Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

spypol t1_jbgbk2c wrote

Reply to comment by Unspec7 in So now we're not even bothering with the fake paper plates huh? by 101ina45

Do you have evidence that they are the same?

(we don't work for you for free)

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgfnry wrote

Sure. Car insurance rates will give us a rough idea, since premiums go up if hit and run identifications go down, as insurance companies wouldn't be able to recover costs from the runner.

Data source

Average insurance premium for states that do not require a front plate: $2215.29

Average insurance premium for states that do require a front plate: $2047.38

An 8% difference, and that's assuming the only reason for the difference is hit and run rates, which is obviously not true. Given that even assuming a worst case and unrealistic scenario only results in a 8% difference, I think it's safe to say that there is no practical difference between the two groups.

1

spypol t1_jbglcpd wrote

Thanks for doing the research. I disagree with your conclusion. I would probably say that we don’t have enough evidence at this point (or at least it is too tenuous) to conclude anything.

2

Unspec7 t1_jbgxeo9 wrote

>I would probably say that we don’t have enough evidence at this point (or at least it is too tenuous) to conclude anything.

I agree. Insurance rates are a pretty tenuous connection as we all know how complicated premium calculations can be. A dog barks in Ohio and rates go up in Mississippi. I figured it might be somewhat illustrative, but it's still only a potential correlation, and not a causation.

1

Knobbies4Ever t1_jbgo8f3 wrote

Very interesting that the difference in insurance costs is $170/year between states that require a front plate, and those that don't. OK, "only" 8%, but $170 is a decent chunk of change.

What's really weird is that many of the "no front plate" states are low cost-of-living states. Seems like that would help push insurance rates down, right?

Team Front Plate has NJ, NY, CA, MA - all of New England and the west coast - notoriously high COL parts of the country - lots of bureaucracy, regulations etc. Yet the average insurance premiums are $170/year less among this cohort.

Honestly I was surprised by this data. What do you think explains it?

1

Unspec7 t1_jbgx7uj wrote

>Honestly I was surprised by this data. What do you think explains it?

There's a lot of factors that go into insurance premium calculation. For example, for states that don't require vehicle inspections, insurance might be higher due to a higher risk of injury due to potentially unsafe vehicles. No fault states might see higher premiums due to being unable to recover from the other side. Etc.

1

Knobbies4Ever t1_jbi000j wrote

My guess was states with higher-cost insurance would have more / higher-cost claims to pay out... or a regulatory environment that allows insurance companies to gouge their customers to increase profits.

I'm not in that business, but know money talks, bullshit walks.

Glad NJ has front plates... our car insurance is expensive enough already!

1