming down with the flu ... that heavy tired that comes the day before the flu

I want to go to the store or pharmacy to get some painkillers, supplies, chocolate cake, or chicken soup ... so given the circumstances, I opt to drive.

On my way back, someone pulls out of a side street and hits me. Now the insurance battle begins ... and my claim is rejected because, based on some formula they have, I could have walked. Great.

I-Like-To-Bike

All no problemo doncha know. No need to suppose in this April Fool's Day script, the Grand Poobah of the imaginary LCF Focus Group will decide that those trips are something that you should have done without driving. Do not expect any decision based on normal human sensibility to take place in this fantasy world.

wolfchild

I have no idea who or what this LCF FOCUS GROUP is, never heard of such an organization...When I went to my insurance company to get a policy, they just asked me how many miles per year I plan to drive and what I use the vehicle for and few other questions and they adjusted the policy according to the information which I gave them and according to the type/model/year of the vehicle.



This is impossible to determine, because it's different for everybody....There are way too many variables in life to make such a policy work in real life.

CliffordK

Precisely.

Monthly mileage, or GPS tracked trips, however, will work in real life.

If only the insurance companies had the needs of their customers in mind, rather than the needs of more profit in mind.

tandempower

A focus group is a method of market research where you put people together to brainstorm on a topic. It is sort of what we do virtually in online discussion forum threads. When companies/businesses want to modify their product lines or service, etc. they sometimes do market research to get ideas or figure out what would improve customer experience.

If insurance companies would cater to car-light policy holders, it could be a win-win for both, because the insurance company could exclude certain claims based on them being trips that could have been done car-free. Then, the savings could be passed on to customers in the form of lower policy rates.

Well, one example is you could make a rule that says any accident that occurs within five miles of home without any frozen groceries in the car is considered a potential car-free trip. Then, if someone gets in an accident within five miles of home, they have to get the officer to include in the police report that there were frozen groceries in the car and otherwise the insurance company rejects any claims that come from the accident.

I-Like-To-Bike

Sure, every claim that is rejected is money saved - for the Insurance Company.

No doubt when the ambient temperature is below 0°F all car trips for frozen groceries will be rejected as unnecessary in this April Fool's scheme, let 'um ride bicycles!

Seems like a Focus Group of One comes up with most, if not all of your brainstorms. Doubt that any companies/businesses or producers of anything except bizarre comedy or SF scripts will be seeking out the brainstorms from this peculiar Focus Group.

wolfchild

It wouldn't just be one person deciding it... It would be a special team from LCF FOCUS GROUP making all the decisions.

Machka 

Right ....

So in the midst of directing traffic, contacting the ambulance service and jaws of life people, comforting the injured, performing CPR, interviewing witnesses ... the police officer is also going to dig through the grocery bags in the back to see if there might possibly be a container of ice cream.

I don't think I can make a big enough here.

I'll just have to post many of them.

Roody

I think the best thing insurance companies could do for carlight people is to base premiums on miles driven rather than just a time span. This should be feasible because fewer miles driven = less exposure to the risk of driving = less payout on insurance claims, on average.

The last time I bought car insurance (admittedly a long time ago), they asked the distance from home to work. A shorter distance resulted in a small discount, IIRC.

More significant rate cuts based on actual miles driven would be a nice benefit for carlight drivers, and might have social benefits also, such as reducing fuel usage and pollution. With modern GPS technology, it doesn't seem like this would be hard to implement. Certainly much easier than trying to figure out which car trips are necessary or not.

tandempower

Insurance companies aren't going to offer lower rates on a policy unless there's something in it to save them money.

Who says they can't pay more for a policy with more coverage?

tandempower

Most accidents aren't so severe that it would be much trouble to make such a notation for the insurance.

Otherwise, they may be other ways to establish proof.

Obviously there are going to be those in this forum that poohpooh this idea for the standard reasons, i.e. proposing anything that allows LCF/Car-lite people to benefit economically from their effort to avoid driving.

cooker

That's nonsense - he's proposing an option that would increase freedom of choice. I personally don't think there is a market for it, but it is definitely not an attack on your freedom of choice, because nobody says you would have to take that insurance option. If anything, your freedom of choice is already limited by the current laws that require that you have basic auto insurance if you want to drive - and that is a good thing as it protects the public from catastrophic liability.

cooker

My insurance has the option of a lower rate if you don't drive to work and the car is considered purely a "pleasure vehicle".

wolfchild

I thought he wanted it to become a law with hopes of forcing everybody into LCF.....I still think it's a very dumb proposal and just doesn't make any sense. The insurance policy which OP proposed would put severe restrictions on how and where a person can and can't drive. Why would anybody buy such a restrictive policy ??.

cooker

To save money on premiums.

I-Like-To-Bike

My discount is for driving 7,500 miles or less annually, and an additional discount for accident free record for the last 3 year. And if I should happen to drive more because of unexpected reasons, an accident claim would not be rejected but my rate would be readjusted, unlike the fantasy scheme proposed by the OP.