Why is auto insurance ridiculously overpriced for those who drive few miles?
There are several aspects to this but at a high level it boils down to A lot goes in to insurance rating and risk projecting.  You can't adjust a single variable and expect a proportional change in your premium, 7,000 miles per year just won't be 70% of the cost of 10,000 miles per year, because there are a lot of other things in play as well.  To further address premium adjustments.  Consider this: Even if your liability coverage did scale with perfect correlation to your mileage (using the same 70% from above, 7,000 miles per year versus 10,000 miles per year) then your premium composition is: $200 to $170 is 15%.  No change will have a direct linear correlation to your total premium because there are different component pieces of the total premium.  Fixed costs may be built in to the amounts for other component pieces of the premium, for example maybe no line of coverage ever has a cost below $X. Obviously these numbers are all made up Additionally, and also less considered is the fact that your liability also scales because of a lot of factors that have nothing to do with you.  It might be the other cars that are on the road, it might be that more densely populated areas have more fender benders.  For example if you live in Beverly Hills you have a much higher likelihood of accidentally bumping a $70-$80-$90-$100k+ car than you do in say, rural Wisconsin.  If your zip code is gentrifying and everyone starts buying Mercedes, your liability coverage increases.   You can not adjust one single variable and decide that you are lower risk than all insurers think you are.  If you shop this coverage and all insurers are within a nominal margin of pricing for the same coverage levels, there isn't much to argue with; you are simply riskier than you think you are and the variable you are focused on is not as meaningful as you think it is. Not all miles carry the same amount of risk. A survey by Progressive indicated that accidents are most likely to occur within 5 miles of home, and 77% of accidents occur within 15 miles of home. Only 1% of accidents occurred 50 or more miles from home. That's from 2002, but it seems unlikely to have changed much. Since the miles closest to your home carry more risk, they cost more, and low-mileage discounts reflect that. There are per-mile insurance options in a few states which could save you money, but they do constant monitoring via that ODB2 telematics device, and other insurers offer discounts if you accept their monitoring either in perpetuity or for a limited period of time.  Without monitoring, insurers don't know if that 4,000 miles of driving is spread into a few mid-day trips each week, or maybe you're doing all that driving from midnight to 4am on weekends (fatalities far more likely), or from 5-7pm during weekdays (accidents far more likely). Personally, I save ~10% by being a 'low-mileage' driver, and am currently in the middle of a 90-day monitoring, so might go lower, but given that accidents are far more likely close to home, 10% feels pretty significant and appropriate. 4000 miles a year is not a few! European average is about 9000... But nevertheless... But when it comes to risk, then: 1) Nothing stops you from changing circumstances and drive 10 times as much as in previous yers. The insurance remains the same. The only thing the insurance company can do is to charge you more next year (taking the miles you've made this year as a basis for calculations)* 2) Drivers who drive very seldom are a huge risk because of their low experience. I know a few people that drive more than 100 miles only a few times a year, and on average once a year have accident during that drives. It doesn't mean that an average sunday driver have similar risk of accident as daily driver, but it's in no way similar.  *) Germany/Switzerland based, the whole EU is likely to be the same Many services charge prices that do not scale linearly with usage.  This is because the service provider has fixed costs that they must recoup by charging a rate with a fixed component.  A 5-mile taxi ride is unlikely to cost half what a 10-mile taxi ride costs.  Even a half sandwich at a sandwich place usually costs more than half of what a full sandwich costs.  In this respect, insurance is no different from many other items you may purchase. Some proportion of the costs of a policy have little to no relationship to miles driven.  Think of costs of underwriting, and more especially sales/marketing/client acquisition costs (auto insurance isn't in the same league as non-term life insurance (where the commissions and other selling expenses typically exceed the first year's worth of premiums), but the funny TV ads and/or agent commissions aren't free), as well as general business overhead. Also, as noted by quid, some proportion of claim risk isn't correlated to distance covered (think theft, flood, fire, etc.). There are also differences in the miles that are likely to be driven by a non-commercial/vehicle-for-hire driver who puts 25k miles a year vs. one who puts 7k per year.  The former is generally going to be doing more driving at higher speeds on less-congested freeways while the latter will be doing more of their driving on crowded urban roads.  The former pattern generally has a lower expected value of claims both due to having fewer cars per road-mile, fewer intersections and driveways, and also having any given collision be more likely to result in a fatality (paralysis or other lifetime disability claims are generally going to exceed what the insurer would pay out on a fatality). Other people lie to the companies about how many miles they drive, so they can't take the mileage figures literally.   