Do insurance companies still buy radar/lidar for police departments?

[Klackamas]

I remember this being a big thing years ago... auto insurance donating speed measuring equipment to municipalities.
Does anyone know if this practice has stopped or been legislated against in any states?

I remember Car and Driver had several articles on GEICO going this.

Can't seem to find out a lot about the practice today. Would that be open information to the public?

[Byteme]

Check their annual reports or press releases.  GEICO used to brag about it.

[12,000 RPM]

Insurance is such BS. I would love to see the correlation between moving violations and insurance claims.

[dazzleman]

Insurance is such BS. I would love to see the correlation between moving violations and insurance claims.

That would actually be an interesting analysis.  I think this is the problem with having speed limits that are too low, that effectively criminalize normal everyday driving.  It becomes really difficult to tell the difference between bad driving, and safe driving that is technically illegal, by looking at a person's driving record.  Some people who get tickets a lot are dangerous drivers, while others are not.  And of course, there are a lot of dangerous drivers who don't get tickets very often or at all.

[Byteme]

That would actually be an interesting analysis.  I think this is the problem with having speed limits that are too low, that effectively criminalize normal everyday driving.  It becomes really difficult to tell the difference between bad driving, and safe driving that is technically illegal, by looking at a person's driving record.  Some people who get tickets a lot are dangerous drivers, while others are not.  And of course, there are a lot of dangerous drivers who don't get tickets very often or at all.

I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history.  There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky.  But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers.   Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver. 

Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.

[dazzleman]

I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history.  There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky.  But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers.   Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver. 

Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.

Do you think you're a high or medium high risk driver?

[Byteme]

Do you think you're a high or medium high risk driver?

I'm low risk. 

[dazzleman]

I'm low risk.

How long has your record been clean?

[Byteme]

How long has your record been clean?

At least 10 years.

[dazzleman]

At least 10 years.

Then you're low risk, at least on paper.

I went 14 years between speeding tickets but my driving never changed.  All that time I was low risk, but now I'd be considered higher risk, at least for a while.  The only thing that happened is that I got nailed doing something I've been doing all along.  It's all pretty random, but no system is perfect.

[Byteme]

Then you're low risk, at least on paper.

Good driving records are about not getting caught as much as obeying the laws.  Everyone probably commits at least one ticketable offense on a 20 mile drive. 

I live in a small town, I'm retired , some weeks I put as little as 20 miles on the cars and truck.  So on paper, yeah, low risk.

That aside, I'm a pretty decent driver.

[dazzleman]

Good driving records are about not getting caught as much as obeying the laws.  Everyone probably commits at least one ticketable offense on a 20 mile drive. 

I live in a small town, I'm retired , some weeks I put as little as 20 miles on the cars and truck.  So on paper, yeah, low risk.

That aside, I'm a pretty decent driver.

Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state.  I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.

[Byteme]

Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state.  I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.

Most states share ticket data via the Driver's license compact.  I'd bet you got that ticket in Mass., they aren't part of the compact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

[dazzleman]

Most states share ticket data via the Driver's license compact.  I'd bet you got that ticket in Mass., they aren't part of the compact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver_License_Compact

New York, actually.  It may have been reported to Connecticut but as it was explained to me, they only actually apply more serious out of state offenses like DWI to your a Connecticut license.

[Rupert]

I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.

[dazzleman]

I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.

Insurance companies just look at your record in the prior 3 years.  If you're looking to change companies, they'll hold even one ticket against you.  If you stay with the same insurance company, it will probably slide as long as you don't have an accident.

[Byteme]

I would be surprised if a single ticket in 14 years really put you in a higher risk group, at least as far as affecting your rates. Educated guess is two tickets in five years or worse.

Anymore one ticket can get you about a 15% surcharge, 2 a 30% and 3 up to 50%+.  That's gonna vary by insurance co.  This was from a web site discussing insurance premiums.

[GoCougs]

I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history.  There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky.  But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers.   Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver. 

Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.

Of all moving traffic citations given, what % are for materially dangerous behavior - running red lights, illegal turns, tailgating, etc.? My hunch is it's preciously small, with most citations being of the speeding variety which I'd bet in the majority if not most cases is not materially dangerous.

[dazzleman]

Of all moving traffic citations given, what % are for materially dangerous behavior - running red lights, illegal turns, tailgating, etc.? My hunch is it's preciously small, with most citations being of the speeding variety which I'd bet in the majority if not most cases is not materially dangerous.

