[Szemeredy]

OH, almost forgot. Had this conversation with a transplant from New York on the Northdale Flex this weekend. Why do you think car insurance rates are so much higher in Florida compared to other states? You have to drive. Everywhere. Your risk of accident is exponentially higher due to both increased time on the road that you can make a mistake and hit someone and increased volume of other drivers that can screw up and hit you. You're also on the road for longer periods of time, which adds to fatigue from other sources.

Florida gets bonus points for having a high ratio of uninsured drivers who can barely afford to drive but must do so to get around in a timely manner. And since it's required by law, they'll usually take off after an accident to avoid criminal charges. Hell, even insured drivers will bolt, if only because many can't afford what insurance companies will charge after you've been in an accident or two.

The insurance companies know this and price accordingly.

If transit were a more viable option, the reduction in cars on the road (and reduction in uninsured drivers who now have options) would improve road safety, reduce the number of collisions, and potentially reduce insurance premiums over time to more closely match other areas of the country. Even a decrease to the national average for car insurance would save area residents several hundred dollars a year, without even having to use the transit network at all.

In other words, if Greenlight et al. pass, the sales tax a car-only taxpayer would pay would likely be entirely offset by insurance rates rising at a slower rate and/or falling over time.

 

[Brian72]

OH, almost forgot. Had this conversation with a transplant from New York on the Northdale Flex this weekend. Why do you think car insurance rates are so much higher in Florida compared to other states? You have to drive. Everywhere. Your risk of accident is exponentially higher due to both increased time on the road that you can make a mistake and hit someone and increased volume of other drivers that can screw up and hit you. You're also on the road for longer periods of time, which adds to fatigue from other sources.

Florida gets bonus points for having a high ratio of uninsured drivers who can barely afford to drive but must do so to get around in a timely manner. And since it's required by law, they'll usually take off after an accident to avoid criminal charges. Hell, even insured drivers will bolt, if only because many can't afford what insurance companies will charge after you've been in an accident or two.

The insurance companies know this and price accordingly.

If transit were a more viable option, the reduction in cars on the road (and reduction in uninsured drivers who now have options) would improve road safety, reduce the number of collisions, and potentially reduce insurance premiums over time to more closely match other areas of the country. Even a decrease to the national average for car insurance would save area residents several hundred dollars a year, without even having to use the transit network at all.

In other words, if Greenlight et al. pass, the sales tax a car-only taxpayer would pay would likely be entirely offset by insurance rates rising at a slower rate and/or falling over time.

Florida is a no fault state and the PIP premiums are twice as high as those other states that are not. This has nothing to do with having to drive everywhere. Are you comparing to other no fault states or just all 50 in terms of costs?

Do you realize the trains and buses really account for a very small 'percentage' of transportation of people in those northern states, even in the large cities such as NYC? The impact on insurance, especially when you look at New York as a State and not just the small areas that have trains for daily commutes.

There are way more people and even though there are lots of people using public transportation, there is no shortage of people, probably more than here driving their cars too.

At our recent week long stay, the trains really were not that busy except during rush hour but the streets were almost always full of cars, non stop.

Aggressive drivers, speeding and older drivers who are driving too slow are the reasons why a lot of car accidents take place which in turn leads to higher auto insurance premiums.

Not to mention all of the uninsured as well as unemployed drivers, these are reasons why are Florida auto insurance rates are so high.

 

[Jasonhouse]

OH, almost forgot. Had this conversation with a transplant from New York on the Northdale Flex this weekend. Why do you think car insurance rates are so much higher in Florida compared to other states? You have to drive. Everywhere. Your risk of accident is exponentially higher due to both increased time on the road that you can make a mistake and hit someone and increased volume of other drivers that can screw up and hit you. You're also on the road for longer periods of time, which adds to fatigue from other sources.

Florida gets bonus points for having a high ratio of uninsured drivers who can barely afford to drive but must do so to get around in a timely manner. And since it's required by law, they'll usually take off after an accident to avoid criminal charges. Hell, even insured drivers will bolt, if only because many can't afford what insurance companies will charge after you've been in an accident or two.

The insurance companies know this and price accordingly.

If transit were a more viable option, the reduction in cars on the road (and reduction in uninsured drivers who now have options) would improve road safety, reduce the number of collisions, and potentially reduce insurance premiums over time to more closely match other areas of the country. Even a decrease to the national average for car insurance would save area residents several hundred dollars a year, without even having to use the transit network at all.

In other words, if Greenlight et al. pass, the sales tax a car-only taxpayer would pay would likely be entirely offset by insurance rates rising at a slower rate and/or falling over time.

I would love to see the costs explained for auto related deaths and injuries. The lost productivity, the families that get destroyed, the financial ruin, the cost of the extra first responders and healthcare infrastructure needed to serve all of those injuries... And the cost of all of that to taxpayers, businesses and individuals.

The cost of all of the extra parking needed because everyone has to drive. The land consumed by parking lots, that could be used to improve quality of life, or simply development which contributes to the tax base, rather than costing money.

More stuff like that.