You aren't specifying whether you want liability only, or more-comprehensive insurance.  Stuff happens when you aren't driving.  Cars get stolen.  Other drivers hit parked cars and leave.  Trees fall on parked cars.   Move to Virginia where insurance is not required.   Just pay $500 a year for not having insurance, and be careful. First you have to understand that insurance is basically a social system, just with Shareholders. Insurance costs consist of 3 factors: Now, to encourage a low-risk behavior a separating factor is search in the vast amount of statistical data. Drivers experience, miles and type of car being the most common, but also other things like oldtimer-status etc. are possible. If it so happens that the 3-5000 miles driver do only in average have 80% of the damage-costs of a comparable group 5-8000 miles driver, you´ll get the 20% bonus on factor 1.  So the answer is, it is not overpriced, there is just no linear relationship to mileage. You can´t divide your insureds in too many groups or you´ll miss the mutual aspect of insurance. If everybody just pays his own risk, he can just do so in his bank and save on overhead and profit. There is plenty of over-rationalisation in the majority of these answers, when the simple answer is that it is simply down to statistics. Say an insurer had two pieces of information about two separate drivers: annual mileage, and whether they had had an accident in the last 3 years. Driver A drives 10,000 miles a year and hasn't had an accident in the past 3 years. Driver B drives 500 miles a year and hasn't had an accident in the past 3 years. Which would the insurer think was the safer bet? The answer is A, and this makes his premiums lower. The reason for this is that the insurer has a lot more data about Driver A than Driver B: they know that Driver A has driven 30,000 miles without having an accident. This could, of course, be luck, or a fluke, but it is likely that Driver A is actually a safe driver. The chance that Driver A hasn't had an accident just through sheer luck and that they are actually a terrible driver is quite slim. On the other hand, Driver B has only driven 1,500 miles in the past three years. Whilst this seems like prima facie evidence of them being as safe a driver as Driver A, it is much more likely that Driver B could have driven 1,500 miles and avoided an accident through sheer luck, even though they are a terrible driver.  This means drivers who drive low amounts of mileage will be penalised relative to other drivers who have high mileage. It has nothing to do with insurers taking a judgement that 'doing more mileage makes you more experienced' or 'makes you a better driver' as others have suggested here (although, it is probably true - it's not quantifiable from an insurer's perspective). because it cost the insurer more, obviously. while this sounds snarky, it's important to realize that actual insurance companies set their insurance rates based on actual historical costs. for some reason people who report low miles have cost the company more dollars per reported mile than people who report high miles. in that sense, insurance is not overpriced. if it were truly overpriced, then an insurer would specialize in such insurance and make a killing on the free market. the more interesting questions is why do drivers who claim to travel very few miles cost the insurance companies so much per mile? that question has a host of possible answers and it's difficult to say which is the largest cost. here are just a few: "One reason is because car insurance is mandated. Mandated insurance means the government is forcing people to purchase it, which also means that everyone must have the opportunity to purchase it at a reasonable cost, even if the insurer would normally not choose to insure them. In mandated industries, risk pools are formed which means that as a whole, lower risk members partially subsidize higher risk members. In mandated industries that have a large risk variance, the insurance system would break down if everyone was charged their ""fair share"" because high risk members would be unable to afford a policy. (This is even more prominent with health insurance than car insurance because the difference in risk is vastly greater.) On a positive note, perhaps you may get a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that you are helping out others ""in need""." Insurance rates are about assessing risk.  If the insurer has no way to reliably and easily assess usage, they will not reduce the premiums.  Many companies are providing tracking devices that connect to the OBD-II port. This not only tracks actual miles driven, but can typically track aggressive driving, time of day, length of trips, and other information. Unless you are using this kind of device to give the insurer actionable feedback on your driving habits, do not expect any discounts for mileage or usage. People who drive long distances tend to do more of their driving on larger, well-built roads (freeways / motorways) that are designed for high-speed driving. Although some people find them intimidating, they are much safer in terms of accidents per kilometre driven for several reasons:
