There is a wide range of estimates regarding the number of uninsured drivers
in Ohio. Because Ohio has a financial responsibility (FR) law, not a pure
compulsory insurance law, it’s difficult to truly gauge the number
of Ohioans who are not complying with the FR law and are therefore considered
uninsured. An actual percentage or range of those who may be driving without
insurance or other means of financial responsibility would be purely speculative
unless a proportionate number of drivers from various parts of the state
were randomly stopped and asked for FR proof.
What has been tracked for the past several years is the FR status of drivers involved in crashes. In recent years, there has been a decline in the number of nonfinancially responsible (uninsured) drivers who have been at fault in crashes. In 1994, there were 25,303 drivers found to be at fault in crashes and not in compliance with the FR law. That number dropped by more than 43% by 1999. The chart below provides Ohio driver crash statistics by year for 1994–1999.
According to the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles, the threat of license suspension and the addition of more financial responsibility (FR) law enforcement mechanisms has likely motivated motorists to come into compliance with Ohio law in recent years. Since October, 1995, law enforcement has been checking Ohio drivers for proof of FR at the scene of a crash, when being issued a traffic citation or during a vehicle safety inspection.
BMV random verification program
An additional enforcement measure was introduced by the Ohio Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) in December, 1998. The BMV began randomly selecting Ohio vehicle owners to receive a form requesting that they mail in proof of compliance with Ohio’s financial responsibility law on a specified date. The specifics regarding the BMV’s random verification program are detailed on page 103.
Uninsured motorist studies
The Insurance Research Council (IRC) released a February, 2001 study that found 13.7% of US drivers are uninsured. According to the study, the problem of driving uninsured varies greatly among states, from a high of 32.4% in Colorado to a low of 4.1% in Maine. The IRC study estimates Ohio’s uninsured motorist (UM) rate at 12.6%. The chart below provides IRC’s estimates of uninsured drivers by state.
IRC calculations were based on the ratio of claims by individuals injured by uninsured drivers (UM coverage) to claims by individuals injured by insured drivers (bodily injury liability coverage) for 1995–1997. 16 states and the District of Columbia had ratios of UM to bodily injury (BI) claim frequencies above the US average of 13.7%, and 34 states had ratios below the US average.
The IRC study found that Ohio’s 1995–1997 UM claim frequency was .179 per 100 vehicles (US average was .193) and its BI claim frequency was 1.42 per 100 vehicles (US average was 1.40). In a similar report released by the IRC in 1999, Cleveland East had the highest uninsured motorist claim frequency at .705 compared to the state average of .195. Cleveland East also had Ohio’s highest UM loss cost at $46.18, compared to the state average of $10.98.
A 1998 study released by the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII) found that mandatory insurance laws have failed to curb uninsured motorists. The study found that in the 19 states with compulsory insurance laws effective prior to 1976, the growth of UM ranged anywhere from 6% to nearly 300% between 1976–1985.
According to the NAII study, in 1995 about 15% of the US driving population was uninsured. In 13 of the states with compulsory laws, estimated UM populations were higher. In four of those states (CA, CO, NM, SC) and Washington, DC, more than 20% of the drivers are reportedly uninsured.
Of the 12 states enacting compulsory liability insurance laws between 1976–1984, only four experienced a reduction in uninsured motorists. For this study, Ohio was considered part of this group since most Ohioans comply with the FR law through the purchase of auto liability insurance. The NAII study reports that Ohio experienced a UM growth rate of 3.5% between 1984–1985, which is prior to enactment of the FR enforcement provision. For more information regarding Ohio’s FR law, click here.
(Columbus Dispatch, 10/26/00)