 

[Szemeredy]

Florida is a no fault state and the PIP premiums are twice as high as those other states that are not. This has nothing to do with having to drive everywhere. Are you comparing to other no fault states or just all 50 in terms of costs?

We're near the top by either metric. Not Michigan high, but several hundred higher than states like Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.

Do you realize the trains and buses really account for a very small 'percentage' of transportation of people in those northern states, even in the large cities such as NYC? The impact on insurance, especially when you look at New York as a State and not just the small areas that have trains for daily commutes.

There's a big difference between urban and rural traffic. You pay much more for car insurance per year living in Tampa Bay ($1500-2000) than Gainesville or Tally ($1000) due to heavy congestion and the increased chances of an accident resulting from the sheer number of vehicles on the road. If you can drop the vehicle counts, you can drop the cost of insurance. The big difference, comparing there to here, is that we barely have higher order transit, so we're not even feeling any kind of noticeable impact here at all.

There are way more people and even though there are lots of people using public transportation, there is no shortage of people, probably more than here driving their cars too.

At our recent week long stay, the trains really were not that busy except during rush hour but the streets were almost always full of cars, non stop.

Transit is not about giving up your car. Cars are very useful, to the point that you really wouldn't want to use transit in several scenarios if you own one, even if you're a gung-ho pro-transit use it every day type of person. There are many benefits to leaving your car at home for specific trips, such as being able to relax on the way to work or get buzzed and not drive home drunk after a baseball game. That said, you're not going to want get onto a bus to go to Home Depot to pick up some lumber, or if you intend to bring home an entire shopping cart worth of items, or if you have business clients around town that you need to visit in a short time span.

Partially related, but most insurance companies also jack your rates sky high if they can verify that you commute to work more than 10 miles. If you ride transit to work in a verified manner or only use cars for discretionary trips (Progressive Snapshot program et al.), you get much cheaper rates.

As an aside, a "half-empty" train carries several thousand people during the offpeak hours, that's still an entire lane of traffic or two, which in itself saves a ton of money by deferring other infrastructure expansion projects. MetroRapid and Route 2 combined currently account for about 15% of the total individual count on Nebraska Ave, reducing traffic to the point that congestion is not much of an issue except in the two lane section through Ybor during rush hour - and that's only a "lite" rapid transit option. Route 9 ridership counts exceed FDOT vehicle average daily traffic counts along much of the corridor. Same with several of the other East Tampa corridors.

Aggressive drivers, speeding and older drivers who are driving too slow are the reasons why a lot of car accidents take place which in turn leads to higher auto insurance premiums.

Not to mention all of the uninsured as well as unemployed drivers, these are reasons why are Florida auto insurance rates are so high.

All of the above are more frequent and dangerous when there are are more drivers on the road. You said I was wrong about Florida's insurance rates, then just agreed with my original argument using different words. :dunno:

 

[Brian72]

We're near the top by either metric. Not Michigan high, but several hundred higher than states like Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.

There's a big difference between urban and rural traffic. You pay much more for car insurance per year living in Tampa Bay ($1500-2000) than Gainesville or Tally ($1000) due to heavy congestion and the increased chances of an accident resulting from the sheer number of vehicles on the road. If you can drop the vehicle counts, you can drop the cost of insurance. The big difference, comparing there to here, is that we barely have higher order transit, so we're not even feeling any kind of noticeable impact here at all.

Transit is not about giving up your car. Cars are very useful, to the point that you really wouldn't want to use transit in several scenarios if you own one, even if you're a gung-ho pro-transit use it every day type of person. There are many benefits to leaving your car at home for specific trips, such as being able to relax on the way to work or get buzzed and not drive home drunk after a baseball game. That said, you're not going to want get onto a bus to go to Home Depot to pick up some lumber, or if you intend to bring home an entire shopping cart worth of items, or if you have business clients around town that you need to visit in a short time span.

Partially related, but most insurance companies also jack your rates sky high if they can verify that you commute to work more than 10 miles. If you ride transit to work in a verified manner or only use cars for discretionary trips (Progressive Snapshot program et al.), you get much cheaper rates.

As an aside, a "half-empty" train carries several thousand people during the offpeak hours, that's still an entire lane of traffic or two, which in itself saves a ton of money by deferring other infrastructure expansion projects. MetroRapid and Route 2 combined currently account for about 15% of the total individual count on Nebraska Ave, reducing traffic to the point that congestion is not much of an issue except in the two lane section through Ybor during rush hour - and that's only a "lite" rapid transit option. Route 9 ridership counts exceed FDOT vehicle average daily traffic counts along much of the corridor. Same with several of the other East Tampa corridors.


All of the above are more frequent and dangerous when there are are more drivers on the road. You said I was wrong about Florida's insurance rates, then just agreed with my original argument using different words. :dunno:

What I disagreed with was the idea that not having rail or more transit options would reduce the rate. Your comments in the 'discussion' are making the correlation that Florida or Tampa Bay had higher insurance rates due to the fact that the car was the only option.

Whether you had much more transit options, including rail, this would not reduce the insurance costs one cent and could even add some costs depending how the rail / auto accidents or incidents may occur.