As a recent college grad who switched to his own car insurance, many of the things I did myself are reflected here. The #1 thing I did was find out what coverages I had, what coverages some friends of mine had (car enthusiasts mostly - they're the most informed on this stuff), and then figured out what kind of coverages I wanted. From there, I went around getting quotes from anyone and everyone and eventually built out a sizeable spreadsheet that made it obvious which company was going to offer me the best rate at a given coverage level. Something else to remember - not all insurance companies look at past accidents and violations (speeding, etc) the same. In my search, I found some have a 3-year scope on accidents and violations, while others were as much as 5 years. So, if your driving record isn't a shining example (mine isn't perfect), you could potentially save money by considering insurance through a company that will see fewer violations/incidents than another because of the size of their scope. I ended up saving $25/mo by choosing a company that had a 3-year scope, which was on the cusp of when my last violation/incident occurred. Insurance companies will also give out discounts for younger drivers based on GPA average. If you have kids and they maintain a high GPA, you might be able to get a discount there. Not all companies offer it, so if they do it's worth finding out how much it is "Ok sure, your homeowners insurance now includes all those things. Floods, hurricanes, terrorism... its also now twice the price. You're on /r/finance, not /r/politics. You should understand that you pay a premium for every risk that you off-lay. It is well known that basic homeowners insurance does not cover floods. If you want it, you can get it. Most people in a non flood-prone area will say, ""I'm willing to take that risk, I'll save $500/yr and not get it"". Would you rather the government just force you to get it?  You just complained about Auto Insurance ""forcing"" you to get uninsured driving insurance. You can't have it both ways." Every insurance company has a pricing factor for every car they insure that along with factors about the driver is used to set rates. The story was that AAA was adjusting it's factor for Tesla models. Insurance companies do this all time as they collect more data. This is only news because people like to talk about Tesla. "Discussions around expected values and risk premiums are very useful, but there's another thing to consider: cash flow. Some individuals have high value assets that are vital to them, such as  transportation or housing.  The cost of replacing these assets is prohibitive to them: their cashflow means that their rate of saving is too low to accrue a fund large enough to cover the asset's loss. However, their cashflow is such that they can afford insurance. While it may be true that, over time, they would be ""better off"" saving that money in an asset replacement fund, until that fund reaches a certain level, they are unprotected. Thus, it's not just about being risk averse; there are some very pragmatic reasons why individuals with low disposable income might elect to pay for insurance when they would be financially better off without it." You're trading a fixed liability for an unknown liability. When I graduated from college, I bought a nice used car. Two days later, a deer came out of nowhere, and I hit it going 70 mph on a highway. The damage? $4,500. If I didn't have comprehensive insurance, that would have been a real hit to me financially. For me, I'd rather just pay the modest cost for the comprehensive. "Last week I bought a Toyota RAV4 XLE that comes with Driver Assist (will steer you car if you are not in the lane), stop the car is slower speed if you are about to hit another car or pedestrian, Radar to keep distance and avoid slowing cars in cruise control, automatic high beam, etc.  I called my insurance and asked if there are any discounts for all these safety features.  They said ""No!"", but I do get a discount of passive anti-theft which is now standard on almost every car.  It will take the insurance industry 10 years to start giving discounts for this new safety devices... because, meanwhile, they don't have to give discounts and keep all the money." "Personally, I would: a) consider selling the car and replacing it with a 'cheaper' one.  If you only drive it once a month, you are probably not getting much 'value' from owning a nice car. b) move the car (either current or replacement) out to your parent's place.  The cost of a plane ticket is about the same as the cost of the garage, and your parents would likely hold on to it for free (assuming they live in the suburbs, and parking is not an issue) option b should lower your insurance costs (very low annual mileage) and at least you'll get some frequent flier miles out of your $350 a month. That being said: this is a ""quality of life"" issue, which means that there isn't going to be a firm answer.   If you are 25, have little debt, which you are paying off on time, have an emergency fund, and you are making regular contributions to your 401k, you are certainly NOT ""being seriously irresponsible"" by owning a nice car.  But you may decide that the $1000 a month could be better spent somewhere else." "Insurance rates are based on statistics manipulated by experts in actuarial ""science"". Actuaries look at how many times different makes and models get into accidents or are targeted by thieves, and how expensive it is to repair them. Many auto and finance sites will publish lists of the best and worst insurance risks. Family style cars like minivans and family sedans fair well, while sports cars get more expensive insurance. New models will get the risk of similar models until there is statistical data on them. One other take away from this discussion is that inexpensive insurance usually coincides with cheap repair costs, lowering your total cost of operation for your vehicle." Some countries don't have robust life insurance markets.  