4 ms·

What if Insurers Didn't Pay for Crashes Caused by Texting?

8 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

bryanh 15y ago
People would lie and say they weren't texting. Premiums would increase. The end.
- lmkg 15y ago
  Unless the insurance companies can get hold of phone records, and find time stamps of texting activity. Depending on the phone, there maybe keystroke logging info available as well.
  - politician 15y ago
    "The other person in the car was using it."
    - rdtsc 15y ago
      Interestingly enough this would drive for increased surveillance in the name of safety -- "but airbag deployment sensor didn't register anyone being seated in the car besides the driver". Isn't data obtained from black-boxes on cars already used in some court cases to solve disputes about the speed at the time of crash?
awda 15y ago
This is a bad idea. As the article points out, the point of insurance is to cover this kind of thing. What insurers should do is steeply jack up rates for first-time crashes when the driver is doing something irresponsible, and make these consequences public knowledge. But this isn't the best idea either -- now people with poor decision making skills get to choose between insurance and {booze, cell phones, ...}, and the party that loses is the person they hit while driving uninsured.
- bunderbunder 15y ago
  I suspect what it will really take is a MADD-style campaign to turn public opinion heavily against using phones while driving. Just zinging people when they get into a wreck won't modify behavior much; there needs to be a punishment for actually engaging in the behavior. Doing it with laws won't cut it either; the people who enforce said laws are some of the worst offenders when it comes to tinkering with mobile devices while driving, from what I've seen. (I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a job requirement.) About the only mechanism that can really do the job with any sort of consistency is social pressure.
  - bittermang 15y ago
    I've said this before, and I'll restate it again here for relevancy. We have spent people's entire lives vilifying drunk driving. We haven't had nearly as much time to demonize texting and driving. Comparatively, it's a relatively new phenomenon, even if the act of driving while distracted (cheeseburger, conversation, just plain not paying attention) are not. I've personally been in the car with someone who was so nervous and preoccupied with something that was on his mind, he rear ended a guy who was in front of us plain as day. He wasn't drunk, he wasn't texting, he was just thinking too much about things that weren't on the road. A lapse in judgement and observation and SMACK right in to the next guy's bumper. Education on why it is a terrible, horrible idea to text while driving is certainty a step in the right direction, though I've always been a believer in making the punishment fit the crime. Driving while texting and cause an accident? Take away your ability to send/receive text messages.
- JoeAltmaier 15y ago
  Disagree. Insurance to cover accidents doesn't have to cover negligence.
  - aidenn0 15y ago
    Since most people don't have the funds to cover the costs of damage done with a multi-ton hunk of metal moving at high-speeds, we require them to have insurance in order to operate such a thing. We've left it up to the insurance companies to determine the odds of an individual operating the vehicle in a negligent manner. If you have a better idea, let me know.
funkah 15y ago
Out of all the problems our country has with insurance firms, I'm not sure "they cover too much" is one of them.
aplusbi 15y ago
"An accident is an accident" I don't like this mentality. Is a collision caused by drunk driving really an accident?
- tptacek 15y ago
  It doesn't matter, because the most important reason you have insurance is to cover your liability to other people. If you rescind that coverage, you're screwing over the other people. Obviously, if you harm other people by driving while intoxicated, it should immediately become sharply (perhaps untenably so) more expensive to insure you.
  - aplusbi 15y ago
    I'm not arguing against insuring negligence, I'm arguing against calling negligence an accident. It's a neat way of removing culpability. "It was just an accident!"
    - bunderbunder 15y ago
      "An accident is an accident" was being said by the insurance specialist, and in reference to the insurer's responsibility. In context, it was meant to say nearly the opposite of what you're inferring - something more along the lines of, "We can't pick and choose like that." Which is true; doing so would defeat the whole point of mandatory liability insurance.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
- endersshadow 15y ago
  From the insurer's perspective, yes, yes it is. There's damage and the insured has contracted the insurer to compensate for the damage caused. What if the drunk driver can't pay an injured party's medical bills? Do you just say, "Well, he was drunk, so there."? No, of course not--the injured parties need to be compensated and have their medical bills taken care of--doctors don't work for free.
SatvikBeri 15y ago
Is anyone's behavior is affected by what their insurance carrier covers? Maybe 1% of people-but that's likely people who are careful enough not to text while driving in the first place. This is like shouting to the world "fat people should eat less and exercise more!"
- Permit 15y ago
  This is the key point, in my opinion. If someone is willing to risk their life to text while driving, someone is willing to risk financial ruin while driving. It's even less of an incentive and would change nothing. In order to have a successful campaign against texting while driving, it must be made socially and culturally taboo, the way driving drunk is in most places.
gtb 15y ago
In Australia the mandatory insurance will cover any third party medical bills. Any insurance to cover more than that (your medical bill, your property or third party property) won't pay you in case of negligence (drunk driving, knowing that the car was road unworthy etc).