That was the point of my comments to reflect the congestion, older drivers, aggressive drivers were the cause of the high rates and no addition of transit would reduce those costs.

Miami and Orlando have rail for example, are their premiums any lower the here in Tampa Bay?

 

[Szemeredy]

Miami is a bit more expensive than Tampa, as the area has a much greater population and transit hasn't been able to unclog the roads due to the area's geography and the way transit was initially laid out (poor planning). Orlando is several hundred a year cheaper than Tampa.

 

[Jasonhouse]

Your comments in the 'discussion' are making the correlation that Florida or Tampa Bay had higher insurance rates due to the fact that the car was the only option.

And he's exactly correct.

Whether you had much more transit options, including rail, this would not reduce the insurance costs one cent and could even add some costs depending how the rail / auto accidents or incidents may occur.

That was the point of my comments to reflect the congestion, older drivers, aggressive drivers were the cause of the high rates and no addition of transit would reduce those costs.

Miami and Orlando have rail for example, are their premiums any lower the here in Tampa Bay?

You keep making these sweeping assertions as if they are widely known known facts, when they're anything but. Post your sources, or at least have the decency to preface your remarks with "in my opinion", which is all it is, lacking evidence.


Btw, if transit has no effect on car insurance prices, then why is it one of the things insurers explicitly suggest it to make use of transit to lower your rates? (See #3 at link)
http://learningcenter.statefarm.com/auto/7-factors-affecting-your-auto-insurance-premiums/

 

[Brian72]

And he's exactly correct.

There is no proof or evidence of this, just your advacacy for more public transit. The idea that Miami hasn't provided enough of an impact with rail to reduce the rates is not a valid argument. Also, Orlando has just started its rail venture and the fact of lower rates hasn't been affected since sunrail was added.

You keep making these sweeping assertions as if they are widely known known facts, when they're anything but. Post your sources, or at least have the decency to preface your remarks with "in my opinion", which is all it is, lacking evidence.

I did post a source and no where did it suggest that the lack of other transportation options was related to the higher costs of auto insurance.

Btw, if transit has no effect on car insurance prices, then why is it one of the things insurers explicitly suggest it to make use of transit to lower your rates? (See #3 at link)
http://learningcenter.statefarm.com/auto/7-factors-affecting-your-auto-insurance-premiums/

Sure, I can tell my insurance provider that I will only drive a certain amount of miles per week, that could equal a reduction for myself as an insured driver. That is not going to affect the entire community and is a very specific related point.

 

[Jasonhouse]

There is no proof or evidence of this, just your advacacy for more public transit.

So what you're saying is, people who ride transit don't count?

Because that's the only way that people using transit has 'zero' impact on the roads, the congestion of those roads, the number of accidents that occur on those roads and how much insurance is needed to pay for all of the accidents on those roads.

 

[For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A.]

Our insurance rates have more to do with PIP. Transit has little to do with it on the grand scheme. That is why Miami has the highest premiums in the country. There is so much PIP fraud down there. A lot of that fraud has come to Tampa Bay. If we went back to a fault system, it would lower costs but clog up the courts. However, Florida on the whole is not bad for car insurance. We are right around the national average. My insurance while I lived in Gainesville dropped considerably from Tampa and my insurance in Jacksonville was also a lot lower than Tampa. Again, it has everything to do with PIP and fraud.

http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/insurance/2014/02/03/expensive-cities-car-insurance/

 

[HARTride 2012]

Moved this discussion out of the transit thread...

For FLORIDA is correct, our rates are so high primarily due to PIP. The last time I read somewhere, parts of FL among the top areas running rampant with staged accidents. I have no idea if the recent changes to the PIP law has had any effect on decreasing fraud, but I doubt it has.

 

[Szemeredy]

Fraud is a big part of it, yes. That fraud is made easier in congested areas, as you have no escape route and can't avoid packs of cars when a road is completely full. It's also very obvious when you're getting boxed in for a staged accident when the congestion isn't there.

 

[HARTride 2012]

^^
Yep, and with many staged incidents. The other party often complains of injury that may be questionable and the vehicle they may be driving is an older one. The good thing is, insurance companies are doing more to help combat fraud on their end, especially with staged incidents.

 

[Brian72]

So what you're saying is, people who ride transit don't count?

Because that's the only way that people using transit has 'zero' impact on the roads, the congestion of those roads, the number of accidents that occur on those roads and how much insurance is needed to pay for all of the accidents on those roads.

What I am saying is they don't count in terms of insurance premium costs. There was never any personal interest in the topic, only trying to clarify the facts in regards to insurance costs.

 

[Szemeredy]

^^
Yep, and with many staged incidents. The other party often complains of injury that may be questionable and the vehicle they may be driving is an older one. The good thing is, insurance companies are doing more to help combat fraud on their end, especially with staged incidents.

The interstate redesigns will help as well, as shoulders and medians are now designed to be the size of full travel lanes. Even if you get boxed, you should still have an escape route if in the far left/right lanes. Fraudsters will always find a way, but at least we're making it harder for them to pull it off.