This is a textbook example of a study that mistakes correlation for causation,
the cardinal sin of bad science. As is mentioned in the article, blue-collar
workers are more likely to live in urban areas (while white-collar workers tend
to live in suburban areas). Driving in urban areas makes one more likely to be
in high-liability accidents (due to increased congestion, more difficult
parking, and more pedestrians), and people living in urban areas are more likely
to have their cars stolen or broken into. All those things mean higher
rates.So it's not whether you've got a blue-collar job or
a white-collar job or no job - it's really all about where you live.
There's a reason why the first thing they ask you when you're shopping
for car insurance is your zip code.
If a certain group tends to get in more accidents, then I'm fine with that
group being charged more for insurance.Pretty simple really.The fact that many of them had clean records does not make negligible
the fact they still fall into a category that has been proven to typically have
worse driving habits.
It is illegal to drive without liability insurance in most states. But, lots of
people get away with having no liability insurance because there is nothing
prevent them from using their automobile, insured or not. If they cause an
accident, then there really isn't much the law abiding citizen can do to
cover his losses. Could the law be written so that if there is no liability
insurance on an automobile, then the license plates must be surrendered (to a
county office or some other place) until proof of liability insurance is
produced. To me this is a far more important issue than who has to pay higher
rates. I think that citizens of a state that had such a law by taking uninsured
automobiles right off the streets would probably pay lower insurance rates.
When the Govt. makes insurance mandatory, the insurance companies can and do
anything they want. They tell us it is for our own protection, but we pay for
it. Boy, do we pay for it.