Many new cars sold today include features that enable the cars to help

Many new cars sold today include features that enable the cars to help prevent collisions by taking preemptive actions such as hitting the brakes before a collision or alerting drivers to hazards in their blind spots. The presence of these features results in reduced risk of collisions. However, the cost of collision insurance for cars with such features is generally higher than the cost of such insurance for cars without such features.

Which of the following best explains this seemingly paradoxical pattern?

(A) When cars that include sophisticated features become damaged, the cost to repair such cars is generally higher than the cost to repair similarly damaged cars without such features.
Why this answer choice makes sense is that insurance costs are affected by the cost to repair/replace damaged parts. A higher cost to replace yields a higher insurance premium. This proves why cars with safety features would have higher premiums than for those cars without these safety features.

(B) Some drivers of cars with features that automatically prevent collisions choose to turn off those features when driving such cars.
This shows a reason why the insurance premiums wouldn't be lower for cars with safety features than for those without them, but it doesn't also prove to us that the premiums would be higher for car with such safety features.

(C) Cars without features that automatically prevent collisions experience reduced risk of being involved in collisions as a result of the presence of such features in other cars on the roads.
While this answer choice does show us that the rate of collisions in theory should be similar for both types of cars, assuming they're both on the road, it doesn't tell us why cars with safety features have higher premiums. In fact, if we think about it, this answer choice almost leads us back to A. Well, if the risk is the same, the next factor making premiums higher for cars with safety features would be cost of having such features replaced/repaired?

(D) A driver operating a car with features that automatically prevent collisions may become complacent in driving, thus offsetting much of the benefit of having such features.
This answer choice somewhat attempts to challenge a premise. The presence of these features should in fact reduce the risk of collisions. But this answer choice leads us to believe that even with these features, the risk of collision in a car with safety features is not reduced. I would say this does not directly address the paradox of why the premiums are still higher, even though the level of risk for collision of cars with safety features is not as effective as we thought it would be.

(E) Currently available car features that automatically prevent collisions have little to no ability to prevent many of the most catastrophic types of high speed car crashes.
This question again, reduces the impact of the safety features actually decreasing the risk of collision on the road but it still does not address why the premiums are higher on cars with said safety features.

Very tricky, Marty.

Which answer did you end up choosing? Insurance companies do base the premium on the probability of an accident, as well as the price of repair. My 20-mile commute to and from work every day in a Ferrari could be much more expensive than the same commute in a Honda Civic if there were a collision.

Even if you didn't see that the higher cost means a higher premium, none of the answer choices directly address why the cost would be higher. In fact, the other answer choices require you to make leaps to get to the assumption that the premium would be higher for those cars with safety features.