more electronics creep in to monitor you

[mike98c]

Anyone else run into finance companies that are starting to install a starter interrupt?

Don't make you"re monthly payment and the car won't start. Still don't pay your bill and the company comes out to collect the car which the company can track.

I knew about that one but now apparently from the news at least one insurance company (no I didn't catch which company) is testing out a device that moniters you're driving habits.

Drive it like you stole it and apparently get charged insurance rates like the car really WAS stolen.

[JasonA]

Ha! I like it (the starter interupt)! Afterall, until you're done paying, it really IS the bank's car. And if you're responsible with your payments, you won't run into trouble anyway.

I think that sucks about the insurance. I absolutely agree with big insurance hikes for wrecks and speeding tickets, but charging you pre-emptively BEFORE you cause a wreck? I can see their thought -- that the faster you drive, the bigger risk you are (makes sense in some cases). But on the other hand, there are some of us who can handle the increased responsibility with increased speed, and still be safer out there than the numbskulls who drive around barking on a cell phone all day.

I think your record should speak for itself. If it's clean, you should be clean, no matter how you drive! I was just talking with the wife this morning...about the proposed insurance hike in our state. I'll have a big problem with it if they do some sort of "blanket" rate increase, and give no discretion to your record at all. Those of us with squeeky records should continue to enjoy low insurance rates. I'd fight it if they tried to start making me pay for all the other folks who just can't put the darn phone down and pay attention to the road. I got cut off on the way home from work by some dude yacking on a cell phone. I blew the horn and he didn't even look up. After that, I took notice and at least half of the drivers out there had cell phones to their ear. More than once, I saw folks with straight drives trying to shift, steer, and hold the phone at the same time. I'd fully support a law in NC that banned cell phone usage in the car.

[Bentham]

I absolutely hate when people are driving while on their phone. It's bad enough I have to listen to their conversations as I'm walking to class..

As for the insurance hike, I am already paying $189.53 A MONTH!

that's not a typo. I have, however, had one ticket for 'imprudent speed'

And get this -- my insurance was cheaper on my '93 seville [156.39]

Does that make sense to anyone? The insurance rep. said it was because the Blazer was 4x4 --shouldn't that make it cheaper??

-Eric

[mike98c]

For a while mine was just over Two hundred a month for the 98. I had a ticket for excessive display of speed/acceleration. I barked the tires as the car shifted into second gear accelerating up to the fifty mile an hour speed limit.

A couple days later they announced that due to complaints by a restuarant they had gone to a no tolerance policy on that street.

[timothyr]

The pre-emptive charging would really burn me....what about those of us that take our cars to tracks or driving events? Not yet in the caddy, but as a general rule, I do participate in various car club/driving events, and generally after a full weekend the car will show in the neighborhood of 250 miles, of which probably 85% is at speeds of 110+.

Although the insurance company will not cover damage done at these events (and I therefore have a seperate policy for this sort of thing) there monitoring of my driving would no doubt reflect the track time, and no doubt my rate would too.

just a thought

[Marika]

Ha!  I like it (the starter interupt)!  Afterall, until you're done paying, it really IS the bank's car.  And if you're responsible with your payments, you won't run into trouble anyway. 

I think that sucks about the insurance.  I absolutely agree with big insurance hikes for wrecks and speeding tickets, but charging you pre-emptively BEFORE you cause a wreck?  I can see their thought -- that the faster you drive, the bigger risk you are (makes sense in some cases).  But on the other hand, there are some of us who can handle the increased responsibility with increased speed, and still be safer out there than the numbskulls who drive around barking on a cell phone all day.

I think your record should speak for itself.  If it's clean, you should be clean, no matter how you drive!    I was just talking with the wife this morning...about the proposed insurance hike in our state.  I'll have a big problem with it if they do some sort of "blanket" rate increase, and give no discretion to your record at all.  Those of us with squeeky records should continue to enjoy low insurance rates.  I'd fight it if they tried to start making me pay for all the other folks who just can't put the darn phone down and pay attention to the road.  I got cut off on the way home from work by some dude yacking on a cell phone.  I blew the horn and he didn't even look up.  After that, I took notice and at least half of the drivers out there had cell phones to their ear.  More than once, I saw folks with straight drives trying to shift, steer, and hold the phone at the same time.  I'd fully support a law in NC that banned cell phone usage in the car.

