Prop 17 Discourages Going Car-Free

Published on


Efforts to encourage car-sharing and ways of getting around that
don’t involve owning a car would be undermined by Proposition 17, a June
ballot measure that I wrote about in this week’s cover
[1]. While I didn’t mention that impact in the story, it is
of real concern to people like me who don’t own cars and encourage
others to try the car-free lifestyle on for size.

The measure, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, allows companies to
substantially increase monthly premiums on customers who haven’t had
continuous insurance coverage. That would be one more barrier to people
making the leap of faith to give up their cars and rely on bicycles or
public transit, a switch that ought to be encouraged in increasingly
traffic-congested cities such as San Francisco.

As I wrote about in another cover story last year
[2], I made the decision several years ago to give up my car, although
I still sometimes rent cars to visit my children. Consumer advocates
say the cost of renting cars or using car-sharing services –
particularly locally owned companies that can’t self-insure like the
corporate behemoths – could increase and there would be a disincentive
to consider trying it.

“Anyone who has used car sharing (or for that matter rental cars) as
their means of transportation would almost certainly not be considered
continuously insured and would face the Prop 17 surcharge if they had
to go back to private insurance at some point,” Doug Heller, an
insurance expert with Consumer Watchdog, told me.

Currently, the law allows insurance companies to issue discounts to
those who have maintained continuous policies with them (Prop. 17 would
expand that to allow drivers to change companies and keep their
discounts, which would be offset by surcharges on customers who were new
or had a lapse in their coverage), and those companies use that
discount to actively try to discourage people from experimenting with
car-free lifestyles.

Brian Smith, who works for an environmental nonprofit in Oakland,
recalls getting that kind of hard sell when he made the leap and got rid
of his car.

“When I cancelled my car insurance, AAA warned me not to. They said,
‘We will make it much more expensive when you come back.’ I said, ‘I
sold my car, I don’t need car insurance.’ They said ‘We are just giving
you a warning, Sir.’ I said, ‘Cancel it you fucking bastards. I’m never
coming back.’ That was 10 years ago.’” Smith wrote to me about the

Proponents of the measure say it would save some drivers $250 per
year, while opponents (citing data from Mercury) say the surcharges for
everyone else would be about $1,000 per year. So for the soldiers who
go off to boot camp, the college students who get an internship in a
city with good public transit or bikeways, unemployed individuals who
need to trim expenses, or people who want to experiment with going
car-free, they would all pay for more for insurance if they went back
to driving a car than those who continuously maintained a car-dependent

So, add this to the list of good reasons – and there are many of them
in this week’s cover story — to oppose Prop. 17.

Consumer Watchdog
Consumer Watchdog
Providing an effective voice for American consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Non-partisan.

Latest Videos

Latest Releases

In The News

Latest Report

Support Consumer Watchdog

Subscribe to our newsletter

To be updated with all the latest news, press releases and special reports.

More Releases