I am in Dallas and have a pretty good driving record. I have been paying about $580 per 6-months. Recently, I looked into Progressive`s web site, the were offering the same coverage for $440 per 6 months.
Slight problem, I have a speeding ticket from 2 years ago, 43/30 from a Dallas cop. I made the mistake of paying it rather than lawyering or taking defensive driving. My understanding was that in Texas they can`t raise insurance rates for tickets, only for DWI, reckless driving, or accidents. At least that`s how Geico has explained it in their policy and I thought these rules were set by the TX board of insurance. 3 points for DWI, 2 for reckless, one for at-fault accident, about 15 percent per point.
Geico never raise my rates for the ticket.
However, applying for Progressive the difference between having the ticket and not having it is $440 versus $620. I tried putting in an accident the rate went to over $800.
Is there any way I can get around this, perhaps by getting the ticket expunged or are there other insurers who might not have such a stiff surcharge?
insurance providers and price them out.
from Hell (tm), that sounds like a pretty sweet deal.
It is well known that Geico is a rabid LiDAR gun "donor". revenue collection, ahem, law enforcement agencies is so they can increase their profit margins by surcharging ticketed clients. the antithesis of Geico, at least from a few sources. I guess it just depends on your location and circumstances. All in$urance companies are basically out to rape your wallet bigtime, and private ones are likely even worse than government controlled ones. liability claim you`d expect the premium to be substantially higher than otherwise. three "competitors", as per the claim they make in their well aired commercial?
USA) is that your driving record is no longer the sole determinant of your premium rate. Progressive was the first to change; now all the majors are piling on. The big secret: at least half your premium rate is determined by your credit history. I`ll bet that when you actually call a Progressive agent or actually sign up for coverage via their website, they`ll ask for your Social Security number. This is the pass key into the credit bureau world. If you`re late on your MasterCard, you`ll pay more for insurance regardless of your spotless driving record.
Another little-known issue about insurance. It`s the last financial activity regulated solely by the 50 states. Unlike banking, health care, investments/securities, et al, there`s no central Federal regulator of insurance. This is why the rules change so much from state to state.
high ($4k/year for two cars), but I`m in a high risk group and they`re lower than the other companies I`ve checked. They always pick up their phone after one ring, and the customer service reps are almost always helpful and friendly and you don`t need to be transferred from place to place to take care of business. But who knows, my opinion could change if they jack my rates if I get a ticket or file a claim higher prices. Another good insurance company is esurance.com, which generally ignores minor tickets as long as you don`t get too many of them. Their rates are pretty good too, if they`re available in his state
the policies of known RD users or refuses to in$ure RD users in the first place. "minor" ticket for you. The problem is that their definition of a "minor" ticket likely falls within the grace officers usually give anyway! conviction within a year. Three tix in a year makes for a $640 surcharge iirc, and four convictions yields a $1260 tax. One`s allowed just one "free" conviction. As for ignoring minor tix, hahaha, that`ll happen when Hell freezes over! (No, I`m not referring to Hell MI
use radar all that much. I know most of the speed traps like the back of my hand around here. some quotes for drivers with and without tickets, and the rates are usually the same. They consider minor offenses anything but misdemeanor convictions, and if you got those they probably won`t insure you anyway. convictions in a year your license would be suspended anyway.
is 12 points, which is probably enough for a written warning, but not necessarily a prohibition[*]. Otoh a prohibition is always a possibility, and more likely if one or more of the convictions is for "excessive" speeding (>25mph over limit) or "careless driving" (6 points rather than 3). Since there is no set threshold for a prohibition, and one can theoretically be banned after one conviction, it`s always smart to try to keep one`s license clean. [*] A prohibition is effectively a license suspension, except aiui it doesn`t go on the record as a suspension, nor does the government share this information with [much of] the rest of North America. Full suspensions are only possible for misdemeanor/felony driving convictions (most commonly DUI).
automatic suspension of 30 (or is it 60?) days, even, in theory, if you had three convictions of 1 mph over.
as well as use extreme vigilance coupled with a good RD on the highway, esp. in NY with its silly 65mph limit, which is every bit as bad as our 62/68mph nonsense.
Of course, the info I posted for here defines the standard guidelines, but due to the highly discretionary system (decisions made by or on behalf of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles), people have been known to be prohibited for 9 months for a single +50mph conviction, while others get half a dozen or more tix in the space of two years and still don`t get banned. Some people have appealed this discretionary system in court as being unfair and unconstitutional, I believe, but so far to no avail, since after all, driving is a privilege. Speed limits and stuff suck, but I think on balance, it is still better that driving remain a privilege. But that being the case, like I said, it shouldn`t be a necessity. Unfortunately there is nada in the way of public transit and air-2-ground integration here. Even a new low cost regional airline created by Air Canada was given the highly amusing and appropriate name "Zip". Yep, that describes our public transit options very nicely.
suspension for 4 tix (convictions) pa.
a week, or a day here in NJ.
Luckily not me, but easily applies to the younger crowd. Last time I got stopped in NYC, where they shouldn`t have traffic cops anyway, the cop came back to my car, handed me back my license and insurance cards and said, "I`m gonna give your ticket to that car overthere." Works for me.
for running a red light, or stand on the shoulder and pick out people bypassing the heavy traffic (good!), or stand in the HOV lane watching for the HOV-1ers. The problem is, often times they are in such a bad spot to watch red light runners they wind up pulling over one yellow light runner and one red light runner. And, of course, there`s no evidence the yellow light runner can present to his defense.
living in your house that is unlicensed; (a new one i heard about) factor in on an otherwise good diving record. I dont feel it should be my problem that drivers of red suv 4x4s are higher risk as a group. why can`t we be rated on our record? It seems the insurance can gouge and gouge and by law we hve to comply. Why Not federal regulation?
In TX, a teenage driver under 18 loses their license for two tickets. The first one they have to come into court with their parents.
And here, two convictions can also often mean loss of driving privileges, usually for a month (theoretically up to 2 years), but it applies to ALL N-license drivers. Unfortunately, the graduated licensing baloney applies to adults as well. It`s yet another of ICBC`s shameful (or shameless, maybe?) revenue generation schemes insidiously disguised as a safety motivated program. "BC`s drive to save lives" would be more appropriately reworded "BC`s drive to fill the public coffers".
on your credit rating. Ironically, the only flag against my record is "too many credit inquiries", several from insurance companies, the others from mortgage brokers, none instigated by myself. I guess the [il]logic is that if you shop around too much for credit you are a poorer risk.
Banks are happiest lending to people who don`t need it.
driving anyway and will charge you for coverage. I haven`t heard of this being applied to someone who isn`t licensed, and I`m not sure it`s legal. Non-drivers do exist, after all. males have a worse record as a group, but a few bad apples have most of the accidents.
But a law regulating this practice would probably create worse problems.
California now does prohibit charging by age, so our companies just charge for "number of years you have been driving" instead. Same thing except that they now get to screw the occasional person who chose not to learn to drive until he was 40.