Pay-as-you-go Driving in California

From the Sacramento Bee:

Car insurance by the tankful?

Not quite, but California moved a step closer last month to pay-as-you-drive policies that could allow motorists to buy insurance like they do gasoline – a little at a time.

Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner released regulations permitting and authorizing mileage verification for pay-as-you-drive, without dictating what form such plans must take.

The goal is to use per-mile pricing to entice Californians not to drive so much, thus easing air pollution, relieving traffic congestion and lowering the number of traffic collisions.


70 Responses to “Pay-as-you-go Driving in California”

  1. 1 Vina Giang November 3, 2009 at 5:51 PM

    so every time you drive you have to pay the car insurance, how would they know when you are driving or not? i don’t think this is going to reduce California’s air pollution especially when you live in the city, you need to drive everywhere and even here at St Marys its not that easy to get around if you don’t have a car. I don’t think that it’s mostly the cars that are polluting, i think that they just need to focus more on the big factories that constantly pollute the air. The car industries are now converting their cars into hybrids which is a better solution than pay as you go insurance.

  2. 2 Amanda Herrera November 4, 2009 at 7:09 AM

    I am not sure i get this “pay-as-you-drive” car insurance. What happens if you forget to pay? How would they monitor if you paid or not? Seems like to many questions unanswered…UNlike gas you are forced to pay it or else you cant drive your car but i am pretty sure the car would still drive if you didn’t or forgot to pay for your insurance. I am thinking there are better ways to reduce air pollution, traffic congestion and number of drivers on our Californian roads.

  3. 3 Deb Snyder November 4, 2009 at 7:25 AM

    I would be adamently against this policy.

    Why? As Director of Human Resources, it is my job to make sure that our staff has a current (and valid) drivers’ license, PLUS current insurance. It is difficult enough to get a copy of their insurance card every three or six months, when the old one expires, let alone get one every time they drive. Our Employee Handbook does not allow staff to drive unless all of the paperwork is in place.

    It seems to me that this would be more insuring the vehicle instead of the person.

  4. 4 Robert Rey, Econ 100 November 4, 2009 at 11:19 AM

    Of course people are going to have issues with pay-as-you-go policies because it lowers the amount of freedom drivers can have on the road. They’re going to have issues about how insurers are going to be able to monitor client’s car usage as well. But, it sounds suited more towards people who don’t drive as much as others. They will definitely benefit the most from this program compared to regular insurance plans, which are usually flat rates no matter how you use your car. Some drives are going to be unavoidable, like going to work, so it really focuses on recreational and leisurely use that varies. It really encourages drivers to plan out how they’re going to use their cars for a change. I say it gives more responsibility and control to consumers, it’s their actions that determine how much they are going to pay. It’s about time, considering the rising gas prices and noticeable environmental consequences driving has these days.

  5. 5 Genine Lobo November 4, 2009 at 5:09 PM

    Although this may be beneficial to some, there were will many people finding ways to out-smart this system. It is great that insurance companies are thinking of ways to be more “green,” but a piece of paper showing their proof of insurance is the only thing that would stop drivers from driving. Only if a driver was pulled over for a different violation would he or she get caught for driving without suitable insurance. This would indeed be beneficial to those drivers who do not drive very much, but in the long run insurance companies would lose money and their efforts to help cut down pollution would be ineffective.

  6. 6 Kaitlin E November 4, 2009 at 11:06 PM

    I am confused as to how this policy is supposed to reduce pollution simply by allowing people to pay for their insurance on an “as you drive” basis. Are they implying that because people must pay for their insurance regardless of how much they drive that people feel they need to drive more to get their monies worth? This does not really add up to me.

  7. 7 yvonne November 5, 2009 at 12:21 AM

    I really can’t put a finger on this. So if we pay for car insurance as we drive then supposedly we will decrease our driving habits due to higher insurance cost or what’s gonna make us drive less? How would it be sold like calling cards at convenient stores? If we are so concerned with pollution then tell us to ride a bike or walk more. What does the pay as you drive have to do with green? Hell, make more cheaper green cars, Shut down some of these factories that contribute to the pollution problem or make them greener, find a better way to transport oil. Those tankers aren’t working out. I can go on and on, still don’t understand how this pay as you drive insurance is gonna work.

