* 82.3% said that drivers who are found to be at-fault in crashes should pay more.
* Written comments indicated they believe that the current system does not penalize high-risk drivers appropriately.
* 63.5% said that the option to pay back at-fault claims should be modified or eliminated entirely, while 30.7% believed it should be kept the same.
* The most popular response (41.4%) was that the option should be kept only for vehicle damage claims totalling $2,000 or less.
* 92.1% indicated that the driver – not the registered owner – should be held responsible and see their premiums increase if they cause a crash.
* 74.3% agreed that drivers with one serious conviction within a three-year period should pay higher insurance premiums.
* 58.7% agreed that drivers with two or more minor convictions in a three-year period should pay higher premiums.
* When asked about an appropriate scan period to consider convictions, responses were mixed, with 39.3% at five years, while 50.6% preferred a scan period of two (21.2%) or three (29.4%) years. Age and driving experience had a strong influence on the responses.
* 50.6% supported transition caps of 20% or more annually, to phase in rate increases for high-risk drivers, and decreases for low-risk drivers.
* Written feedback from those who chose the 20% or greater than 20% transition options suggested that higher rates for higher-risk drivers are appropriate, and lower-risk drivers deserve to receive the benefits as soon as possible.
* Regarding the amount of a one-time penalty for a registered owner who did not list a driver who was found at-fault in a crash, 70.9% of people chose a fee option ($250, $500 or $1,000), while a 29.1% chose don’t know/no opinion.
* 38.5% selected $250 (54.3% of those who chose one of the three fee amounts).
* 46.5% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that distance driven should have a greater impact on insurance rates, while 38.8% agreed or strongly agreed.
* Written comments indicated that respondents believed distance driven was a poor estimator of risk, and cited the typically longer driving distances of those who live in rural and remote areas as a reason why considering distance may be unfair.