Some countries have horrible travel fatality statistics.  Some countries don't have very good liability law enforcement.   Is $2 on top of a train ticket in the US to send your family a $20,000 payment if you die on the train worth it, probably not.  The fatality rate is pretty low here, lots of people have their own life insurance, and the US justice system carries a big liability stick. If you're moving around on trains a lot in other countries where the fatality rate is much higher, you can't buy life insurance on your own, and the legal system doesn't punish negligent operators it might be meaningful, especially for frequent travelers who have dependents. Is buying this coverage a reasonable and cost effective way to insure a person's life, no, clearly not.  You're buying a policy to insure your life against being mauled by tiger in New York on a Tuesday, when you've never seen a tiger and don't live in New York.  Obviously, if you want life insurance you would not buy coverage this narrow. Personally, I think this is really akin to an impulse buy candy bar at a checkout line of a market.  They're dangling this in front of you for an amount of money that's insignificant because some people will pick it up without thinking about it.  They're tickling your fear of death just enough to get a dollar from you, but not enough to keep you off the train.  And obviously the math works out for the insurer or it would not be offered. Separately, regarding probability, it's not about an incident occurring in a train, it's an incident occurring in this particular train on this particular day/time.  If there's a 1 in 10,000 chance of dying on a train in a year the chance of dying on a particular train on a particular day is likely to be one in billions or more.  This really isn't about whether or not this coverage is valuable given the risk, it's about whether or not they can get you to impulsively spend a dollar. "For a car, you're typically compelled to carry insurance, and picking up ""comprehensive"" coverage (fire, theft, act of god) is normally cheap. If the car was purchased with a loan, the lender will stipulate that you carry comprehensive and collision insurance.  People buy insurance because it limits their liability. In the grand scheme of things, pricing in a fixed rate of loss every year (insurance premium + potential deductible) is appealing to many versus having to cover a catastrophic loss when your car is wrecked or stolen." It's definitely broken window fallacy. The entire premise is that vehicle accidents cost money and productivity. If they can be avoided, we will be more productive. If we had technology that made car insurance obsolete, everyone in that industry could do another productive activity.  Textbook broken window fallacy. "One way to look at insurance is that it replaces an unpredictable expenses with a predictable fees. That is, you pay a set monthly amount (""premium"") instead of the sudden costs associated with a collision or other covered event. Insurance works as a business, which means they intend to make a substantial profit for providing that service. They put a lot of effort in to measuring probabilities, and carefully set the premiums to get make a steady profit*. The odds are in their favor. You have to ask yourself: if X happened tomorrow, how would I feel about the financial impact? Also, how much will it cost me to buy insurance to cover X? If you have a lot of savings, plenty of available credit, a bright financial future, and you take the bus to work anyway, then totaling your car may not be a big deal, money wise. Skip the insurance. If you have no savings, plenty of debt, little prospects for that improving, and you depend on your car to get to work just so you can pay what you already owe, then totaling your car would probably be a big problem for you. Stick with insurance. There is a middle ground. You can adjust your deductible. Raise it as high as you can comfortably handle. You cover the small stuff out of pocket, and save the insurance for the big ticket items. *Insurance companies also invest the money they take as premiums, until they pay out a claim. That's not relevant to this discussion, though." Probably my biggest cost saving is to make my own sandwiches for lunch. I take this one step further by buying joints of meat to roast and slice for the filling. This not only tastes better but is quite a bit cheaper. For example today I roasted a 5 kg ham (about 11 lbs), it cost me £16 to buy (around $25), but I've sliced it, wrapped the slices in foil and frozen them. I've made around 20 packs, each pack has enough ham for sandwiches for me and my wife for a day. I also do this with beef, chicken and turkey and just get a pack of whatever we fancy out of the freezer the night before so it's defrosted enough to make sandwiches in the morning. The donor might need to pay gift tax if they give money directly to you. Paying the tuition on your behalf (giving the money directly to the school) is exempt from gift tax. But that's not your problem, it is the donor's. There's no tax on receiving gifts, and you're not forbidden to receive gifts by virtue of being on a visa.