  8. 8 Kaleen Scott November 5, 2009 at 10:40 AM

    I would personally love this. I think car insurance should be optional, so good drivers aren’t having to pay for the bad one’s out there. All of this will come within time and of course, we do have bad drivers who don’t even insure their car because they don’t care, or can’t afford it.

  9. 9 Amanda Chow November 5, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    Personally I do not like to pay car insurance, but I would rather pay the standard insurance then this “pay-as-you-go”. I am all for trying to reduce air pollution, and may this policy would work later on down the road. For now though it seems that there are a lot more questions being asked then answers. It seems that there too may loose ends in this policy. Even if it does go through it might cost people more money in the long run. As for me I am a college student who drives home and back more often than not. There are also commuters trying to save money by living away from where they work but now will have to pay because of the miles they put into their car. Overall, this pay-as-you-go policy just doesn’t sit right.

  10. 10 jonathan walden November 5, 2009 at 8:39 PM

    I think this would be a great thing to try. Car insurance prices are out of control and anything that will help lower the costs will be great. I don’t think it would hurt to give this new idea a try. It will lower costs and help reduce air pollution.

  11. 11 Charles McNeil November 6, 2009 at 12:56 AM

    The current system doesn’t seem to really acknowledge that some of us drive much less than others. People who drive all over the place all day long would hate for this to come to fruition. But those of us who don’t drive very often, this would seem to be more economical. Why not give a break to the drivers that are giving good old mother nature a break?

  12. 12 Nick Rood November 8, 2009 at 8:38 PM

    A few things. First, do other people’s insurance not require information on the usage of their vehicle? I know that I had to submit my normal commute to work as well as average miles driven per week/month. So when I was able to walk to work, my insurance decreased. Second, the general idea seems fairly simple, just like PG&E for example. You submit mileage every month, and you pay for what you use. If you fail to pay, you have your insurance revoked. Third, with this concept people would be incentivized to use their car less. There may not be a huge decrease, but when people realize that they can lower their insurance rate, and save money on gas, those who have the option to drive less will have a reason to. Of course, there are individuals who have to drive to work, and everywhere else, and will not be influenced by this change. Lastly, like cell phone plans, you could offer different levels of insurance and miles used. A flat price for up to so many miles.

    I like this concept, but would have to have a lot more information before deciding for or against it.

  13. 13 David Perez November 8, 2009 at 9:15 PM

    I think that this “pay and go” system has it’s obvious benefits and drawbacks. For people that don’t commute much or drive in general, this saves alot compared to insurance premium plans. Nonetheless, the commuters will be the ones hit hard by this system. As the article states, “it allows motorists to buy insurance like they do gasoline.” I know alot of people in my family have jobs that are all over the Bay Area. Since they have to work to earn an income and support families, there really is no other way. If I am interpreting this plan right, they will be the ones paying more since they drive. So in essence, it would be a ton cheaper just to pay a standard premium than participate in this pay as you go system.
    On the contrary, it seems this plan is optional for now. Steve Poizner states that “regulations permitting and authorizing mileage verification for pay-as-you-drive, without dictating what form such plans must take.” In other words, you can choose what plan is better for you.

  14. 14 Nick Rood November 8, 2009 at 9:40 PM

    Oh, to add to my above comment, I think there will be difficulties tracking mileage for individual drivers. I would also be concerned that the insurance companies would find a way to increase prices during a change.

  15. 15 courtney brewer November 10, 2009 at 11:39 PM

    This is a completely unrealistic idea, but I could see how someone would think it’s a good idea. Unfortunately, because of the land mass of the United States, most people have to drive to get anywhere. This kind of concept would probably make more sense for places like Amsterdam where there are way fewer drivers as well as a much smaller need for a car to commute.

  16. 16 Maria Rogan November 11, 2009 at 1:43 PM

    This is a little confusing. Pay-as-you-drive seems to be a clever way to buy car insurance, but I am not sure how it would work. It makes me think about how much society has improved. However, I don’t know how pay-as-you-drive will make people drive less. People still need to do their daily activities and go to work, so I find it hard to believe that this new policy will work in that respect. If it does work though, it would mean that pollution would go down which is good for the environment. Therefore, i agree and disagree with this article. On the other hand, I think the policy is interesting and curious to find out more about how it works.

