mass is not a cede state for insurance. which means, high risk insurance is not a guarantee. if you get rejected by 3 or more companies, you then can ask the state for a high risk. at that time, you can then be assigned to a company to help share the risk as in any other state. but where do we draw the line as a state? how much high risk should we be able to cover? or cover at all? just because someone’s record is attrocious with accidents and violations, does not mean they still need to drive to work. it is part of the consequences for not following the law. afterall, is not drivign a priviledge — not a right! i have not seen it listed on the bill of rights — it does not even state that i have the right to ride a horse! we all have 2 legs and in most cases, there is public transportation. high risk drivers – very much a concern, because who will get hurt next? themselves or others?
It’s up to the DMV and state police to suspend a person’t driving record if they are unsafe to be on the roads. Short of that, if a person has a license they are legally allowed to drive and if auto insurqance in required they need to be able to get insurance. The alternative isn’t that they wont drive, it’s that they will still drive but will have no insurance. The rest of the people are going to pay for it anyway with higher UM/UIM premiums if these people don’t have coverage, so i’d rather make them pay for their own insurance, even if it means other have to subsidize the cost slightly.
A drivers license means that you have passed a written and driving proficiency test-its not a right to drive. If an insurance company doesn’t want to insure you, then that is their business and even though you hold the license, doesn’t mean that you have the ability to use that license.
But do you really think all of those responsible people who’s driving records that are so bad they can’t even get insurance are going to stop driving just because they haven’t insured their vehicle? Do you think they are suddenly going to come to their senses and start driving responsibly and not have any more accidents? I sure don’t. My point is the general public in Massachussets is going to be paying for these peoples poor driving (as long as these people cannot be charged more for being an assigned risk). I’d rather they be assigned to someone so at least they are paying SOMETHING as well.
It’s not just about bad drivers with horrendous records. A high risk in some insurers’ eyes can be someone with a clean driving record but a bad credit score or job. Some insurers will write a person with a bad driving record who also has a home to insure while they will bypass drivers with identical bad records who have no homes. The criteria are not all as objective as driving record. While some of these criteria can’t yet be used in Mass. as they are in other states, it’s only a matter of time.
mass is not a cede state for insurance. which means, high risk insurance is not a guarantee. if you get rejected by 3 or more companies, you then can ask the state for a high risk. at that time, you can then be assigned to a company to help share the risk as in any other state. but where do we draw the line as a state? how much high risk should we be able to cover? or cover at all? just because someone’s record is attrocious with accidents and violations, does not mean they still need to drive to work. it is part of the consequences for not following the law. afterall, is not drivign a priviledge — not a right! i have not seen it listed on the bill of rights — it does not even state that i have the right to ride a horse! we all have 2 legs and in most cases, there is public transportation. high risk drivers – very much a concern, because who will get hurt next? themselves or others?
It’s up to the DMV and state police to suspend a person’t driving record if they are unsafe to be on the roads. Short of that, if a person has a license they are legally allowed to drive and if auto insurqance in required they need to be able to get insurance. The alternative isn’t that they wont drive, it’s that they will still drive but will have no insurance. The rest of the people are going to pay for it anyway with higher UM/UIM premiums if these people don’t have coverage, so i’d rather make them pay for their own insurance, even if it means other have to subsidize the cost slightly.
A drivers license means that you have passed a written and driving proficiency test-its not a right to drive. If an insurance company doesn’t want to insure you, then that is their business and even though you hold the license, doesn’t mean that you have the ability to use that license.
But do you really think all of those responsible people who’s driving records that are so bad they can’t even get insurance are going to stop driving just because they haven’t insured their vehicle? Do you think they are suddenly going to come to their senses and start driving responsibly and not have any more accidents? I sure don’t. My point is the general public in Massachussets is going to be paying for these peoples poor driving (as long as these people cannot be charged more for being an assigned risk). I’d rather they be assigned to someone so at least they are paying SOMETHING as well.
It’s not just about bad drivers with horrendous records. A high risk in some insurers’ eyes can be someone with a clean driving record but a bad credit score or job. Some insurers will write a person with a bad driving record who also has a home to insure while they will bypass drivers with identical bad records who have no homes. The criteria are not all as objective as driving record. While some of these criteria can’t yet be used in Mass. as they are in other states, it’s only a matter of time.