3 ms·
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 firs
by 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 agoI 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 agoI'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 agoDisagree. Insurance to cover accidents doesn't have to cover negligence.
- aidenn0 15y agoSince 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.
- JoeAltmaier 15y agoNo, but its an irrational model that doesn't work (clearly). Lets imagine I could insure myself against irresponsible gambling. What are the odds then? Who pays? If a model doesn't work, it doesn't work.
- aidenn0 15y agoActually that model works phenomenally well. Let's say you wanted to greatly reduce the amount of irresponsible gambling in legal casinos: 1) You require all gamblers to furnish proof of insurance against large losses Problem solved! Private insurance companies will only insure those that are unlikely to make poor bets, will engage in deductibles and caps to limit their losses on the few that will be irresponsible. The cost is that all people will have to fund the first-time offences of the irresponsible, but for driving that's an inefficiency that is probably worth it.