Tires are the big thing. The vast, vast majority of Seattlites aren't swapping out for a winter tires set in winter, and they aren't running a 3PMSF-rated all-season / four-season / all-weather tire, either.
These days I aim to replace my tires at about 50% wear and no later than 60%. New tires make you corner so well it almost feels like a slightly newer car.
Since this is not happening, we can infer that insurance companies believe the benefit to their risk profile is less than the cost to administer the program and issue discounts deep enough for customers to participate.
It seems counterintuitive that stopping distance is not that big a deal, but it must be true.
Certainly it would be cheaper for them to run a program where you take a photo of your tires every few months, vs. the program they all have where you plug a surveillance device into your car. So the true benefit from good tires must be far less than driving style.
The compensation to the shops is in the form of steering business to them from their agents when customers call and say they’ve been in a wreck.
They could do the same with tire centers. We offer a discount if you get tires from here or there. But I think the problem is that what those companies want to do is not change your rates except when you have a life event, get a new car, or have an accident. Tires would have your rates going up and down, unless they made a AAA type of deal with tire centers where you show your insurance and they give you a discount for the tires. Which perhaps could work.
I don’t know if it “certainly” would be cheaper for them to administer a program and maybe that’s why they don’t. It still takes manpower and maintenance teams to keep the program running and maybe that’s not worth enough dollars per year.
Also as we discovered from the Firestone/Ford debacle, a safe tire on one model of vehicle is not safe on another. So you have to do safety research on every vehicle and tire combo.