Calif. Prop. 17: Would it discourage carfree?
03-22-10 | 12:39 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Sophomoric Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
Calif. Prop. 17: Would it discourage carfree?
From the San Fransisco Bay Guardian (which I believe is a weekly alternative newspaper):
___________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________
Prop 17 discourages going car-free
03.18.10 - 12:28 pm | Steven T. Jones |
03.18.10 - 12:28 pm | Steven T. Jones |
"Efforts to encourage car-sharing and ways of getting around that don’t involve owning a car would be undermined by Proposition 17, a June ballot measure that I wrote about in this week’s cover story. While I didn’t mention that impact in the story, it is of real concern to people like me who don’t own cars and encourage others to try the car-free lifestyle on for size.
The measure, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, allows companies to substantially increase monthly premiums on customers who haven’t had continuous insurance coverage. That would be one more barrier to people making the leap of faith to give up their cars and rely on bicycles or public transit, a switch that ought to be encouraged in increasingly traffic-congested cities such as San Francisco.
As I wrote about in another cover story last year, I made the decision several years ago to give up my car, although I still sometimes rent cars to visit my children. Consumer advocates say the cost of renting cars or using car-sharing services – particularly locally owned companies that can’t self-insure like the corporate behemoths – could increase and there would be a disincentive to consider trying it.
“Anyone who has used car sharing (or for that matter rental cars) as their means of transportation would almost certainly not be considered continuously insured and would face the Prop 17 surcharge if they had to go back to private insurance at some point,” Doug Heller, an insurance expert with Consumer Watchdog, told me.
Currently, the law allows insurance companies to issue discounts to those who have maintained continuous policies with them (Prop. 17 would expand that to allow drivers to change companies and keep their discounts, which would be offset by surcharges on customers who were new or had a lapse in their coverage), and those companies use that discount to actively try to discourage people from experimenting with car-free lifestyles.
Brian Smith, who works for an environmental nonprofit in Oakland, recalls getting that kind of hard sell when he made the leap and got rid of his car.
“When I cancelled my car insurance, AAA warned me not to. They said, ‘We will make it much more expensive when you come back.’ I said, ‘I sold my car, I don't need car insurance.’ They said ‘We are just giving you a warning, Sir.’ I said, ‘Cancel it you ****ing bastards. I'm never coming back.’ That was 10 years ago.’” Smith wrote to me about the issue.
Proponents of the measure say it would save some drivers $250 per year, while opponents (citing data from Mercury) say the surcharges for everyone else would be about $1,000 per year. So for the soldiers who go off to boot camp, the college students who get an internship in a city with good public transit or bikeways, unemployed individuals who need to trim expenses, or people who want to experiment with going car-free, they would all pay for more for insurance if they went back to driving a car than those who continuously maintained a car-dependent existence.
So, add this to the list of good reasons – and there are many of them in this week’s cover story -- to oppose Prop. 17."
The measure, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, allows companies to substantially increase monthly premiums on customers who haven’t had continuous insurance coverage. That would be one more barrier to people making the leap of faith to give up their cars and rely on bicycles or public transit, a switch that ought to be encouraged in increasingly traffic-congested cities such as San Francisco.
As I wrote about in another cover story last year, I made the decision several years ago to give up my car, although I still sometimes rent cars to visit my children. Consumer advocates say the cost of renting cars or using car-sharing services – particularly locally owned companies that can’t self-insure like the corporate behemoths – could increase and there would be a disincentive to consider trying it.
“Anyone who has used car sharing (or for that matter rental cars) as their means of transportation would almost certainly not be considered continuously insured and would face the Prop 17 surcharge if they had to go back to private insurance at some point,” Doug Heller, an insurance expert with Consumer Watchdog, told me.
Currently, the law allows insurance companies to issue discounts to those who have maintained continuous policies with them (Prop. 17 would expand that to allow drivers to change companies and keep their discounts, which would be offset by surcharges on customers who were new or had a lapse in their coverage), and those companies use that discount to actively try to discourage people from experimenting with car-free lifestyles.
Brian Smith, who works for an environmental nonprofit in Oakland, recalls getting that kind of hard sell when he made the leap and got rid of his car.
