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

http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/10/what-if-insurers-didnt-pay-for-crashes-caused-by-texting/

by FluidDjango • 15 years ago

8 24 15 years ago

bucks.blogs.nytimes.com

bryanh• 15 years ago

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

lmkg• 15 years 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• 15 years ago

"The other person in the car was using it."

awda• 15 years 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.

bunderbunder2• 15 years 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• 15 years 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.

JoeAltmaier2• 15 years ago

Disagree. Insurance to cover accidents doesn't have to cover negligence.

aidenn02• 15 years 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• 15 years ago

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

aplusbi3• 15 years ago

"An accident is an accident"

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

tptacek• 15 years 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.

aplusbi3• 15 years 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!"

endersshadow• 15 years 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.

aplusbi3• 15 years ago

Of course, I just don't think they should be called "accidents." When a person is willfully negligent the damage they cause is no accident.

sp332• 15 years ago

Of course. Collisions aren't "caused by" drunk driving. They are caused by drunk drivers, who make more mistakes than average.

SatvikBeri• 15 years 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• 15 years 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• 15 years 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).

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

Related Stories