8 points by FluidDjango 15y ago

bryanh 15y ago

People would lie and say they weren't texting. Premiums would increase. The end.

lmkg 15y ago
Unless the insurance companies can get hold of phone records, and find time stamps of texting activity. Depending on the phone, there maybe keystroke logging info available as well.
- politician 15y ago
  "The other person in the car was using it."
  - rdtsc 15y ago
    Interestingly enough this would drive for increased surveillance in the name of safety -- "but airbag deployment sensor didn't register anyone being seated in the car besides the driver". Isn't data obtained from black-boxes on cars already used in some court cases to solve disputes about the speed at the time of crash?

awda 15y ago

This is a bad idea. As the article points out, the point of insurance is to cover this kind of thing. What insurers should do is steeply jack up rates for first-time crashes when the driver is doing something irresponsible, and make these consequences public knowledge. But this isn't the best idea either -- now people with poor decision making skills get to choose between insurance and {booze, cell phones, ...}, and the party that loses is the person they hit while driving uninsured.

bunderbunder 15y ago
I suspect what it will really take is a MADD-style campaign to turn public opinion heavily against using phones while driving. Just zinging people when they get into a wreck won't modify behavior much; there needs to be a punishment for actually engaging in the behavior. Doing it with laws won't cut it either; the people who enforce said laws are some of the worst offenders when it comes to tinkering with mobile devices while driving, from what I've seen. (I wouldn't be surprised to find out it's a job requirement.) About the only mechanism that can really do the job with any sort of consistency is social pressure.
- bittermang 15y ago
  I've said this before, and I'll restate it again here for relevancy. We have spent people's entire lives vilifying drunk driving. We haven't had nearly as much time to demonize texting and driving. Comparatively, it's a relatively new phenomenon, even if the act of driving while distracted (cheeseburger, conversation, just plain not paying attention) are not. I've personally been in the car with someone who was so nervous and preoccupied with something that was on his mind, he rear ended a guy who was in front of us plain as day. He wasn't drunk, he wasn't texting, he was just thinking too much about things that weren't on the road. A lapse in judgement and observation and SMACK right in to the next guy's bumper. Education on why it is a terrible, horrible idea to text while driving is certainty a step in the right direction, though I've always been a believer in making the punishment fit the crime. Driving while texting and cause an accident? Take away your ability to send/receive text messages.
JoeAltmaier 15y ago
Disagree. Insurance to cover accidents doesn't have to cover negligence.
- aidenn0 15y ago
  Since most people don't have the funds to cover the costs of damage done with a multi-ton hunk of metal moving at high-speeds, we require them to have insurance in order to operate such a thing. We've left it up to the insurance companies to determine the odds of an individual operating the vehicle in a negligent manner. If you have a better idea, let me know.

funkah 15y ago

Out of all the problems our country has with insurance firms, I'm not sure "they cover too much" is one of them.

aplusbi 15y ago

"An accident is an accident" I don't like this mentality. Is a collision caused by drunk driving really an accident?

tptacek 15y ago
It doesn't matter, because the most important reason you have insurance is to cover your liability to other people. If you rescind that coverage, you're screwing over the other people. Obviously, if you harm other people by driving while intoxicated, it should immediately become sharply (perhaps untenably so) more expensive to insure you.
- aplusbi 15y ago
  I'm not arguing against insuring negligence, I'm arguing against calling negligence an accident. It's a neat way of removing culpability. "It was just an accident!"
  - bunderbunder 15y ago
    "An accident is an accident" was being said by the insurance specialist, and in reference to the insurer's responsibility. In context, it was meant to say nearly the opposite of what you're inferring - something more along the lines of, "We can't pick and choose like that." Which is true; doing so would defeat the whole point of mandatory liability insurance.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
endersshadow 15y ago
From the insurer's perspective, yes, yes it is. There's damage and the insured has contracted the insurer to compensate for the damage caused. What if the drunk driver can't pay an injured party's medical bills? Do you just say, "Well, he was drunk, so there."? No, of course not--the injured parties need to be compensated and have their medical bills taken care of--doctors don't work for free.

SatvikBeri 15y ago

Is anyone's behavior is affected by what their insurance carrier covers? Maybe 1% of people-but that's likely people who are careful enough not to text while driving in the first place. This is like shouting to the world "fat people should eat less and exercise more!"

Permit 15y ago
This is the key point, in my opinion. If someone is willing to risk their life to text while driving, someone is willing to risk financial ruin while driving. It's even less of an incentive and would change nothing. In order to have a successful campaign against texting while driving, it must be made socially and culturally taboo, the way driving drunk is in most places.

gtb 15y ago

In Australia the mandatory insurance will cover any third party medical bills. Any insurance to cover more than that (your medical bill, your property or third party property) won't pay you in case of negligence (drunk driving, knowing that the car was road unworthy etc).