That was the point I was originally making.  Since speed limits are often set too low, we have effectively criminalized a decent amount of safe driving, so just the fact of having a couple of speeding tickets does not automatically indicate unsafe driving.  Insurance aside, I always thought that was the problem with enforcing speed limits that are too low -- they blur the line between unsafe driving, and driving that is safe but technically illegal.  Having a safe but illegal speeding ticket may indicate a propensity to disregard rules under certain circumstances (something most people do), but not necessarily being a bad driver.

[Klackamas]

I'm sure insurance companies can trot out reams of data and studies that show for the insured population as a whole there is a positive correlation between moving violation history and claim history.  There will always be exceptions; the driver who is unsafe and is never ticketed and the gal who constantly exceeds the speed limit safely because she is an exceptional driver, or just lucky.  But insurance companies don't really set rates for individuals, the set rates for groups of drivers.   Exhibit behavior that puts you in a high risk group and you get treated as a member of that group whether you are an excellent, average or below average driver. 

Common sense will tell you that statistically the driver that runs stop signs and red lights, tailgates, passes in no passing zones, makes illegal turns and speeds is more likely to be involved in an accident.

Yes, insurers can produce studies. Of course any studies that they paid for but showed opposite data will conveniently not get published by them.
It seems a conflict of interest to fund speed measuring equipment when insurers will profit from the results of that equipment over time and have also lobbied the state to make auto insurance mandatory. I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel and living off the misery of the public. To be sure, the state and private insurers both profit and the results seem sinister and based on the result: money for the state and a private concern. Moreover, if you are someone who spends a lot of time on the road every year or earn a living trucking, the odds of traffic citations increase naturally. But are truckers anymore likely to cause fatalities or accidents? The system seems arbitrary and capricious. If this is about safety, the public needs to pay for speed measuring equipment and it's maintenance. Then the public has a say at election time based on results and independent journalism. The feedback loop to local law enforcement is necessary. This would be gifting for quid-pro-quo.

If I have to spell it out...

- company XYZ buy a department speed measuring equipment (and maybe train)
- department writes tickets
- convictions/no shows/plea of guilty go into a database in the sky with a point scheme and an arbitrary time that varies from state to state
- company XYZ collects based on a point scheme which is different from state to state with a blackbox how those points are set

And there seems to be a growing and lucrative system in some states whereby if one gets a ticket, the records are culled and all of a sudden there's a stack of mail in the accused's mailbox soliciting for legal services and pleas to the court. Make no mistakes, this is a rigged system dedicated to the collection of revenue for all players.

Furthermore, states have passed legislation that fines may not go towards the coffers of state bureaucrats. In a neighboring state for example, fines go towards the educators pension fund.  Suddenly, "fines" are low and "court costs" are high.  A convenient way to get around the legislation. To me, it seems like sinister revenue collection scheme by state governments with insurers in tow.  Reckless driving needs to be punished. That's not what we have today.

[Byteme]

That was the point I was originally making.  Since speed limits are often set too low, we have effectively criminalized a decent amount of safe driving, so just the fact of having a couple of speeding tickets does not automatically indicate unsafe driving.  Insurance aside, I always thought that was the problem with enforcing speed limits that are too low -- they blur the line between unsafe driving, and driving that is safe but technically illegal.  Having a safe but illegal speeding ticket may indicate a propensity to disregard rules under certain circumstances (something most people do), but not necessarily being a bad driver.

I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies.  None of this is rocket science.   

We are stuck with the current system for now.  Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.

If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options;  drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.

If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.   

The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not.  They, with  rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is).  We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. 


Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved. 

[dazzleman]

I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies.  None of this is rocket science.   

We are stuck with the current system for now.  Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.

If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options;  drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.

If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.   

The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not.  They, with  rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is).  We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. 


Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved.

Yes, I know.

[Byteme]

Yes, insurers can produce studies. Of course any studies that they paid for but showed opposite data will conveniently not get published by them.

If I were a betting man I'd bet studies that show a positive correlation are statistically valid. 

It seems a conflict of interest to fund speed measuring equipment when insurers will profit from the results of that equipment over time and have also lobbied the state to make auto insurance mandatory. I liken it to shooting fish in a barrel and living off the misery of the public. To be sure, the state and private insurers both profit and the results seem sinister and based on the result: money for the state and a private concern. Moreover, if you are someone who spends a lot of time on the road every year or earn a living trucking, the odds of traffic citations increase naturally. But are truckers anymore likely to cause fatalities or accidents? The system seems arbitrary and capricious. If this is about safety, the public needs to pay for speed measuring equipment and it's maintenance. Then the public has a say at election time based on results and independent journalism. The feedback loop to local law enforcement is necessary. This would be gifting for quid-pro-quo.

