Don't think these are the kind that I like with steak?

I am equally as pissed at the constant increase in auto insurance, as I have posted in the past.

Question for y'all. What would you think about car insurance companies doing an annual drug test on renewal each year for reduced rates? Would you do it? Would it even help reduce costs if only a few insurance companies offered it? Or would it take the majority of them to do it to reduce rates?

I do an annual physical at work to get a reduced rate on my health insurance. Could the same work for auto? To be clear, the thought is to have the private insurance companies have the drug testing option and not to link it with government issued driver's licenses.

I won't agree to have the little black box that monitors me for "safe driving" installed in my car, I don't like the idea of being constantly monitored. But I'm pretty sure I wouldn't mind doing a drug test to get cleared for cheaper rates.

I would think that the rate reduction wouldn't be as large as you'd think, because whether you're drug free or not, the company has to evaluate the risk of all the other drivers as well. So while you may be less likely to get into a single vehicle accident, I'd think that your chances of a 2+ vehicle accident would be unchanged. Not to mention drug free doesn't mean you aren't drunk driving, have uncontrollable road rage, are just a bad driver, etc.

I would think that the costs of a comprehensive drug test would not outweigh any rate saving for you if you had to pay for the test, nor would the reduced payouts be noticeable if the company were paying for the tests. That's just my opinion, I've never dipped my toe into being an actuary.

Do they get the DNA data too? I'm running double dash cams for my insurance credit rating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BushMasterBoy

Do they get the DNA data too? I'm running double dash cams for my insurance credit rating.

---

Fair concern I suppose. For the drug test to actually prove much, it'd have to be a hair sample. Hard to know what happens with your sample once it's taken. But that'd take the 3rd party drug testing companies deciding they can profit by selling the sample to a separate 3rd party DNA company, who is then going to give it to the FBI (like they already do). Seems like a stretch.

But hell, every baby gets a heal prick blood sample sent to the state already. If the GOV ever decides they want DNA on everyone that they can easily trace along family lines, that's the quickest place to get it.

Do insurance companies currently drop customers who are arrested for driving while on drugs?

Not that I've seen. Years ago when I first got into insurance I had some friends in underwriting (I was in claims). They showed me a policy that was going to be $46,000 for six months. The car was a 1999 Chevy Cavalier. It was a 19 year-old kid with something like 10 tickets and 6 DUIs in a year period. They just raise the rates and let you cancel when they figure out you can't pay.

When people do stupid shit with guns, we should make more laws to make guns less available because people don't take responsibility for their actions.

I have esurance and my premiums have been exactly the same for 5 years....due in a few weeks actually. Same rate again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GilpinGuy

I have esurance and my premiums have been exactly the same for 5 years....due in a few weeks actually. Same rate again.

---

Just moved to them. Saved over $200 per month between the cars, house, and RZR. My previous carrier sent me a notice with an $87 increase per month because I live here. No accidents, no tickets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gman

When people do stupid shit with guns, we should make more laws to make guns less available because people don't take responsibility for their actions.

---

I've made this same argument during very similar discussions here. Many folks don't see their own "preference over principle" dilemma.

If your principle is "I think people should be free to do as they wish, as long as they don't harm others", than you can't have a preference of "I don't think people should do X because I just don't like it....even if it doesn't harm anyone."

Yes, idiots will do dumb shit and harm others. It's a byproduct of a free society. But that behavior should have consequences to dissuade further asshattery. But to make something a crime because someone MIGHT commit a crime later is tyranny.

Outlaw X because someone might commit a crime in the future to obtain X. Seriously? What about the majority of people who WON'T commit a crime to obtain X? Now they are automatically "criminals"? Awesome. 'Merica

Deleted.