After all, common sense and statistical evidence prove that drivers in rural areas and the suburbs have a substantially lower risk of being involved in an accident or filing a claim than drivers from more populated areas such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland with more traffic, more crime and more accidents. Since insurance premiums are based on a driver's assessed risk, it only makes sense that those of us in rural areas should pay less for auto insurance than drivers in urban areas presenting a greater risk and higher cost on the system. According to evidence produced before the Court of Appeals, disallowing the use of a driver's location in determining auto insurance rates could result in rate increases for drivers in 51 of California's 58 counties. Those rate increases range anywhere from 3 percent to an outrageous 85 percent in rural counties. Just as with grocery bills and housing costs, it is not fair to have residents of rural communities pay more in order to subsidize our counterparts from more affluent urban areas.
Subsidies have their place in society, so long as they benefit society as a whole.
But the system being advocated by the Big Cities is one in which poorer residents from rural areas would be subsidizing richer policyholders in more affluent urban areas. That is just not fair and it certainly is not what voters had in mind when they approved Proposition 103. Despite this and despite conclusive rulings from California's highest courts, the Big City advocates are sure to press on in their attempt to have us pay more for auto insurance just so they can pay less. Assemblyman Dean Florez, D-Shafter, represents the 30th Assembly District, which includes portions of Kern County.