We bought a new Subaru Forester in late 2010. It had been a long time coming. My Ford Escort was increasingly showing its age, among other things failing to start in really cold weather. For a couple months, we had three cars. I kept the Escort parked out front and used it for relatively short trips. It was handy. It also saved gas because it got roughly 27-33 miles to the gallon instead of the Forester’s 20-25.

It was a nice arrangement and I would have kept driving it until it stopped running. I still see it being driven around town by its new owner, so approaching two years later, it’s still going.

I sold it for a very small sum. The main reason I did was that I didn’t want the expense of insurance and registration. My father-in-law is about to sell one of his cars for the same reason.

The thought occurs to me that one minor thing we might be able to do to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles is to change the way that we do auto insurance (and maybe registration). There isn’t much good reason, in my mind, that we’re charged per-car when we have more cars than drivers. The amount of road time with two people and one car is bound to make a difference than two people and two cars, but with more cars than drivers, one car is typically going to be on the sidelines at any given time. You might have to worry about them loaning the car out, but that’s really about it.

A lot of auto insurance is guesswork. There are factors we let them use and don’t let them use, but one of the biggest (how many miles we drive) is on the honor system and almost nobody I knows is particularly honorable. Maybe my insurance company is unique, but they could police this sort of thing more than they do. For whatever reason, it isn’t that big of a priority. There are estimates of who is driving which car more frequently, but these are just estimates and that doesn’t change by focusing more on the driver than the car.

Anyhow, there are reasons why going per-driver rather than per-car would be a good idea, environmentally speaking: it would encourage people to have lighter vehicles. The main reason we went with a crossover this time around was that sometimes we need to cargo/family space. Our next vehicle may be even larger. Most of the time, we don’t need this. But when we do, it’s good to have around. There would be real advantages to having an Escort sitting out front for trips that don’t matter much. Paying the extra insurance, however, complicates that. For no really good reason.

I consider Smart cars to be neat. I don’t think I’ll ever do the motorcycle thing, but I am just as happy in a tiny little car as a big one. But I can’t do the tiny little car, really, even for short trips by myself, because I need a family vehicle, I need cargo space, and I’m not going to pay the extra insurance on the same amount of driving. If you want me to drive a small car, you ought not penalize me for also having a larger one when I need it.


Category: Road

About the Author


13 Responses to Rethinking Auto Insurance (For The Environment!)

  1. Peter says:

    (and maybe registration)

    No “maybe” about it if you live in New York State. Cars have to pass an annual emissions test (as well as a safety inspection) in order to be registered. Unlike the case in many states, there is no exemption for cars that would require more than a certain dollar amount of repairs in order to pass.
    My stepdaughter’s car, which is in my name, wouldn’t pass, so once the registration expired she was unable to drive. Thankfully, a friend of hers spent many hours doing repairs for free, though it cost me several hundred dollars for parts,* and it finally made it through inspection. As far as I’m concerned it’s all a form of legal, government-sponsored extortion.

    * = parts from junkyards used to be cheap. Not anymore.

  2. David Alexander says:

    As far as I’m concerned it’s all a form of legal, government-sponsored extortion.

    To be honest, I tend to lean toward support of a strict inspection regime even though I own an older car that can barely pass, but I feel that the safety portion is far more important than the emissions component. While I’ve seen a few of my co-workers bribe mechanics to pass inspection, usually for an emissions issue, the only reason that some of them get their brakes changed or tired replaced is from the inspection process pointing out some of these defects.

    FWIW, I have three cars in my name, and my insurer who is best represented by some type of reptile, and there’s only a slight reduction in my premiums for driving the third car. Although, I suspect that the third car’s large size (Lincoln Town Car) compared to the other cars (Celica and Saturn) are why the savings are so small despite annual mileage in the 1000 to 2000 mile range.

    I’ll quickly note that in Germany (which happens to have strict inspections compared to the states), there are registration schemes in which the owner can have the car road legal for the summer months, while being garaged in the winter, something that would be perfect for those who rarely drive their historic cars, convertibles, or rear wheel drive sports cars in the winter.

  3. trumwill says:

    I have mixed feelings about both emissions tests and safety inspections. On the one hand, they’re horribly regressive. On the other, safety inspections tend to be pretty minimal and there are practical reasons why it matters to some drivers that other drivers have safe cars.

  4. David Alexander says:

    The thought occurs to me that one minor thing we might be able to do to encourage people to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles is to change the way that we do auto insurance (and maybe registration).

    Which is probably unlikely given that low use vehicles with nearly the same premiums as full-time use vehicles is an excellent profit source for an insurance company, and multiple registrations is an excellent source of state revenue. And the people who tend to have multiple registrations either tend to be parents holding cars for their children, married couples, those who inherited a vehicle from a loved one (my case), and those who have enough money to blow on multiple vehicles. The insurance companies presume they’re getting the last case, so they see little reason as to why they shouldn’t capture that revenue from you.

  5. trumwill says:

    David,

    I would guess that it is something that would have to be taken care of on a regulatory level.

  6. Scarlet Knight says:

    Peter: Thankfully, a friend of hers spent many hours doing repairs for free

    I hate to break it to you Peter, but I’m sure those repairs weren’t done for free…

    (how many miles we drive) is on the honor system

    It doesn’t HAVE to be; just make mileage part of an annual inspection process.

