Sixty-one of the sixty-five guides on this site carry the same publication date: 31 July 2026. That is not a display bug and it is not a backdated corpus. It is what happened, and because it is the first thing an experienced reader will notice, it is the first thing this page explains.
The short version
I used AI language models to draft this site, working alone and directing them. The first version went up in a single day. It was not good enough, and the specific ways in which it was not good enough are listed below and on the corrections page. Between 19 August and 2 September 2026 every guide was rewritten against the primary document it describes — the statute, the administrative rule, or the agency page that sets the requirement — and every price figure that could not be checked was withdrawn.
I am telling you this rather than letting you infer it, because the alternative is asking you to trust a process I have not described. This site’s whole argument is that you should not have to trust me: you should be able to open the source next to the sentence and see for yourself. A methodology you cannot inspect is the same problem in a different place.
What was wrong with the first version
The first version had the signature of work produced at volume without enough checking, and it is worth being concrete about what that looked like:
- Fifty-nine of the guides contained exactly five FAQ questions each. Not about five. Exactly five, in fifty-nine out of fifty-nine. No one writing to a subject produces that; a template does.
- Forty-five of the sixty-five guides linked no official source at all in the body. There was a component at the foot of the page listing agencies, which is not the same thing as putting the document next to the claim it supports.
- The cost figures came from comparison sites — Insurify, MoneyGeek, ValuePenguin, Policygenius, Clearsurance — and were presented without the date they were read, which makes them uncheckable by the time you get to them.
- Eleven statements about the law were wrong. Not vague: wrong. The California page cited § 16430 for a three-year period that is actually in § 16480(a)(2) and runs from a different trigger. The Florida pages asserted three times that the policy is “non-cancelable”, which appears in no source I could find. The Tennessee page said minors need an SR-22 until eighteen, citing a form that is about imputed liability and does not mention SR-22. Each of the eleven is listed individually on the corrections page with what it said, what was wrong, and what replaced it.
The median guide was 1,121 words, and nineteen of the sixty-five were under a thousand.
What changed
The rewrite was also AI-assisted. I am not going to claim I typed a quarter of a million words by hand between two dates, because you can do that arithmetic as well as I can. What changed is not who held the keyboard. What changed is that every normative claim now resolves to a document you can open, and the ones that could not be made to resolve were deleted rather than softened.
The rule that makes this checkable
For every requirement on this site — whether a state uses an SR-22 or an FR-44, how long the filing must stay in place, what triggers it, which form applies, what the minimum liability limits are — the guide links the page or document that contains the requirement, not the agency’s homepage, and records the date I read it. Agencies revise these pages without notice, so a citation without a retrieval date is not a citation.
Three consequences of that rule are worth stating, because they are what a template would not do:
- Where a state’s own sources disagree, the guide says so instead of picking the tidier reading. This turned out to be the most useful thing on the site. The disagreement about when an SR-22 obligation starts is usually not between states — it is between the agency and the statute of the same state. Most statutes are release rules with a clean-window condition (“at any time after N years… when no conviction has been received”); most agency pages translate that into a duration, and the condition is lost in translation. That pattern is measured on the Washington, Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Colorado and Missouri pages.
- Where I could not open a state’s source, the guide says the requirement is unverified rather than presenting it as checked.
- Forums, Reddit and comparison sites are not sources here. A build check fails if one appears without an accompanying explanation of why it is not being used.
When the source is an Internet Archive capture
Some guides link a capture on web.archive.org rather than the agency’s live page. There is one reason for that and it is not convenience: a number of state servers refuse connections from the machine this site is built on. Ohio’s codes.ohio.gov and bmv.ohio.gov are two of them. When that happens the choice is between citing a dated capture of the real document or citing nothing, and a dated capture is the better of the two: you can see the page as it stood, and when.
Thirty-six of the guides link at least one such capture, and seventeen of them record in their Last verified note exactly which server refused and on what date. Where a guide links a capture without saying which case applies, that is an omission rather than a policy, and telling me is the fastest way to get it fixed.
What this site will not tell you
No premium figures appear on this site. That is deliberate and it is the honest position: no insurer publishes a rate for an individual record, and an average built for someone else’s constructed driver profile is not your price. Every dollar amount here is a statutory limit or a fee an agency publishes, linked to the page that prints it.
If you came here to find out what you will be charged, this site cannot tell you, and neither can any other page on the internet. What decides your price is your record, your ZIP code, your vehicle and the reason for your filing.
Who I am, plainly
I am Alonso Pinar Jiménez, a web developer based in Spain. I am not an insurance agent or broker and hold no producer license in any state. I am not a lawyer. I have no professional background in insurance and have never quoted or sold a policy. There is no second reviewer and no compliance desk.
That is why this site leans on linked primary documents rather than on my authority. Reading statutes carefully and writing down what they actually say is a transferable skill and it is the one being applied here. It is not the same as expertise in selling insurance, and I am not going to present it as though it were.
How to catch me being wrong
The corrections page records every factual correction and every withdrawn figure, dated, with the page it affected and what replaced it. Nothing is removed from that list once it goes on. If you find something on this site that is wrong and is not on that page, tell me — the fastest possible message is the URL of my page, the sentence you are disputing, and a link to the agency page or statute that says otherwise. I will read your source before I change anything, and if your source and mine disagree I will say so on the page rather than quietly pick one.
The standards these guides are judged against are set out in the editorial policy.