In California drivers can keep a moving violation off their driving record by attending traffic school, however, 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.