  17. 17 Evan Schlinkert November 11, 2009 at 6:30 PM

    As many have stated before I am a little confused how this will work. but to me I don’t think that pay as you drive insurance will create less drivers i think it would create more drivers because if there aren’t strict regulations then people could feel like they could get away with “cheating” the system.

  18. 18 Karla Martinez November 14, 2009 at 1:34 PM

    If I understand this article correctly, people would be driving without insurance, so how would this work in case of an accident, since you pay for insurance after you have driven your car for a certain period of time? I think this would also be confusing if a person where to be pulled over, would the police check a person’s insurance record from past billing periods, since they cannot check their current insurance coverage? I think this system would prove to be more confusing than effective, and I don’t see how this would be an incentive to drive less since most people drive their cars due to need. This would only apply to the smaller percentage of drivers that drive as a leisure activity.

  19. 19 Fr,K November 16, 2009 at 1:03 PM

    The only way that “pay-as-you-drive” insurance will produce the expected results if it is the only option. The major car polluters, the ones who drive all over, will obviously opt out of this choice if that option is given to them. It is good for the consumer though– those who drive less can choose this option and save their money to spend elsewhere in the economy.

  20. 20 dlilpanama November 17, 2009 at 11:16 AM

    this sounds like they are saying we have to pay car insurance as we drive. that makes no sence!! first how will they know if we drive? next thats like paying for somthing we dont need on an everyday basis. we pay car insurance just in case theres an accident and things like that. i would feel like im paying for nothing if i didnt get in an accident every single day. i understand they are trying to get people to drive less to stop air pollotion but theres a lot of other ways to go about that. i dont agree with this idea sombody came up with.

  21. 21 Alex Stauffer November 17, 2009 at 12:54 PM

    This seems very interesting. After reading the short explanation of how this would work it seems understandable. But we must take into account how this will effect insurance agencies. I wonder f it will cause them to lose a substantial amount of money. Also the thought of people taking advantage of the new way of paying for car insurance, people could cheat the system reducing the amount of miles they drive in a month to cut down on the price of insurance. If this works for Californians then alright! But for some reason I see a very slippery slope ahead.

  22. 22 Yolly T. November 20, 2009 at 2:43 PM

    This seems like a very interesting policy. Its like pay as you go phones. And I think that would really help the environment. Instead of buying expensive hybrid cars, we can change our lifestyles to protect what is left of our environment. It seems like a very positive interesting move to take. I would definitely take this into very deep consideration.

  23. 23 Jennifer Tarbell November 23, 2009 at 3:55 PM

    commuters, Big trucks Large SUV’s and old cars should pay higher premiums and hybrids should get a deal on pay as you go car insurance. that’ll help the fight agaisnt air polution. but good luck getting everybody on board when half of us dont even know what spare the air day means.

  24. 24 Ciara Pedroncelli November 26, 2009 at 1:01 PM

    I think this is truly a fascinating idea. Pay as you go insurance. I think it comes with a lot of benefits. I think insurance companies would just need to let people have the option of what type of insurance they have. Some people are still going to want to keep the type of insurance that they have now. But, I think, pay as you go would actually mean that more people would buy car insurance because they would only have to pay for what they use. Then the fact that it would reduce the amount of cars on the road which means less pollution, less wear on the roads, and fewer car accidents is great. I think that this is a great idea but I am sure that there are still kinks that probably need to be worked out before this plan is actually put into effect.

  25. 25 Nubia Cazares November 29, 2009 at 12:49 AM

    This is absolutely ridiculous. This pay-as-you-go policy will not reduce people from driving less. It will only create angry drivers. We are not a society that relies on public transportation people travel big distances and are not willing to use public transportation. Although this policy has great intentions and idealy it would be better for the environment and probably even cheaper, our society is not quite used to relying on pure public transportation. Of course there are exceptions like New York. For instance I commute from home to work and school and I drive although I know I could save more money I know that it would take longer to wait for the train and get there, and I prefer to drive instead.
    This policy would overall be a bad idea, it wouldn’t really bring in the results the insurance companies would want, and California is not ready for public transportation at all.

  26. 26 Hyo Kim November 30, 2009 at 12:04 AM

    This article to me, it just looks like government are doing whatever to take money from people. If they run this policy in somewhere like NewYork, then it would make sense, because subway system is pretty well developed, but in here California?
    You can’t go anywhere without car, here. It’s just another way of ridiculously getting ripped off by government.