Driving fast(er) does NOT make you a bigger risk of having an accident.

The US State Department posts information about driving in foreign countries. The worst countries to drive in are Turkey, followed by Poland. "Expect the unexpected" is what the State Department says regarding driving in those two counties. People do what they want to do with no regard for the rules of the road. Miss an exit on a highway? No problem, just back up in the middle of the highway until you reach your exit, then go forward and you're done. No problem if you happen to hit the car behind you while you're backing up....

The two safest countries to drive in are Germany and England but for two totally different reasons.

England's average speed for their drivers was a whopping 25 mph whereas in Germany, the average speed their drivers traveled at was 130 mph. The difference? There are many however....

Number of cars on the road and driver training. England has fewer cars on their roads but strictly enforces speed limits whereas Germany has no speed limit but the cops will pull you over and OFF the road in a heartbeat if they think you are not capable of handling your "machine" correctly or if you display "bad judgment calls". Also, it's very tough to get a drivers license in Germany where the process is completely monitored and controlled by the police. You have to have a physical by a doctor to get a drivers license in Germany and sometimes, even a neurologist. Does the system work in Germany? yes. Would it work here in America, probably not.

My father has a license from Germany and believe me, he's one of the best drivers I've ever seen, albeit, a very fast driver. My mother was not allowed to drive in Germany, I believe she was classified as "a bit too nervous", so she doesn't drive here in the states either. She accepts the German standards as being the correct and accurate standards. Gotta respect her for that.

As for using a cell phone while driving, yeah, that's gotta be stopped. It's not just a matter of distraction, it's a matter of dexterity, which most drivers don't have.

[JasonA]

As for the insurance hike, I am already paying $189.53 A MONTH!

that's not a typo. I have, however, had one ticket for 'imprudent speed'

And get this -- my insurance was cheaper on my '93 seville [156.39]

Does that make sense to anyone? The insurance rep. said it was because the Blazer was 4x4 --shouldn't that make it cheaper??

Usually, 4x4 vehicles cost more to insure...probably for a few reasons:

1) They're many times more complex to fix if damaged.

2) If you get in an accident with them, they have more of a tendency to roll, which causes more damage.

3) You are more likely to take your 4x4 out in the snow and ice vs. a 2wd car, so you have more of a chance of getting into a wreck.

Those are just guesses. I don't know for sure. It is indeed more expensive though...depending on the circumstances. I have collision insurance on both of my current vehicles (Caddy and Nissan 4x4 truck), though the Nissan is slightly cheaper -- probably because it has close to 200,000 miles. I also live in North Carolina, so maybe because of the weather here, 4x4 vehicles don't get hit as bad on insurance? I dunno...

[JasonA]

My father has a license from Germany and believe me, he's one of the best drivers I've ever seen, albeit, a very fast driver.  My mother was not allowed to drive in Germany, I believe she was classified as "a bit too nervous", so she doesn't drive here in the states either.  She accepts the German standards as being the correct and accurate standards.  Gotta respect her for that.

See, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Germany can't be compared to America for the very reasons you mentioned. Just as Germany has many differences with their driving system, they probably also have many differences in their insurance industry.

Here in America, take any joe-shmoe off the street (no disrepect to those of you named Joe!), and put him in traffic, he's going to absolutely be more of a danger driving 20 mph over the speed limit than if he were driving the speed limit. I didn't say "fast", but "greatly exceeding the speed limit", which is what I suspect the insurance deal is all about. He's more of a danger because he most likely doesn't have the driver education that your father did, he's most likely talking on a cell phone, and he's most likely trying to eat a Whopper and down a Frosty all at the same time. Our roads here aren't the Autobahn; they have intersections, sharp turns, numerous interchanges, etc. The insurance companies know that we're supremely distracted behind the wheel and we usually don't may as much attention to the road that we need to, on average.