“When I cancelled my car insurance, AAA warned me not to. They said, ‘We will make it much more expensive when you come back.’ I said, ‘I sold my car, I don't need car insurance.’ They said ‘We are just giving you a warning, Sir.’ I said, ‘Cancel it you ****ing bastards. I'm never coming back.’ That was 10 years ago.’” Smith wrote to me about the issue.
Proponents of the measure say it would save some drivers $250 per year, while opponents (citing data from Mercury) say the surcharges for everyone else would be about $1,000 per year. So for the soldiers who go off to boot camp, the college students who get an internship in a city with good public transit or bikeways, unemployed individuals who need to trim expenses, or people who want to experiment with going car-free, they would all pay for more for insurance if they went back to driving a car than those who continuously maintained a car-dependent existence.
So, add this to the list of good reasons – and there are many of them in this week’s cover story -- to oppose Prop. 17."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
Last edited by Roody; 03-22-10 at 01:06 PM.
03-22-10 | 01:03 PM
#2
Primate
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 5
From: gone
Bikes: Concorde Columbus SL, Rocky Mountain Edge, Sparta stadfiets
I had always thought this sort of wheedling was standard in North American auto insurance. That's certainly how it works in Canada. People were advising me to maintain a storage insurance policy while overseas.
This I couldn't stomach. But my aversion to the potential of future gouging is yet another reason I may never return to the ranks of car owners.
This I couldn't stomach. But my aversion to the potential of future gouging is yet another reason I may never return to the ranks of car owners.
03-22-10 | 05:21 PM
#4
Banned
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 4,082
Likes: 3
From: Ogopogo's shoreline
Bikes: LHT, Kona Smoke
I'm cool with car sharing, if it ends up with less cars on the road, and more pairs of eyes in each one.
I don't hate cars... I just think they're largely superfluous for healthy adults living in well-thought-out communities.
I don't hate cars... I just think they're largely superfluous for healthy adults living in well-thought-out communities.
03-22-10 | 06:50 PM
#5
Thread Starter
Sophomoric Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
In Michigan they put you on a high-risk status if you let your insurance lapse. It's been a while since I had to deal with insurance, so I don't remember the details. But it sucks. If California can avoid this injustice, the ought to do it.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
03-22-10 | 08:56 PM
#6
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,141
Likes: 12
From: New Jersey
Wow! I had no idea you had to pay a 1K surcharge to get auto insurance. What a rip-off! Personally, I don't care how much this surcharge and they can raise it to 1 million dollars if they want. I'm car free for life. Period
It's amazing how the "System" keeps people driving the rest of their lives through fear. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with such an organization is beyond me. The motorist is contantly being abused with a host of tickets and fines just to extract more and more money, and now this! Incredible.
I hope Prop 17 does pass because the outcome in the long run will work to keep people carfree much longer. With thousands of Calfornians out of work or falling below the poverty level, many will not be able to keep their autos let alone expensive and unnecessary insurance. These poor individuals will look at temporary car freedom as a way to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. When the time does come around when they can afford an auto, the insane insurance premiums will keep them carfree for months or years. Hopefully for life.
It's amazing how the "System" keeps people driving the rest of their lives through fear. Why would anyone want to associate themselves with such an organization is beyond me. The motorist is contantly being abused with a host of tickets and fines just to extract more and more money, and now this! Incredible.
I hope Prop 17 does pass because the outcome in the long run will work to keep people carfree much longer. With thousands of Calfornians out of work or falling below the poverty level, many will not be able to keep their autos let alone expensive and unnecessary insurance. These poor individuals will look at temporary car freedom as a way to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads. When the time does come around when they can afford an auto, the insane insurance premiums will keep them carfree for months or years. Hopefully for life.
03-22-10 | 10:57 PM
#8
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,141
Likes: 12
From: New Jersey
Exactly. I'm not going back either. Good point.
I want to thank Roody for posting yet ANOTHER reason why we need to remain carfree.
There's a site that goes onto some detail about how Texas passed similar legislation years ago. The surcharges are incredible to believe but it is true. In Texas, if you tell the insurance company you never had a car, they sock you with a 74% surcharge! Florida will charge you over 7K if you tell them you never had insurance in the past! This is just insane!
https://www.stopprop17.org/
I want to thank Roody for posting yet ANOTHER reason why we need to remain carfree.