  27. 27 Kathryn Koller December 1, 2009 at 12:57 AM

    This plan has way too many holes in it. This would give people yet another thing to keep track of. Because it’s not like the car won’t be able to drive if you run out of “insurance”. So i can see that leading to more people on the road with no insurance. I know insurance i have is a package that covers those who aren’t what are we going to have to pay extra for those who forgot to add more insurance miles to their car. How would you know when you ran out? Where would you buy the insurance? at a gas station? like a two for one deal…This plan seems unrealistic and very hard to manage. I’m sure there are a handful of other actually effective ways to get people to stop driving less to reduce pollution like instead of spending money on cars that run on expensive non recyclable batteries we could turn that money over to building a public transit system that runs up and down the state for a decent price like the system europe has. But back to the pay as you go insurance…it works for phones, but i think it would fail hardcore for car insurance.

  28. 28 Cole Norton December 1, 2009 at 3:55 PM

    I do not think this plan sounds very effective in preventing people from driving their cars around. If anything it is more of an annoyance than a plan because people will have to pay for insurance bit by bit, rather than paying for a plan and not having to worry about it. To me it sounds like the government just want to make as much money as they can off of drivers by charging them insurance mile by mile, rather than monthly or yearly by plans that drivers have.

  29. 29 nicholas joy December 2, 2009 at 8:10 PM

    pay as you go car insurance will increase peoples use of public transportation. if people don’t feel more committed to driving because of money spent on car insurance or other car expenses then they will hopefully be more willing to alternate at least to a bus and car schedule. it also makes car insurance more affordable which means more people will seek car it makes the roads safer and cleaner.

  30. 30 Jacqueline Guerrero December 2, 2009 at 8:18 PM

    I do not think that this program would be effective. I dont understand how “pay as you drive” would make american drivers go more green. When it comes to american drivers they like/enjoy there big flash cars that consume a lot of gasoline. I personally think that it is hard to devise any plan that would regulate american drivers and force them to use less gasoline and go more green. We just love our big, expensive vehicles way to much.

  31. 31 eldiel December 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM

    This whole system seems implausible and way to complicated. Like one of the comments above said, keeping track of who has insurance would be a nightmare. There are alternatives to reducing pollution, starting with renewable energy, maybe even the NIF at the LLNL. the skies the limit, and pay as you drive insurance just seems way to hard to keep track of.

  32. 32 Britany Linton December 3, 2009 at 9:34 PM

    I think this is a horrible idea. Maybe because I don’t want my driving to be limited or watched. I want to drive whenever I want to and not “pay by the tank”. This wouldnt make me want to be more green. If people arent doing it already chances are they dont really care. People are going to continue luxury gas guzzling cars as long as they can afford them. It sounds stupid and I would have a problem with this.

  33. 33 Samantha Fagundes December 4, 2009 at 4:08 PM

    This does not seem likely to work. The pay-as-you-go thing won’t cut back people an their driving. I don’t even understand how this would even work? How would it even relieve traffic congestion? Doesn’t make any sense.

  34. 34 Samantha Vavricka December 4, 2009 at 4:13 PM

    I’m not sure how they would monitor this. As of now you need to have insurance in order to renew your registrations every year. So if your renewal comes up at the time you don’t have insurance then what would happen. My husband use to insure his motorcycle only in the Summer months, which reduce the amount of insurance we paid on it. Now because you have to have insurance to register we have to have insurance all year round. So I don’t know how this would work.

  35. 35 Jordan Premo December 5, 2009 at 10:28 AM

    I really don’t understand this pay as you drive thing. Why would you only want insurance for when you drive? Even if you only drive your car every once and while you still own it and things can happen to it even when you aren’t driving. It is just easier to have year round insurance. What if one month you weren’t going to drive your car so you didn’t have insurance, and someone hits your car while it is parked in the drive way??? They would say there is nothing we can do about it! This is a dumb idea…. I am definitely opposed to this.

  36. 36 Francine Zumbo December 5, 2009 at 3:15 PM

    I do not see how this “pay as you go” insurance would work or make us more green. In California we drive everywhere or take road trips. I feel that the “pay as you go” would be more expensive. Like gas prices they go up and down a lot and if we paid for insurance depending on how many miles we go it could really add up. Also there is no way of knowing how much you will drive in a given month, it is too hard to keep track. It is easier to pay for insurance every six months.