There's more to consider though, and what I personally think is the most important -- the difference in speed between the cars on the road. If the speed limit is set at 55 mph, and the flow of traffic is going 75 mph, I don't think that's a big deal. I scoot right along with them. Then the whole group comes up on a car driving exactly the speed limit, and all of a sudden, there's a 20 mph difference between cars out there. The guys in the right lane have to slow up, some will no doubt try to swerve over to the left lane, people in the left lane will get cut off and jab on the brakes, etc. There might even be a collision. All this could have been avoided if:

1) Everyone drove the speed limit.

2) Everyone drove 20 mph above the speed limit.

Whether it's (1) or (2), I don't care. All I care about is that no one's going so much faster out there that he's going to be a danger to the rest because someone doesn't see him, or he has to suddenly adjust his speed, etc. I think the actual speed limit is in many cases arbitrary. It can be set at many different levels, and probably with the same level of safety. It's the nuts out there who drive at a speed so much different than the rest of us who cause the wrecks.

A good example is I-40 in Greensboro, NC. The whole stretch of road is a construction zone, set at 55 mph. Because it's a construction zone, your fine starts at $250 if you get caught speeding. Now, I'd say half of the cars are driving close to the speed limit. And at least half of the cars are driving at least 80 mph. Then you have 10-15 interchanges in the distance of about 10 miles, and you have people trying to get on and off, people trying to let trucks in/over who are entering/exiting the Interstate. Someone has to get over in the left lane to let a truck in and WHAM -- the guy driving 90 plows into the guy driving 60, who is avoiding an entering truck. Could that wreck have been avoided if the speeder were following the speed limit? Probably. Even if the 90 mph driver were paying COMPLETE attention to the road, there's still a 30 mph speed difference between those two cars, and you can't overcome physics. The wreck may have been unavoidable in this case, depending on the timing. Had he been driving the speed limit, or close to it however, the speed difference would have been within 5-10 mph, and he may have had time to brake to miss the swerving car.

That is a very real scenario in America, but probably isn't a representative example of situations in Germany. I understand German highways are wide and open, with LONG acceleration lanes and are just plain designed for fast driving. Ours aren't, to the dismay of Cadillac owners everywhere.

I still don't agree with the insurance companies pre-emptively charging you for driving fast, but I certainly agree with what I think is the "driver" behind it -- fast driving, in general, puts you at more risk of personal injury or property damage than driving the speed limit does.

[95SLS]

A rented car they can monitor..... your POV? Ever hear of the privacy act? So unless you agree, and thus would know. I very seriously doubt that any insurance co can monitor your driving habits other than running a records check on your DL and you authorized that when you signed on with them.

MC

[Marika]

My father has a license from Germany and believe me, he's one of the best drivers I've ever seen, albeit, a very fast driver.  My mother was not allowed to drive in Germany, I believe she was classified as "a bit too nervous", so she doesn't drive here in the states either.  She accepts the German standards as being the correct and accurate standards.  Gotta respect her for that.

See, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Germany can't be compared to America for the very reasons you mentioned. Just as Germany has many differences with their driving system, they probably also have many differences in their insurance industry.

Here in America, take any joe-shmoe off the street (no disrepect to those of you named Joe!), and put him in traffic, he's going to absolutely be more of a danger driving 20 mph over the speed limit than if he were driving the speed limit. I didn't say "fast", but "greatly exceeding the speed limit", which is what I suspect the insurance deal is all about. He's more of a danger because he most likely doesn't have the driver education that your father did, he's most likely talking on a cell phone, and he's most likely trying to eat a Whopper and down a Frosty all at the same time. Our roads here aren't the Autobahn; they have intersections, sharp turns, numerous interchanges, etc. The insurance companies know that we're supremely distracted behind the wheel and we usually don't may as much attention to the road that we need to, on average.

There's more to consider though, and what I personally think is the most important -- the difference in speed between the cars on the road. If the speed limit is set at 55 mph, and the flow of traffic is going 75 mph, I don't think that's a big deal. I scoot right along with them. Then the whole group comes up on a car driving exactly the speed limit, and all of a sudden, there's a 20 mph difference between cars out there. The guys in the right lane have to slow up, some will no doubt try to swerve over to the left lane, people in the left lane will get cut off and jab on the brakes, etc. There might even be a collision. All this could have been avoided if:

1) Everyone drove the speed limit.

