In California a driver can keep a moving violation off their driving
record by attending traffic school-- but they can do so only once every
18 months. By so doing, drivers can, supposedly, maintain less
expensive insurance on their vehicle by appearing to be less of a risk
than they really are.
But surely the insurance companies must try to recapture this lost data,
if they can, in order to correctly evaluate risk. For anybody with no
violations (points) on their record, the insurance company must assume
that such a person has 0 or 1 point, or .5 points on average. But for
anybody with 1 violation on their record, the insurance company can
safely assume that such person actually has 2 violations, since the
rational thing for everybody to do is to go to traffic school to have
one point removed.
It seems to me, that traffic school makes everybody out to be a greater
risk than their driving record indicates. If risk is a primary factor in
an insurance company's rate determination, doesn't that mean that
traffic school makes everybody's rates higher than they otherwise would
Be?
Best regards,
Michael Giesbrecht
Internet Engineering
Lucasfilm Ltd.
