In Brooklyn, traffic violence is a daily reality. Pedestrians and cyclists navigate dangerous streets. Delivery workers and cab and ride hailing drivers work long hours just to get by, while corporate platforms skim profits from every ride. So when Gov. Hochul says her proposed auto insurance change s are about affordability, working New Yorkers should ask a basic question: affordable for whom? This plan does not lower costs for drivers or families. It shifts them. Away from billion dollar insurance companies and ride hailing corporations, and onto injured people, working drivers, and taxpayers. A recent study by the Center for Justice Democracy shows exactly where the money is going. New York’s largest auto insurers posted record underwriting profits, driven by steep premium hikes and booming investment income, while executives paid themselves more than $134 million in 2024 — a 27% increase over the prior year. This windfall came even as New Yorkers were hit with another round of sharp premium increases. That is a transfer of wealth from working people to corporate executives and shareholders. Instead of reining in those excesses or making insurance work the way it is supposed to, the governor’s budget goes in the opposite direction — stripping away protections for injured people. One of the most harmful changes is the proposal to weaken New York’s serious injury standard, known as the 90/180 rule. New York law currently recognizes nine categories of “serious injury.” The governor’s plan eliminates the one that protects people who are knocked out of work after a crash. Under the proposal, injured New Yorkers would be denied compensation unless they can prove they were unable to work or perform daily activities for at least 90 of the first 180 days after a crash. This hits nurses, teachers, drivers, and manual laborers hardest — people who work on their feet and whose bodies are their livelihoods. For cab and ride-hailing drivers, who only earn money when they are behind the wheel, the proposal creates an impossible choice: return to work injured, or lose both income and legal rights. Insurance companies win either way. The plan also weakens New York’s joint and several liability and contributory negligence standards, allowing large companies to evade responsibility even when they play a significant role in causing harm. When compensation is denied, the costs do not disappear — they are shifted onto families, public hospitals, and Medicaid. The insurance companies point to criminal rings that stage accidents and then submit fraudulent claims as a reason for rates to rise, but again the facts undercut that argument. Premiums continued to rise throughout the pandemic, for example, even as the number of crashes, including fatal crashes, fell. And fraudulent insurance claims are already against the law. Enforce those laws. Consumer advocates point to the fact that premiums are held down, and lowered, when insurers are required to justify increases to regulators before they go into effect. New York does not use a “prior approval” model, instead, increases are allowed even before regulators at the Department of Financial Services complete their review. States that prioritize transparency, enforcement, and safety have seen better results than those that blame crash victims. California, for example, had lower auto insurance premiums in 2015 than in 1989 when adjusted for inflation, largely due to Proposition 103, which requires insurers to justify rate increases before they take effect. If the goal is affordability and safety, the focus should be on capping insurer profits and making streets safer. Focus on claim denials and regulate algorithmic pricing systems that redline and penalize Black and Brown communities. Working people should not be forced to subsidize corporate profits with their health and their lives. New York deserves better. Forrest is a Brooklyn assemblymember who serves on the Consumer Affairs and Protection Committee. ...read more read less