Stupid MA Insurance!

[Exar Kun]

So I am trying to find a truck to use in the winter when I can't ride me bike. Right now the wife and I only have one car and it can get annoying at times to try and coordinate. So for the last few months I have been looking for a truck.

Today I decided to get an insurance quote. Back when I was looking at buying the S2R I did the same and was told that the 6 points (don't speed and inspect your cars kids) on my license would be applied to which ever vehicle was more expensive to insure, so I ended up having to pay an extra $1000 a year to insure the bike. OK fine, oh did I forget to mention these points stay with you for 6 years? Luckily 4 points drop off next year.

Anywho, I call up my insurance company today and ask for a quote for a 97 T100, it's $865 a year. OK great, how about a 98 Tacoma, its $1937 a year!?!?!? Turns out since I want to put 3 vehicles on the policy and there are only two drivers, the 6 points get applied to the TWO highest to insure vehicles.

This freaking insurance company gets the potential to milk me for 6 years at $2000 a year! WTF! Now I admit I was guilty of two speeding tickets, and one no inspection sticker ticket. I got caught, I paid my tickets. I will give you the no inspection sticker. I was a young college kid and just didn't take the time to bring it into a shop to get it inspected. I can see how a vehicle that won't pass inspection can be a danger on the road. So fine hit me with a higher insurance for that one.

My big question is how does me speeding translate into a higher risk driver? I just don't get it. In 10 years of driving, I have had one minor accident. It was unclaimed, I fixed it myself.  It's not like as soon as I go 66mph I suddenly lose control of my car and go whipping off into the woods. And please don't give me the "it's the law you shouldn't speed" line, I'm not questioning the ticket (regardless of what I think about drivers being a state and town ATM). I'm questioning a company being able to make boat loads of money from a civil infraction.

Is it like this in other states? How bad do you get hit with insurance premiums from a speeding ticket?

[TiAvenger]

Insurance sets prices based on "perceived" risk

You have tickets

You are a risk.

Don't like paying insurances prices, insure yourself. 

[Porsche Monkey]

Insurance companies also donate large sums of money to police departments to fund buying radar guns. 

[Howie]

Insurance regulations vary from state to state, and company to company.  I know nothing about MA insurance, but it wouldn't hurt to shop around.  I do know with my company (for the cars) in NY as a preferred customer there  is no penalty for minor speed violations.

[Scooter Montgomery]

Isn't MA great?


I hate this state.

[cyrus buelton]

You broke the law, you deal with the consequences.


I am not sure how you can't understand that more speeding tickets = higher risk client.

[banali]

Since MA has pseudo-deregulated the auto insurance industry (read "managed competition") in April '08, drivers with clean records/ no points have generally seen their premiums decrease. That decrease is in large part funded by the surcharges imposed on traffic offenders.

By way of example, I have seen my annual premium on an '07 Camry fully covered go from $864 to $715. Coverage on my '06 S2R1000 no comp or collision went from $502 to $439. I have no points on my record. Not trying to rub salt in the wounds but not everyone in MA is complaining.

And if you don't see a correlation between driving with excessive speed and being a higher risk for an accident - well, take your blinders off...

[Exar Kun]

No I am sorry, I honestly don't see the correlation between speeding and being a "higher risk client". I could see aggressive driving, weaving in and out of traffic at a much higher speed than surrounding traffic, or even just gross speeding (i.e. 30+mph over the limit) but I really fail to see how me going a few mph faster than the speed limit is suddenly putting me at risk and justifies a huge bump in premiums. I dunno I had just gotten off the phone when I made that post and was really annoyed, I'll be quite now. 

[hbliam]

No I am sorry, I honestly don't see the correlation between speeding and being a "higher risk client". I could see aggressive driving, weaving in and out of traffic at a much higher speed than surrounding traffic, or even just gross speeding (i.e. 30+mph over the limit) but I really fail to see how me going a few mph faster than the speed limit is suddenly putting me at risk and justifies a huge bump in premiums. I dunno I had just gotten off the phone when I made that post and was really annoyed, I'll be quite now. 

It's fairly simple. The speed limits are set using a very detailed process that in the end establish what the "safe" speed for a given stretch of road. You then get ticketed for exceeding that speed. You are thus "not safe".

And regarding:

Insurance companies also donate large sums of money to police departments to fund buying radar guns. 

Links please.

[DCXCV]

Yeah MA kinda killed the whole idea of shopping around for better rates which sucks for you.  If it makes you feel any better (surely it won't) my insurance was raised for three infractions as well.  One of them was vandalism (someone cut my spare tire from under the bed and stole it).  I guess it makes sense, but I never thought about getting charged an "incident" because someone else did something to my truck.  Man, was I pissed about that one.

If you wanna keep your rate down just buy an old, 4-cylinder, 2x4 pick-up. 

[needtorque]

The insurance company could give a shit less about how your excess speed affects you.  They are worried about the increased damage you will cause the vehicle and any other vehicle and passengers that you hit at that higher rate of speed.  Damage increase vs. speed is not a linear curve it is more exponential so a "few" mph faster can equate to thousands of dollars more in damages than if you were doing the speed limit.  This means the ins. co. has to pay more and they lose more money.

[redxblack]

I understand the nature of the OP's complaint. It's not a factual complaint, but a nominative one. Since insurance is required by law, companies have a captive pool for their product (imagine if movie theater attendance were to be mandatory). It sucks that a business already guaranteed customers can then use the courts to leverage higher fees without real competition for your business.

I wonder how traffic would change if all insurance were abolished and people were responsible for the damages to their own cars. I bet I'd see a lot less cell phones on the freeway.   

[hbliam]

I wonder how traffic would change if all insurance were abolished and people were responsible for the damages to their own cars. I bet I'd see a lot less cell phones on the freeway.   

Explain further. Do you mean you pay for your own vehicle to be fixed regardless of who is at fault?

[redxblack]

for non-fault collisions, yeah. If some jerk plowed into you, you'd sue them personally to cover damages.

It's a hypothetical I was considering after thinking about how little social responsibility MANY drivers seem to show. I wonder if insurance enables bad behaviors as it limits legal exposure for being a jerk.

[TiAvenger]

Wont work.

Ever get hit by a non insured driver?

(it happens a lot in California)

In short, you're make the beast with two backsed.