Why Penalize Good Drivers?

Automobile insurance takes a larger bite out of the family budget in many two-car families than does property tax. Moreover, there are millions more drivers in California than there are homeowners. It should come as no surprise, then, that popular support remains high for the automobile insurance reforms written into law in 1988 by Proposition 103. Unfortunately, insurance industry campaign contributions to the new state insurance commissioner also were sky-high, and when it comes to the matter of when to implement the reforms, that money is bound to talk.

During the last week, however, California drivers found a way to talk back. They got a boost when the Los Angeles city and county governments teamed up with a coalition of consumer groups and petitioned Insurance Commissioner Charles W. Quackenbush to implement the part of Proposition 103 that would require auto insurers to base their premiums on drivers’ safety records rather than on their street addresses.

Think about it. A drug dealer who uses his ill-gotten gain to buy a house on a quiet side street in a prestigious neighborhood may drive his car into the most dangerous, congested neighborhoods of the city every day of his “working” life. His safety record may reflect the chances he takes. And yet his insurance rate is determined by where his house is rather than by where his car goes.

Contrast this with an honest, law-abiding citizen who owns a car but to save money leaves it garaged most of the time and takes the bus. His insurance rate is determined by where his house is rather than by the fact that his car is almost never in danger.

An insurance industry study claims that using driving records rather than ZIP codes to determine rates would raise rates in the wealthier neighborhoods. That claim, even if true, does not make redlining fair. Moreover, a study conducted by the state largely refutes the industry’s study.

Ignoring safety records may save the industry the money it would take to monitor such records, but that saving comes at the expense of millions of consumers.

Proposition 103 is not a proposal for study. It is, no less than Proposition 13, the law of the state. Quackenbush should stop analyzing and start implementing.