wrote
My guess -- and that's all it is; I don't know a great deal about the
insurance biz -- is that the underwriters look at expensive, high
performance airplanes, with lots of expensive, high performance IFR
avionics, and assume that VFR pilots will be tempted to fly them in at least
marginal VFR conditions, with deadly results.

I think what you say is true, but incomplete. There are basically
three ways of dealing with reduced ceilings/visibilities - just say
no, go IFR, or scud run. Someone flying an expensive and fast
airplane clearly bought it to go places - he's not going to be too
interested in just saying no. Lacking an instrument rating, he won't
be able to file IFR. Scud running works OK in airplanes that
COMFORTABLY fly at low speed and can, in a pinch, land off airport and
take off again without damage, but those kinds of airplanes are NOT
fast. It's nothing special about the Cirrus - getting insurance in
ANY fast airplane (Bonanza, Comanche, Viking, Mooney) is signifcantly
more expensive without an instrument rating. And no - hundreds of
hours of accident-free VFR flying don't make any difference if they're
in a C-172 or Cherokee, because the things you can get away with in a
C-172 or Cherokee are going to kill you in a Bonanza or a Cirrus.

Unfortunately, VFR flight in
IFR conditions continues to be a top cause of accidents.

Not really. Check out the Nall report - all weather related accidents
(including VFR into IMC) are barely a quarter of the accident picture.
And instrument rated private pilots (less than 20% of the private
pilot population) don't seem to have a better record on VFR-into-IMC
accidents than those who are not rated.

Michael