There's a site that goes onto some detail about how Texas passed similar legislation years ago. The surcharges are incredible to believe but it is true. In Texas, if you tell the insurance company you never had a car, they sock you with a 74% surcharge! Florida will charge you over 7K if you tell them you never had insurance in the past! This is just insane!
https://www.stopprop17.org/
Last edited by Dahon.Steve; 03-22-10 at 11:03 PM.
03-23-10 | 12:27 AM
#9
Thread Starter
Sophomoric Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
One thing that tickles me is that many people are against the health care reform bill because it mandates the purchase of insurance. But they evidently have no problem whatsoever with government mandating auto insurance.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
03-23-10 | 12:53 AM
#10
bragi
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,911
Likes: 3
From: seattle, WA
Bikes: LHT
In Michigan they put you on a high-risk status if you let your insurance lapse. It's been a while since I had to deal with insurance, so I don't remember the details. But it sucks. If California can avoid this injustice, the ought to do it.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
03-23-10 | 05:38 PM
#11
In the right lane
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 9,556
Likes: 8
From: Des Moines
Bikes: 1974 Huffy 3 speed
And if you point this out to people, they all of a sudden start to wither and back-track. It's like they haven't really thought much through and are just mouthing what they heard last night on Fox.
03-23-10 | 08:19 PM
#12
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 7,141
Likes: 12
From: New Jersey
I suspect this type of surcharge is contributing to thousands driving without insurance. The whole notion of insurance was to protect those inside the vehicle and on the road from financial catastrophy should an accident happen. Today, it's a money making operation designed to keep the motorist paying premiums even if he can't afford to drive.
03-24-10 | 06:49 AM
#13
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
They only mandate it if you choose to drive and own a car and you are also only required to insure others in case you cause an accident. If you still owe money on your car the loan institution might require you have insurance on "their" car. Otherwise you are not required to insure your car or your person. Can't say that about the health care bill.
Last edited by ndbiker; 03-24-10 at 07:01 AM.
03-24-10 | 09:06 AM
#14
Thread Starter
Sophomoric Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
They only mandate it if you choose to drive and own a car and you are also only required to insure others in case you cause an accident. If you still owe money on your car the loan institution might require you have insurance on "their" car. Otherwise you are not required to insure your car or your person. Can't say that about the health care bill.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
03-24-10 | 09:23 AM
#15
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Again the mandate is not to insure the car or owner of the car, the mandate is to insure you are able to protect others in case you are found responsible for damage or injury to others. If you own your car and you choose, you do not have to cover either your car or yourself. Besides I think most automobile insurance mandates are state mandates, not federal. I believe the 10th amendment gives powers not specifically enumerated in the constitution for the federal government to the states or to the individual. States mandating auto insurance coverage would be acceptable under the 10th amendment. The current health care law as I understand it would be more akin to the government requiring I purchase a warranty for my car.
Last edited by ndbiker; 03-25-10 at 06:34 AM.
03-24-10 | 12:09 PM
#16
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,252
Likes: 70
From: Kansas
Bikes: This list got too long: several ‘bents, an urban utility e-bike, and a dahon D7 that my daughter has absconded with.
Just to comment, this is, in a way, already being done. I recently left the country for a couple of years. When I did so I registered my motorcycle as non-op (non-operational status, meaning that it would not be operated or parked on public roads), and dropped the insurance. When I returned I found that because I had dropped the insurance I would have to pay a fine before I would be able to re-register it.
03-25-10 | 06:58 PM
#17
Thread Starter
Sophomoric Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 24,192
Likes: 13
From: Dancing in Lansing
In most states you are required by state law to have auto insurance if you own a car or drive. And the premiums are even higher in some cases than health insurance premiums. We are a nation that is financially responsible for our vehicles but not our own bodies. (until this week, that is.)
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
03-25-10 | 08:51 PM
#18
Banned
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,787
Likes: 3
In Michigan they put you on a high-risk status if you let your insurance lapse. It's been a while since I had to deal with insurance, so I don't remember the details. But it sucks. If California can avoid this injustice, the ought to do it.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
BTW, I do recall a number of people posting here that they were reluctant to give up their car because there would be a financial penalty if they decided to go back to owning a car.
I had to endure that until 1994 -- ironically, after being car-free for six months. After that, it was never over $35, and had whittled down to $29 and change before I went car-free again, this time 'for good'.