2) Everyone drove 20 mph above the speed limit.

Whether it's (1) or (2), I don't care. All I care about is that no one's going so much faster out there that he's going to be a danger to the rest because someone doesn't see him, or he has to suddenly adjust his speed, etc. I think the actual speed limit is in many cases arbitrary. It can be set at many different levels, and probably with the same level of safety. It's the nuts out there who drive at a speed so much different than the rest of us who cause the wrecks.

A good example is I-40 in Greensboro, NC. The whole stretch of road is a construction zone, set at 55 mph. Because it's a construction zone, your fine starts at $250 if you get caught speeding. Now, I'd say half of the cars are driving close to the speed limit. And at least half of the cars are driving at least 80 mph. Then you have 10-15 interchanges in the distance of about 10 miles, and you have people trying to get on and off, people trying to let trucks in/over who are entering/exiting the Interstate. Someone has to get over in the left lane to let a truck in and WHAM -- the guy driving 90 plows into the guy driving 60, who is avoiding an entering truck. Could that wreck have been avoided if the speeder were following the speed limit? Probably. Even if the 90 mph driver were paying COMPLETE attention to the road, there's still a 30 mph speed difference between those two cars, and you can't overcome physics. The wreck may have been unavoidable in this case, depending on the timing. Had he been driving the speed limit, or close to it however, the speed difference would have been within 5-10 mph, and he may have had time to brake to miss the swerving car.

That is a very real scenario in America, but probably isn't a representative example of situations in Germany. I understand German highways are wide and open, with LONG acceleration lanes and are just plain designed for fast driving. Ours aren't, to the dismay of Cadillac owners everywhere.

I still don't agree with the insurance companies pre-emptively charging you for driving fast, but I certainly agree with what I think is the "driver" behind it -- fast driving, in general, puts you at more risk of personal injury or property damage than driving the speed limit does.

I was not comparing apples with oranges...

My very first sentence says it all....

Driving fast(er) does NOT make you a bigger risk of having an accident.

That's it.

[JimD]

There is, or was, one insurance underwriter operating in Texas (and possibly other states) with rates based on GPS monitoring information. Yes, they installed the GPS system in your car. Imagine the data you would be agreeing to allow them to collect!!

Maybe Bruce or others have more and better information. I am recalling the newspaper article from memory, but it might have been a market test.

[mike98c]

The privacy data law unfortunatly won't do much good if it gets to the point insurance companies decide they won't cover you unless you agree to be monitered. At that point you could end up with a company that has you classified into thier high risk pool along with DWIs and other infractions that have actually added well deserved points onto your license.

I do agree that the speed differential is the real problem and it was a problem when I visited Germany. With the inclusion of East Germany into the road system you could be traveling along at 120 km and come upon a trabant (doesn't deserve to be capitalized) wheezing and clattering along at 50 km. Speed differential: frightening!

[GaryG]

This brings up another couple of questions we can ponder. Wouldn't it be nice if you and I had a product that the government required everyone else to buy? (I'm talking about insurance)

Does anyone agree that drivers over a certain age should be periodically retested? Maybe they already are in certain jurisdictions. Maybe really old ones should be electronically monitored, as well as very young drivers, and drivers of any age who may have a bad driving record. Is this a "big brother" issue?

[cpk]

I'll chime in with my 2cents...

Wouldn't it be nice if the "standard" driver's license only entitled you to drive on surface streets? Then, like the special permission to drive a motorcyle, be a chauffer, or drive a big rig, you would have to take additional training to qualify for an Interstate license?

You can get just about anywhere the Interstates go via an alternate route, so it wouldn't be an unecessary burden. I think the additional training (and perhaps cost) would keep a lot of people off the Interstate who shouldn't be there. I'd even support stringent testing (real vision tests, for example) for the privilege - and I personally wouldn't mind paying more either. We could use special license plates to identify vehicles that are Interstate-certified and whose primary owner is Interstate-certified.

For things like DUI on the Interstate, you should lose your Interstate license for several years, if not life.

Other things, like failing to signal intent, having non-working lights, bald tires, cracked windshield, etc, would be dealt with more severely than they are now.