Photo: paul (dex) My Michigan-dwelling grandson will be 15 soon and will start learning to drive. He can’t get a full license until he’s 17, though, as the state wants to limit times and amounts of teen driving, presumably for safety reasons. That’s sensible – teen drivers are more likely to get into accidents. Despite this, the state prevents insurance companies from requiring people to purchase additional coverage for the teenager, even though between ages 16 and 17 the boy will be driving on his own.
Why is this? It seems strange for an insurance policy not to reflect known risks. Apparently, this restriction is imposed by the State of Michigan. It is yet another way in which the state subsidizes purchases of the local product – automobiles. (The same thing is not true in Texas; once a kid obtains a limited license that allows him/her to drive without an adult, additional insurance must be purchased.) (HT: AH)
and 
. You can also watch it on 
@Vi
Poor teen driving is not just an issue of practice. Teens are more likely to participate in other risky behaviors and are just less risk-averse in general. The average first-time driver who is 30 is going to be a safer driver than the average first-time driver who is 16.
Vi @1: No, the *amount* of behind-the-wheel time is not restricted with a “Level 2 Intermediate” license for 16-year-olds; they are prevented from driving between midnight and five a.m. without an adult (age 21) licensed driver (unless they’re traveling to or from emplyment). In fact, there’s a *minimum* supervised driving time to get the license.
Full details are at http://www.drivinglaws.org/tenn/michigant.php, including the minimum qualifications for applying for each stage.
Presumably the insurance companies shift the price of risk from parents to the driving public. So the risk is still covered, but the incentive to keep your kid off the road isn’t there.
The difference between a new chef and a teenage driver is that a teenage driver doesn’t always make the best decisions and often thinks of themselves as impervious to danger. I think that MI hopes that a 17-year-old has better judgment than a 16-year-old.
The 17-year-old driver also has more driving experience in the daytime which would help them once they are allowed to drive at night (which is one of the typical restrictions along with not having too many other teenagers in the car).
“even though between ages 16 and 17 the boy will be driving on his own.”
When I looked up this info it appears that there are two tiers for licensing. A true learners permit level 1 age 15 to 16 with an adult present. The level 2 (which is basically the full license) at 16 but with hours restrictions until age 17 plus the parents can boot the child back down to level 1 if they need to for any reason. It also looks like the level 2 is pretty tight in regards to accidents/tickets/ suspensions to get to a full unrestricted license.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/gdl_parent_16316_7.pdf
On the subject of insurance:
If I remember correctly, some insurance companies (and not necessarily in MI) got sued because they required full insurance on parent’s policies even when the youth was in a limited permit situation requiring an adult along. This was supposed to be wrong to require the same insurance for this permit level as an 18 year old full time driver on the parents policies. This would have be about 25 years ago as my parent’s suffered from their insurance company raising the rates this way.
There’s a big difference between “cannot require teens to purchase a million-dollar insurance policy” and “is not permitted to sell high-dollar insurance policies”. The state is doing the first, not the second. Parents can freely buy million-dollar insurance policies for their teens if they want to.
If Michigan sets a minimum standard of insurance coverage for any driver, then that minimum standard ought to apply to ANY driver, not merely “any driver except unmarried males under the age of 25″.
Jacob AG has it right. The cost of the additional risk is being transferred from parents to the driving public.
It’s not really about subsidizing cars, it’s pandering to parent voters at the expense of the childless or those with grown up kids.
The minimum insurance required for a vehicle in MI (PLPD) is much more expensive when one of the household drivers (or the primary driver of a vehicle) is under 21.