I'd go back to car ownership only at gunpoint, I believe; I have no desire for it at all -- it's more like a ball and chain. I think it would take a serious health issue for me to consider it.
03-25-10 | 08:51 PM
#19
Banned.
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 3
From: Southern california
Bikes: Lapierre CF Sensium 400. Jamis Ventura Sport. Trek 800. Giant Cypress.
Once again this is not new and not just a California issue. Almost all public Liability insurance is to protect the other person not yourself. You don’t have to have homeowners insurance but if you are making payments you have to insure your house to protect the lender. The other statement about of people driving without insurance is also true. There is a third choice people have as well. Off shore or out of state insurance that may or may not pay off if you have an accident. But it meets the registration requirement. If you are willing to pay off your vehicle and carry a monster deductable insurance can be less than $500.00 a year.
03-26-10 | 03:44 AM
#20
Membership Not Required
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,853
Likes: 18
From: On the road-USA
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
In most states you are required by state law to have auto insurance if you own a car or drive. And the premiums are even higher in some cases than health insurance premiums. We are a nation that is financially responsible for our vehicles but not our own bodies. (until this week, that is.)
EDIT: Updated information on uninsured drivers...it is increasing!
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Last edited by wahoonc; 03-26-10 at 03:55 AM.
03-26-10 | 06:07 AM
#21
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
In most states you are required by state law to have auto insurance if you own a car or drive. And the premiums are even higher in some cases than health insurance premiums. We are a nation that is financially responsible for our vehicles but not our own bodies. (until this week, that is.)
Last edited by ndbiker; 03-26-10 at 08:09 AM.
04-02-10 | 07:47 PM
#23
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 383
Likes: 1
From: Metro Detroit
Bikes: 15 Specialized Crosstrail, 83 Schwinn Traveller, Fuji Sport
+1
What really irks me is that I have spent twice as much money for licence plates and insurance than on gasoline in the last year. Grrrrr.
And I know someone who lives in Grand Ledge and drives to work in Livonia, 90 miles each way, and pays lower isurance rates than I do.
What really irks me is that I have spent twice as much money for licence plates and insurance than on gasoline in the last year. Grrrrr.
And I know someone who lives in Grand Ledge and drives to work in Livonia, 90 miles each way, and pays lower isurance rates than I do.
04-03-10 | 05:55 AM
#24
Membership Not Required
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 16,853
Likes: 18
From: On the road-USA
Bikes: Giant Excursion, Raleigh Sports, Raleigh R.S.W. Compact, Motobecane? and about 20 more! OMG
+1
What really irks me is that I have spent twice as much money for licence plates and insurance than on gasoline in the last year. Grrrrr.
And I know someone who lives in Grand Ledge and drives to work in Livonia, 90 miles each way, and pays lower isurance rates than I do.
What really irks me is that I have spent twice as much money for licence plates and insurance than on gasoline in the last year. Grrrrr.
And I know someone who lives in Grand Ledge and drives to work in Livonia, 90 miles each way, and pays lower isurance rates than I do.
Aaron
__________________
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
Webshots is bailing out, if you find any of my posts with corrupt picture files and want to see them corrected please let me know. :(
ISO: A late 1980's Giant Iguana MTB frameset (or complete bike) 23" Red with yellow graphics.
"Cycling should be a way of life, not a hobby.
RIDE, YOU FOOL, RIDE!"_Nicodemus
"Steel: nearly a thousand years of metallurgical development
Aluminum: barely a hundred
Which one would you rather have under your butt at 30mph?"_krazygluon
05-05-10 | 02:56 PM
#25
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,429
Likes: 257
From: Ashland, VA
Bikes: The keepers: 1969 Magneet Sprint, 1971 Gitane Tour de France, 1973 Raleigh Twenty, 3 - 1986 Rossins.
In most states you are required by state law to have auto insurance if you own a car or drive. And the premiums are even higher in some cases than health insurance premiums. We are a nation that is financially responsible for our vehicles but not our own bodies. (until this week, that is.)
From what I've ready about the health care bill, said care is about to become a legal necessity. And while you have the right to not drive a car, you don't have the right to not be fiscally prepared for medical costs. Hmmn.
__________________
Syke
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)
Syke
“No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby.”
H.L. Mencken, (1926)