Help too late for driver in fatal crash

The Indianapolis Star ^ | March 6, 2004 | Tom Spalding

[Imal]

No, state regulations foist the burden of uninsurable drivers onto safe drivers.

If you have evidence that actuaries modify their risk data based on state regulations, present it.

[imfleck]

What? Nobody uses that training technique anymore.

[Heatseeker]

Judy, you are to be commended! Many years ago, another wise lady I knew, quit driving and sold her car because she was diabetic and then in her early sixties.

She was lucky though - her daughter and her kids moved in with her, and she could keep house and babysit in return for her daughter being available when she needed to go somewhere. Her friends and other family helped out as well.

[Mamzelle]

dittoes, bump

[eno_]

Actuaries modify nothing based on regulations. Insurance companies do, however, modify their rates to subsidize one category of politically protected customers on the backs of other customers.

[Wiggins]

Yea, I'm a LEO too. Did you see what this other guy said to my last post.

If they were not such a transparent revenue function, they would not get so dissed all the time. They deserve it.

The next time someone terrorizes him or his family, I hope he calls someone who has a less "transparent revenue function". A stupid statement like his didn't even deserve a direct reply. Every time I got kicked or punched or spit upon, or had a gun pulled on me, I never thought that I wasn't there as a "transparent revenue function". Thanks for the back up Pahuanui, Be safe.

[SuziQ]

State Police First Sgt. Dave Bursten said troopers were in a "no-win situation."

Just what did those folks expect the police to do in this situation? The woman is flying down the highway and can't take her foot off the gas pedal. Is an officer supposed to pull in front of her car to stop her? That would probably have resulted in two deaths! I'm sorry the lady died in the crash, but thankful she didn't take anyone else with her.

[SuziQ]

Isn't it possible that traveling on the public roads paid for by gasoline taxes that all driver's of automobiles pay, have a "right" versus a "privilege" to drive their automobile at any age?

No one has the RIGHT to drive if by their actions they will cause harm to other drivers and passengers on the road. A driver's license is a privilege granted by the state, and the state can change the laws governing it. There have been many changes of late involving teenage drivers which didn't come about because of citizen votes. States made those determinations based on actuarial evidence regarding teenage drivers and fatal accidents. The same thing may happen with older drivers in the near future.

[cameronsmom]

You don’t need to pass an exam for a library card. You just need be competent and responsible enough (or have someone who is) sign for the library card. (i.e.- children have their parents sign for them)

The Drivers Exam, on the other hand, is there so that people that are not capable of passing it have no legal access to a driver’s license.

Why can’t children be allowed to have a driver's license then? When I am parked, I allow my 9 month old son to sit in the driver's seat. He loves to hang on to the steering wheel, and he knows how to run the blinkers and the wipers...why can’t he drive? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE STUPID!

He isn’t capable to control a car to the requirements set forth in the exam! Whether young or old, people who cannot comprehend what they are doing, do not have the right to put other people in jeopardy. Car accidents kill many people on a daily basis.

I don’t think any one was harmed in the acquisition of a library card, and the further use thereafter.

A driver's license, however, can put people in the position to cause potential harm, and therefore needs to have periodical exams to verify that they are still capable.

I wouldn’t want an electrician who was last certified to wire a house 50 years ago to wire my current house today. There are new codes, standards, and equipment that would be needed to pass current inspection. It’s the same concept.

If this electrician were to tell me if I didn’t allow them to wire my house, then I was infringing on their privilege to do so, I would LAUGH! I have the right to deny their services, just like he has the right to update his skills, and to be certified to wire in this day and age!

[cameronsmom]

I agree!

[eno_]

When was the last time someone didn't pass a drivers exam? Do you know any unwilling pedestrians? It's a farce to perpretuate the myth of "driving is a privilege."

Contrast this with what would happen if the process were taken away from the government: Insurers would give lower rates to people who pass more-rigorous tests. Drivers would actually be safer (instead of being another government cash cow).

Gee, I guess we'd better bust Home Depot for selling all that electrical wire to unlicensed homeowners.

[cameronsmom]

"When was the last time someone didn't pass a drivers exam?"

Um, I know that my son couldnt pass one right now. If it is a privilege, then people of all ages would be able to get a drivers license with out an exam. States need to start requiring exams of people so that those who are competent do not have to pay for those who are not.

Ok- here is the answer:

Lets let anyone who wants to drive, drive. To hell with licenses. And anyone who wants to practice medicine, practice medicine. YES!!! That is the way it should be.

[Imal]

Insurance companies do, however, modify their rates to subsidize one category of politically protected customers on the backs of other customers.

I'm curious about that. Would you cite some examples?

[eno_]

I live in Massachusetts in a town with neglegable crime. My auto insurance is regulated by the state to subsidize people in high crime areas. It also subsidizes the "high-risk pool" that insures otherwise uninsurable drivers. This is the explicit publicly-stated policy of the Massachusetts insurance commission. Why do you think this is some unknown or secret practice?

[cameronsmom]

"If it is a privilege"

was meant to be
If it isn't a privilege

[Pahuanui]

Every time I got kicked or punched or spit upon, or had a gun pulled on me, I never thought that I wasn't there as a "transparent revenue function". Thanks for the back up Pahuanui, Be safe.

Got your 6, m'man.

[Imal]

This is the explicit publicly-stated policy of the Massachusetts insurance commission. Why do you think this is some unknown or secret practice?

It may have something to do with the fact that I don't live in or anywhere near Massachusetts. There are 49 other states out here, you know.

I rented a car in Boston about twelve years ago, and I seem to remember insurance being rather pricey for it versus other places (including Hawaii), but I was only there for a week, and didn't take time out to peruse the statutes during my visit, so I can't say I am an expert on Massachusetts insurance laws.

Sounds like they are in line with general Massachusetts public policies as I understand them, however (i.e., scourge the serfs, levy the crops and marry the gays), although, to be fair, some of the more quaint streets of historic Boston seemed dangerous enough to negotiate on foot at walking speed, let alone try navigating them with a newfangled motorcar. Especially in winter, I could see increased actuarial risk there versus other states.

Unknown or secret? Sounds more like peculiar to your state, although I don't doubt some other states abuse their citizens in a similar fashion (typically those run by Democrats). The most expensive states/districts for insurance, according to one handy chart I found, are New Jersey, D.C., New York, Rhode Island and Connecticut, for what it's worth. My state, Nevada, is ranked 7th nationally, but I suspect rates are somewhat different for Las Vegans than for us hicks in the sticks, because my rates are pretty don't seem so bad.

I am not familiar with unreasonable state insurance regulations in Nevada, but then again, I may simply be unaware of them. Rates in Nevada tend to be pretty high on average versus other states, but I don't think that's due to regulatory burden-shifting, and where I live (i.e., not in Las Vegas, which is a driving madhouse), I find my rates quite affordable. As luck would have it, I'll be meeting my insurance agent on Friday, so I'll see if I can remember to ask her about it, now that I'm curious. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners has some interesting comparative insurance rate data

But I guess the bottom line, if you'll pardon the cliche, is that your mileage may vary.

Having probably drifted farther afield from the topic than I should, I thank you for the information you have provided, and bid you cheers from flyover country.