SilverRocket
Senior Member
I'm not saying I'm absolutely correct, I'm open to be proved wrong or evolving my position on the matter but I have yet to hear an argument that comes even close to have me question my current understanding.What makes your interpretation any better than an insurance company?
For Insurance companies, they don't have the full data set nor the computational bandwidth to accurately assess risk factors. How many people who never get tickets, never crash but regularly drive well above the speed limit are not factored into rates. All they see is that when a bad driver crashes, speed is an aggravating factor that costs them more money and that's why it's a consideration for them.
However take a step back, insurance companies are there to make money. Do you not think they have a very heavy incentive to pretend someone is more risky to get a higher premium out of them? For argument sake let's say they had a crystal ball and could guarantee someone would never make a claim. Do you think they'd drop their rate to near zero? F**k no, and I bet my last dollar they'd be salivating at the opportunity to raise their rates if the person got a speeding ticket even though they know that they will never need to pay out to this person.
The only thing keeping them somewhat in line is competition.
I think the best solution insurance wise would be that insurance companies can't factor speeding into premiums but they can legally deny a claim if an accident happens and the driver was more than 50% over the speed limit.
Sponsored