  37. 37 Angela December 6, 2009 at 1:24 AM

    I’m not sure is I agree with this policy, “pay as you drive”, so are we going to pay per miles? I wonder what is next, pay by the minute?. There is no other way to get around if you don’t have a car. Especially if you work and study, the busy schedule does not allow us to use public transportation and driving is the only way to get to our destination.

  38. 38 Vince Kaehler December 6, 2009 at 4:00 PM

    This is not practical. Insurance is not gas or even related to gas.
    if people want insurance they can buy it. problem solved. Driving is a necessity for some people and they already have to figure out how to pay for gas, they should not have to figure for more then that.

  39. 39 Jorge Clavijo December 6, 2009 at 7:08 PM

    It is very important for all drivers to be insured by any insurance company in the United States. Insurance companies, keep doing what you are doing, since whatever you guys are doing out there with our money is doing good for you.

  40. 40 Margaret Garbo December 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM

    Just like in the proposed house and senate bills regarding health insurance, this pay as you go driving insurance system could be done. It although might not be beneficial for the person as they are not secure enough to be able to be covered. I dont even understand how the consumption of gas is relevant in a person’s insurance. This is too much a hassle. California is a place that unfortunately, people need to have cars in because there is no way possible to get anywhere without one. If this pushes through, we are being ripped off by the government. What if your car gets ruined while you arent driving? Accidents can happen even when your car is at home. It is, like I said before, better to be safe than sorry

  41. 41 Martin M December 6, 2009 at 9:40 PM

    I would have to disagree with a lot of what this article is trying to say. Everyone pays for Car Insurance, its almost a must in order to drive. It is not going to reduce driving. And when you do not reduce driving, we cannot accomplish the goals that the article is trying to fulfill which are air pollution, congested traffic, and traffic collisions. there are tons of other ways to reduce these issues.

  42. 42 Sarah Reddell December 6, 2009 at 11:15 PM

    After reading this article I am torn by whether this would truly work or not. This seems like a very complicated insurance system that may cause other problems we have not predicted. I believe this could cause many to adjust their driving habits but i am also torn because i am a commuter. Since receiving my license as a 16 year old i have been on the road constantly. If this insurance policy was put into effect, what would forced commuters do?

  43. 43 Lukas Bradvica December 6, 2009 at 11:37 PM

    I disagree with this article. It is a state law for all drivers to have car insurance. I don’t think this will decrease the amount of drivers, but increase them. Now people can buy the minimum amount of insurance and drive. I think this will increase the number of under insured drivers and insurance less drivers.

  44. 44 amos mccray-goldsmith December 6, 2009 at 11:57 PM

    with pay as you go pricing, it seems a little unfair for big commuters. think, you have to pay twice as much for insurance just because you live twice as far away from work as a co-worker does. it seems like people will be unfaily put into a situation in which they did not sign up for. it would not be cost effective for every single person unless they get the opportunity to coose weather or not to be in the program.

  45. 45 Yolly T. December 7, 2009 at 7:45 AM

    This would really help with the climate change. As I said earlier, it would be an effective way to push going green. It is also a smaller investment than a hybrid, etc…so it is perfect for the U.S. current economy status

  46. 46 Luke Napier December 7, 2009 at 10:02 AM

    This idea can work well in my opinion. Although one could argue that not everyone would carry insurance, but that is already an issue facing the DMV. In the case of buying it, it can give more people a better chance to buy insurance at a lower price for a shorter time. It could lower traffic by having people only buy the insurance for a certain time of the year which would lower traffic. I like this idea because it opens the door for the less fortunate to buy insurance as well.

  47. 47 Chris Griffiths December 7, 2009 at 1:48 PM

    I think that this system is a step in the wrong direction for Ca. Instead of trying to come up with ideas to reduce pollution by limiting driving the state should encourage more research into cleaner cars by offering more grants for research. It is easier to change what people drive instead of how they drive.

  48. 48 Josh Highness December 7, 2009 at 2:30 PM

    The idea is fascinating and how exactly the plan and process of making a “drive-as-you-go” system that would be able to monitor how many miles you have driven along with what kind of fees there would be all seems a bit too much.

