It\’s seems a bit odd that AAA, who was the first carrier to annouce it would comply with the new rating regulations promulgated by the commissioners office, announced that roughly 85% of thier drivers would see a reduction and the other 15% would experience an average 5% increase in their rates.
To develop rates based on population density would be as inaccurate as Zip codes. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you will have more accidents where there is more traffic and more traffic congestion. When you examine where and why the congestion, it is mostly commuter traffic by people who don\’t live where most of the traffic congestion occurs.
When there is a concert at the Hollywood bowl or a game at Staples center, look at all the traffic. Most of that traffic isn\’t from people who live near the Hollywood bowl or Staples center but rather people living elsewhere driving to these events. The same occurs every weekday as people convege on downtown LA and other business/office zones.
Insurers have too long gotten away with using driver resident Zip codes which in reality have very little relationship to where auto accidents occur. The insurance industry regretably is always very slow to change and will argue and fight to the end to maintain the status quo. When change does finally occur, they always find a way to still make a buck or two.
You are right about the fact that a majority of Californians were duped into shooting themselves in the wallet. you howver, forgot to remind folks that Harvey Rosenfeld bought their votes with the false promise of a rebate of 20% of their insurance bills (One of the most amzing things about this vote was that more than 48% of the voters turned down the inherent bribe). What they were left with is a hgihly political and huge bureaucracy that assured industry profit levels that have averaged almost twice what they were in the years before prop 103. Now many in suburban and rural California will be given the privilege of helping out their urban brothers and sisters by by subsidizing the cost of insurance in much higher cost areas. The sad thing is that as a result of how prop 103cwas crafted their is virtually nothing the legislature can do to fix things. Their only choice remains is to elect a Commissioner who will prevent the automobile insurance market from becoming a highly subsidized mess or go back to the ballot box and force a return to a more openly competitve world where consumers had the athority to keep rates and profits in line by their decisions. companies always have and always will respond more quickly and directly to consumers than regulators. California continues to take the power out of the hands of consumers by transferring more of it ambitious politicians
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
It\’s seems a bit odd that AAA, who was the first carrier to annouce it would comply with the new rating regulations promulgated by the commissioners office, announced that roughly 85% of thier drivers would see a reduction and the other 15% would experience an average 5% increase in their rates.
To develop rates based on population density would be as inaccurate as Zip codes. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that you will have more accidents where there is more traffic and more traffic congestion. When you examine where and why the congestion, it is mostly commuter traffic by people who don\’t live where most of the traffic congestion occurs.
When there is a concert at the Hollywood bowl or a game at Staples center, look at all the traffic. Most of that traffic isn\’t from people who live near the Hollywood bowl or Staples center but rather people living elsewhere driving to these events. The same occurs every weekday as people convege on downtown LA and other business/office zones.
Insurers have too long gotten away with using driver resident Zip codes which in reality have very little relationship to where auto accidents occur. The insurance industry regretably is always very slow to change and will argue and fight to the end to maintain the status quo. When change does finally occur, they always find a way to still make a buck or two.
You are right about the fact that a majority of Californians were duped into shooting themselves in the wallet. you howver, forgot to remind folks that Harvey Rosenfeld bought their votes with the false promise of a rebate of 20% of their insurance bills (One of the most amzing things about this vote was that more than 48% of the voters turned down the inherent bribe). What they were left with is a hgihly political and huge bureaucracy that assured industry profit levels that have averaged almost twice what they were in the years before prop 103. Now many in suburban and rural California will be given the privilege of helping out their urban brothers and sisters by by subsidizing the cost of insurance in much higher cost areas. The sad thing is that as a result of how prop 103cwas crafted their is virtually nothing the legislature can do to fix things. Their only choice remains is to elect a Commissioner who will prevent the automobile insurance market from becoming a highly subsidized mess or go back to the ballot box and force a return to a more openly competitve world where consumers had the athority to keep rates and profits in line by their decisions. companies always have and always will respond more quickly and directly to consumers than regulators. California continues to take the power out of the hands of consumers by transferring more of it ambitious politicians