Looks like a conflict of interest to me as well. 

And there seems to be a growing and lucrative system in some states whereby if one gets a ticket, the records are culled and all of a sudden there's a stack of mail in the accused's mailbox soliciting for legal services and pleas to the court. Make no mistakes, this is a rigged system dedicated to the collection of revenue for all players.

The ticket is a matter of public record.  I don't think this is a matter of the law enforcement agencies selling out to private enterprise.    Enterprising individuals and businesses, i.e. money grubbing bloodsuckers, have found yet another method of peddling their services.

Reckless driving needs to be punished. That's not what we have today.

Unfortunately, all too often citing for reckless driving is writing a ticket for the driver who caused an accident.  Punitive tickets for violations that otherwise caused no harm is an attempt to modify behavior by punishment and an attempt to identify those drivers who are more likely to cost society more  through their actions.   I'd agree it's flawed.     

[Eye of the Tiger]

Its all a scam. I wiolnnw er yabe full can average on a car again after this in m. Police should not be able to pull over anyone except for a criminal offense. Since when did minor civil violations become the primary goal of law enforcementm ? If it doesn't require pulling out a gunz then it doesn't require cops. Enforcing low level traffic laws doesn't make anyone drive better the roads are Stoll q cluster fuck of ignorant assholes. Mandatort 5-year driver education program and then decreace traffic enforcement to criminal voilatonsm.save money, make sager roads.

[Rupert]

Its all a scam. I wiolnnw er yabe full can average on a car again after this in m. Police should not be able to pull over anyone except for a criminal offense. Since when did minor civil violations become the primary goal of law enforcementm ? If it doesn't require pulling out a gunz then it doesn't require cops. Enforcing low level traffic laws doesn't make anyone drive better the roads are Stoll q cluster fuck of ignorant assholes. Mandatort 5-year driver education program and then decreace traffic enforcement to criminal voilatonsm.save money, make sager roads.

Have we been drinking, or are you typing this on the world's tiniest keyboard?

[GoCougs]

I'll ignore the labels "safe driver", "low risk", etc. and focus on the actions of drivers and insurance companies.  None of this is rocket science.   

We are stuck with the current system for now.  Virtually no one likes the current auto insurance system but I've never seen anyone come up with a better system that's actually workable.

If one thinks the current speed limits are too low one has two options;  drive at or under the limit and get where you are going a bit later, or exceed the limit and face the potential of being ticketed.

If you get a ticket you face immediate expenses with the legal system and the possibility of higher insurance costs later on.   

The law enforcement system, legal system and insurance companies with rare exceptions do not care whether you were speeding safely or not.  They, with  rare exceptions don't care how good a driver one is (or thinks he or she is).  We can debate the motive of law enforcement and the courts but I think we would all agree insurance companies first and foremost goal is to maximize profits and increase shareholder value. 


Bottom line, if one wants to commit driving violations one should be prepared to pay whatever costs are involved. 

Third options - drive however one pleases and just get a lawyer .

There's a very easy way to fix the system. End the monopoly (i.e., government thugacracy) of the insurance industry, which will include axing insurance companies' direct line to one's (non criminal) driving record.

[Soup DeVille]

Have we been drinking, or are you typing this on the world's tiniest keyboard?

"Mandatort" is a perfectly cromulent word. And I think we can all agree that we need sager roads.

[Rupert]

Mandatort: When the only option is to sue; when you must sue.

[12,000 RPM]

Third options - drive however one pleases and just get a lawyer .

There's a very easy way to fix the system. End the monopoly (i.e., government thugacracy) of the insurance industry, which will include axing insurance companies' direct line to one's (non criminal) driving record.

How would they assess risk though?

I think it would be better to just to ban hiking rates off of moving violations. Insurers pay out based on accidents.... so accidents should be the basis of rates.

Speed limits should be adjusted to reflect modern car capabilities and general driver speed sentiments as well. 10 MPH over is pretty much the norm everywhere.

[MexicoCityM3]

Or if you get nailed, make sure it happens out of state.  I switched insurance companies this past year and got a big reduction in my rates because of my perfect driving record, since my recent ticket never came up on the license check because I got it in a neighboring state.

Or out-of-country. Then you can really have basically zero consequences other than the fine. You should tag along with me on on of my 200kph visits to Leon. The autobahn is nothing.