I don't see how that could work. Everything is based on statistics. It all differs from each vehicle driven.
That’s just a way to scam the population. The driver is the liability statistic. An old person driving a red corvette 55 mph is a different risk than a maniac driving a beat up old dodge neon well above the speed limits.
Anyone that actually cares about stereotyping should reject the concept that insurance currently uses for cars. As an owner/insurer of over ten cars in a two driver household, I actively am ripped off by an utterly impossible liability scenario.
I wish a lawmaker would explain this one.... Ohio requires liability insurance to cover any damage you do to the other driver. They then turn around and require that drivers have uninsured motorist coverage.
It’s simple, it’s because there are state mandated minimums. Some irresponsible idiot with state minimum coverage, whatever it may be… $15k? $25k? Could run through their coverage limits super easy and fast. The theory unfortunately is that these people have no assets to protect therefore are lawsuit proof. Meanwhile the damaged party is still damaged.
Precisely why liability limits should be higher, tied to the person, and then under/uninsured would be a far lower risk exposure. Currently I pay a premium for fars that stay parked quite a bit because I can’t insure against damage to myself without it being aligned per vehicle.
... so how would the insurance company charge you the correct premium? Since each car on its own has its unique premium, or you do expect the insurance company to take a look at how much you drove each car and charge you an appropriate premium?
Simple. Everybody has a driving record. Insurance companies currently penalize people on a one by one basis if they get tickets or have incidents. So the insurance company sells insurance based upon a driver’s liability risks. Like today, the owner decides if they want collision/comp/etc. if folks want a payout, they could have either a stated value or a market based value insurance against loss. An owner would need to decide if they wanted to have a rider for an uninsured driver to be covered to “borrow” their vehicle. A driver with a license could have a low use liability insurance policy too so if they rent/borrow a car, they have coverage.
This way for someone like me, I could have protection against my liability (protect my assets), and not be paying for coverage for 10 cars that my wife and I cant possibly drive. Not have policies for hundreds of dollars a year for cars that get a few thousand miles a year and stay in a garage. My classic insurance reduces the cost to an extent, but it has more restrictions. A coverage per driver for the purpose of having a license would be far superior.