    This isn’t the first time we’ve used the hike up prices to “go green” gimmick. Supposedly gas companies were sticking to the same idea. California does need a considerable amount of work in the public transportation department before we could consider a change in vehicular policies I believe.

  49. 49 Justin Castro December 7, 2009 at 8:30 PM

    I think that the pay as you go driving is a good idea, but its not as easily executed as it sounds. I’m all for saving the environment but i don’t believe this is the best way to do it. I also dont believe that this would cut down on people driving at all. People have to get to work/school/etc.. every day no matter if they pay as they go for insurance or if the system stays the same. I think it would be a much better idea to spend time trying to develop more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly cars to help the pollution in California than trying to implement this new regulation

  50. 50 Jessica Whalen December 8, 2009 at 3:34 PM

    I think that the system is a good idea, but it has a lot of kinks that need to be worked out before it is a viable system. Assuming that the kinks are worked out, I’m still not sure that it will make people drive less. People still need to drive to work, and a lot of towns (including mine) are designed in such a way that driving is the only way to get anywhere in a reasonable amount of time. The one thing that I do think it would do is make people realise how much they drive.

  51. 51 wallacej December 8, 2009 at 4:52 PM

    I dont know what to say about this pay as you go insurance. It sounds silly to me. Even though it could have its advantages and may be good. I dont know i feel like this isnt the right direction to head in terms of car insurance.

  52. 52 Stephen Cassinelli December 8, 2009 at 7:46 PM

    Wow! I really don’t think that this is going to work at all. People will not like the idea of paying by the mile, and i understand that it is environmentally better but come on now. This topic seems so off the wall that it is really hard to take seriously and i feel that many people are not going to be for this new process of payment with car insurance.

  53. 53 Christopher Morris December 8, 2009 at 8:38 PM

    I don’t agree with this. As has been said many times, this would be really hard to manage. So what, they are going to check our milage every few days? What if we don’t go, then they track us down? I think that this is too hard to enforce and it’s just a hassle. For people that have to commute far to work not only are they slammed with gas prices but now their insurance rises too? I appreciate that they’re trying to find new ways to reduce pollution but maybe they should think of some other ways.

  54. 54 Jamie B December 8, 2009 at 9:12 PM

    I think that pay as you go should not apply to driving and insurance. I understand the appeal and the idea behind it but it seems more of a strategy for a product like mobile phones. I also agree that this seems like it would be to hard to keep track of.

  55. 55 Kyle Ray December 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM

    This actually seems kind of fair to those people who don’t drive much: the elderly, or people who live in big cities. I just can’t say that I understand how it is to be implemented? Will they check your milage every 6 months and charge you? GPS on your car or what?

  56. 56 Kirstie Scott December 9, 2009 at 4:53 PM

    This idea does not really make sense to me. I understand that people are trying to cut costs, but I think it can be done some other way for example, cut out: buying new clothes, eating out, going to the movies. In my opinion things like heath, car, and home insurance are necessities.

  57. 57 Broderick Nickelberry Jr. December 11, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    Well this is weird. I think this is a waste of time. Doing this to help pollution and traffic. I don’t think this will work because people still have to do where there going. And that pollution thing, start smoging these diesel tucks that are throwing black smog and loud hot rods. They just like picking on the little import cars. Dumb smog laws.

  58. 58 Heinrick Devera December 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM

    This doesn’t sound like a really good idea. Everyone is going to be driving and they can’t keep track of the exact times people drive. Besides, driving isn’t the only thing that contributes to air pollution. We got all kinds of things like factories, forest fires, and other things. Instead of cutting back on driving, why not do something like growing more trees or stop destroying forests so that they can help slow down air pollution. Just an idea.

  59. 59 Kyle Reichenberg December 13, 2009 at 9:12 PM

    I have also heard about the zip cars in the city. They allow you to rent cars which included insurance and gas by the hour or day. I’m really not sure how it works but it seems like a good idea if you live in SF. I see them once an while when Im in the city so they seem to be working

  60. 60 Hayden Scott December 14, 2009 at 6:34 PM

    So, on the one hand this allows consumer choice, as in quantity purchased to better reflect the amount of insurance they actual demand. On the other hand, since insurance operates under the idea of covering the costs of catastrophic failure with those who had no problems whatsoever then this may not simply just end with a decrease in quantity and price but may actual cause insurance premiums to rise. Besides all this removing the current assumption of low increases to administrative costs, such as would be incurred when changing models, means that this may just cause more harm than the expected good.