    I have mixed feelings about both emissions tests and safety inspections. On the one hand, they’re horribly regressive.

    Much like you are part of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, I am part of the conservative wing of the Democratic party.

  7. trumwill says:

    It doesn’t HAVE to be; just make mileage part of an annual inspection process

    The fact that they don’t do this suggests me to that, for whatever reason, they really don’t care.

    Much like you are part of the liberal wing of the Republican Party, I am part of the conservative wing of the Democratic party.

    Which is backwards, when you think about it. Liberal Republicans should come from where you come from, Conservative Democrats should come from where I come from. Last it came up, it sounded like we were both leaning towards voting the same way in November.

  8. Scarlet Knight says:

    they really don’t care

    I think the mileage on which rates are based have a lot of leeway in them. Meaning, once you are over 7500 miles per year, it doesn’t really matter. They ask for you the actual number in order to catch people in lies. If they offered three bands to check, maybe under 1000, 1001-7500, and 7500 and over, it would be easier.

    Liberal Republicans should come from where you come from, Conservative Democrats should come from where I come from.

    But they do. Chris Christie is about as liberal as a Republican can get. If he ever runs for President it will become common knowledge. Mitt Romney had to disavow the liberalism he showed as governor of Massachusetts.

    I think when you live in a solid colored state, it is tough to be a devout member of the other side. Therefore, in the Blue States, in order to be viable, one needs to be a Liberal Republican, a Conservative Democrat, or a Liberal Democrat. I am the one in the middle, since I see first hand how silly a far left person can be, and the more reasonable position is to be more conservative than they are, without actually going to the other side. In a Red State, just reverse it. Therefore, in my mind, we are both making a reasonable choice given where we live. I’m sure you know far right people who make you shake you head, while in NJ such people are so few and far between that they have little political power except in conservative bastions of the state. They have no hope of gaining state-wide office. Likewise, in a red state, the Democrats who get elected tend to be conservative NRA types and not SWPLs.

    Last it came up, it sounded like we were both leaning towards voting the same way in November.

    Yes, I will be voting for Gary Johnson come November. I skipped the 2012 Presidental Primary row. In 2008 I voted for Bill Richardson in the primary and Bob Barr in the general.

  9. trumwill says:

    I think the mileage on which rates are based have a lot of leeway in them. Meaning, once you are over 7500 miles per year, it doesn’t really matter.

    Yeah, that’s right. Which is interesting considering that’s little more than half the average. They just want to give minimal drivers a break. I think they don’t want to get specific because driving can vary from one year to the next. If they were serious about it, they’d just check odometers.

    But they do.

    Quite so. I was just noting that we were the opposite. I essentially agree. I know that I was at my most liberal when I was in late high school. Some of that is age, but some of it had to do with the fact that I was in deep red territory. Then I got to college and discovered that I was a right-wing loon. I’ve been gradually moving to the center ever since.

    In 2008 I voted for Bill Richardson

    That’s who I would have voted for in the Democratic Primary, if I’d voted in it. Those things are always settled by the time it’s my turn anyway, though. If we move to New England, I look forward to getting some exposure to the primary even if it’s not actually New Hampshire we relocate to (not that I would ever name the specific state, but you get the idea).

  10. Scarlet Knight says:

    I was just noting that we were the opposite.

    Oh ok, now I understand. And like I said, it makes us reasonable to be that way.

    I forgot to mention, at Democratic meetings I don’t mention my interest in HalfSigma, or Steve Sailer, or HBD. Not that they could literally expel me from the party, but it would be awkward to discuss.

  11. trumwill says:

    I forgot to mention, at Democratic meetings I don’t mention my interest in HalfSigma, or Steve Sailer, or HBD.

    I wouldn’t mention it at a Republican meeting. In the South.

  12. Scarlet Knight says:

    I wouldn’t mention it at a Republican meeting. In the South.

    LOL Good one. I do want to say this though. My Republican friends are shocked when I tell them that I enjoy listening to Rush Limbaugh. I don’t claim to listen 15 hours a week, but if I happen to be in the car from noon to 3, I will generally be listening. His Friday shows are especially entertaining.

    The reason why I can listen to Rush when I can’t listen to Hannity is that Rush is, first and foremost, a radio entertainer. He knows that his primary job to entertain his listeners, whomever they happen to be. Hannity thinks his primary job is to be a mouthpiece for Conservative Thinking, if not the RNC overall.

  13. trumwill says:

    I can’t really listen to Rush, but the guy has talent.

    I was stuck in a ’78 car for a few years without anything but AM radio, so I got to hear a lot of the talk shows. There were these two hosts back-to-back. Both very conservative, but one was at least pleasant to listen to. The other guy’s only interesting show was his explanation that no he TOTALLY DIDN’T indecently expose himself to that 11 year old girl that he was about to be indicted for having exposed himself to. THAT was an interesting show.

    (He was arrested, put on probation, violated probation by impersonating a female stripper in an online chat with an underage boy wherein he described sexual acts with a 3-year old.)

Leave a Reply to David Alexander Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.