  61. 61 Rochelle Galzote December 14, 2009 at 8:55 PM

    I don’t think this pay as you drive policy will work out. I don’t see how they will know when a person is driving . I don’t think it will stop air pollution because cars aren’t the only thing that cause air pollution. Even if this policy was to happen, i don’t think people will cut back on driving.

  62. 62 TTS06 December 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM

    this is an excellent idea if they can work out all of the problems with it.

  63. 63 Nathan Couch December 17, 2009 at 3:39 PM

    This is the third post I’ve see that has a broken Sac Bee link.

    I see no problem with this policy so long as a regular insurance policy would be available as well. This kind of insurance plan’s target market assuredly would be the elderly and others who do not drive very often.

    If someone had this kind of insurance plan they would be punished if they were a frequent traveler. Such as someone who operates a business that requires a lot of driving or someone that took frequent long distance trip.

    This could be useful for college students though, especially if the student lived close to the college and their job because it would cut down on one more expense for someone who is probably not making a whole lot of income.

  64. 64 Anna Hernandez December 18, 2009 at 12:04 AM

    Not sure how this would work out. Wouldn’t this be like pay-as-you-go phone calls? Long calls are very expensive and unpredictable as to when they will happen. In addition, the stressed caused by being extremely conscious of miles driven is not worth the hassle. The pre-paid convenience of most services offered today benefit those who know they will use these services around the clock. However, there are those who would benefit greatly from pay-as-you-go services. Unfortunately, majority rules.

  65. 65 Ryan Moura April 26, 2010 at 8:42 PM

    I think that I am a little confuse about he proposition of this policy, but I will do my best. I think that it is a good idea because people shouldn’t be required to pay for the amount of driving that they don’t take part in. Another big area that would make this a good idea is the fight against air pollution. If people are required to pay as they go, they will result to alternate forms of transportation, and this would in turn help provide a cleaner environment for all.

  66. 66 Tiffany Hagewood May 2, 2010 at 10:05 PM

    I think the pay as you go car insurance is a good idea theoretically, but I doubt it would be easy to enact.

    For me personally, I commute twice a week to Sacramento for school. If I were forced to pay per mile car insurance I’m almost certain it would be higher than my $110 that I pay now for full coverage car insurance. I think that if you are a responsible driver and for the most part have a clean record then car insurance is really not outrageous. Not like the ridiculous amount that the health care industry charges for car insurance! Because of both of these reasons I’d have to agree with Genine, the idea is wonderful that insurance agencies are trying to be more green, but really I think it is an idea that will pass.

  67. 67 Tiffany Hagewood May 2, 2010 at 10:06 PM

    oops.. I must be tired! haha I meant the ridiculous amount that the health care industry charges for HEALTH insurance!

  68. 68 Matthew Jaber May 17, 2010 at 7:01 PM

    This article is interesting but did not make a lot of sense to me. I do understand the pay as you go, because there is no way to know how to keep track of all the drivers who are driving.Unless they are rental cars i dont see a true solution to keeping track of people driving.

  69. 69 Kelsey Zeller May 17, 2010 at 10:42 PM

    I’m not to sure how this is going to work. How are we going to know when somebody is driving and what happens if they go over there miles? On the good side if this results in people not driving as much, therefore not as much air polution then im all for it. I just don’t see how it could work. we’ll see.

  70. 70 Colette Whitney May 18, 2010 at 5:57 PM

    I personally like this idea. It would be very beneficial for people that lived in major cities that have a car, but mostly use public transportation. I also like it because I can see how it can be green because people would have less incentive to drive because they would have to pay more. Thus, the would be more willing to take busses, bikes or walk. Families that have more than one car would also like this policy because they would not have to pay insurance for all of their cars especially the ones that they do not drive as much. However, I could see how some would not like this policy, I dont think my dad would because he drives to the city every day for work. He has tried public transportation but he says it takes a lot longer. For someone that drives a lot it would be expensive. I honestly dont think this will ever pass, because it could get complicated but it is a nice idea. I would vote for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: