The luxury SUV, which starts at more than $63,000, is the most likely vehicle to be targeted by crooks, according to a new study by the Highway Loss Data Institute.

The study, based on insurance claims made for model year 2008 through 2010 vehicles, showed that the Escalade is six times more likely to be hit by thieves than the average vehicle, and its overall theft losses are more than 10 times as large.

The rankings are based on vehicles that were stolen, had parts such as stereo systems taken, or had other property inside the car snatched.

Matt Moore, a vice president at the institute, says the Escalade gets hit more often because “It’s so wildly popular as far as pop culture goes. Watching the TV you see professional athletes coming in and out of them and other celebrities too. It’s a status symbol.”

HLDI, which is part of the Arlington, Va.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, calculated the rankings based on the number of thefts per insured vehicle on the road.

The data doesn’t include uninsured vehicles or those covered by the 20 percent of insurance companies that don’t report their numbers to the institute.

A total of 10.8 claims were filed for every 1,000 insured Escalades, resulting in average loss payments of $10,555 per claim by insurance companies to the affected drivers, the study said.

The Escalade’s ranking isn’t anything new. When combined, the four versions of the SUV have ranked at the top of the list for several years, the group says.

Pickup trucks are also a favorite of thieves, taking the next four spots in the rankings, including the Ford F-250 crew cab four-wheel drive, the Chevrolet Silverado 1500 crew cab, the Ford F-450 crew cab four-wheel drive and the GMC Sierra 1500 crew cab. Crew cabs are pickups with a second row of seats.

Moore thinks that many of the pickup theft claims resulted from equipment or other items being stolen from truck beds while the vehicles were parked at work sites.

The Chrysler 300 sedan was the sixth most likely vehicle to be targeted and the only car on the list, with 7.1 claims filed for every 1,000 insured cars and an average loss payment of $5,509, the group said.

The vehicle least likely to be hit by thieves was the Audi A6 four-wheel drive, a luxury sedan. But its average loss payment per claim was $16,882. That’s 60 percent higher than that of the Escalade, according to the study.

The A6 was followed by the Mercury Mariner, a small SUV, and the Chevrolet Equinox, a midsize SUV.

The average vehicle in the study had 1.7 claims reported per 1,000 insured vehicles and an average loss payment per claim of $6,767, the study said.

By Bree Fowler, AP Auto Writer

The insurer compiled the information with help from the local police department, which went on a month-long crackdown in September on distracted driving. Police estimate they issued more than 3,500 tickets.

Motorists getting distracted by holding a cellphone in one hand and making or receiving calls while driving is also a common problem in the United States.

Since the first law was passed in New York in 2001 banning handheld cellphone use while driving, there has been debate as to the degree of hazard, according to the New York-based Insurance Information Institute.

A survey conducted by State Farm in November 2010 found that 74 percent reported making or receiving calls at least once a week while driving.

Here are the top 10 excuses the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia compiled of local drivers who were caught using handheld phone devices while driving:

1. This is a bogus law.

2. It was my boss on the phone – I had to answer it.

3. I wasn’t using it – I just like to hold it.

4. Sorry officer, I didn’t see you trying to pull me over because I was on my phone.

5. But it was an emergency call to my wedding planner.

6. My Bluetooth died.

7. Driver: I’m using my speakerphone. Police officer: No, you’re holding your phone in one hand and steering with the other.

8. I’m not driving; I was stopped at a red light.

9. I wasn’t talking, I was checking my messages.

10. I was just checking the time.

A recent national survey from Allstate Insurance shows that support for a national graduated driver licensing (GDL) law corresponds with low opinions about teen driving skills, which received the lowest ranking among all ages surveyed.

Currently, the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP) Act is pending in Congress as part of a broader bill known as Mariah’s Law, named after an Arkansas teen killed in a crash involving texting.

STANDUP would restrict nighttime driving, limit the number of passengers in a teen’s car, prohibit the use of cell phones while driving, and issuance of permits and licenses with specific age requirements through a gradual, multi-phased process.

When asked about the specific provisions included in the STANDUP Act, Americans said they favor the policies. Findings include:

Seventy-six percent back a minimum age of 16 to receive a learner’s permit, and 69 percent favor requiring three stages of licensing.
Seven in 10 Americans favor restricting unsupervised nighttime driving for those under age 18, and 65 percent support restricting the number of non-family passengers for drivers under 18.
When asked about the prohibition of cell phones or texting while driving for younger drivers, 81 percent are in favor.
Support for STANDUP and its individual provisions crosses all age groups, geographic regions, and political affiliation.
American drivers are highly critical of teenage drivers, giving them the lowest rating of all age groups. Eighty-one percent rate teenagers as “average” or “poor” drivers.

“Results from this survey show that Americans clearly understand that GDL laws can help save lives, and that a majority of them support a legislative solution that safely introduces teen drivers to the road,” said Bill Vainisi, senior vice president and deputy general counsel, Allstate. “What’s needed now is national leadership in the form of uniform standards for those GDL laws.”

The survey of 1,000 American adults was conducted July 13, 14, 16 and 17 via landline and cell phone and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent. Of the 1,000 adults, the survey identified 848 drivers who hold a license and drive at least occasionally.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration does an annual survey that watches drivers’ behavior at selected intersections. The latest study caught less than 1 percent texting or manipulating hand-held devices. But it shows that activity increased to 0.9 percent last year, up from 0.6 percent the year before.

The share of drivers speaking in headsets also increased, although hand-held cellphone use remained flat.

The increase in texting while driving came despite bans on the practice in many states. Last month, Pennsylvania became the 35th state to impose a ban.

While most Americans take time off from work during the holidays, vehicle thieves are pounding the pavement without so much as a lunch break.

According to analysis from the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), New Year’s Day, once again, ranked as the leading holiday for reported vehicle thefts in 2010. Christmas Day repeats as the holiday with the fewest reported vehicle thefts. For the 11 holidays reviewed in 2010, a total of 20,995 vehicles were reported stolen compared with a total of 22,991 reported for those same days in 2009.

The Des Plaines, Ill.-based not-for-profit organization’s annual reports show a decline in vehicle thefts for seven consecutive years. There is, however, always a black market for items obtained by theft, and vehicles remain popular theft targets.

The top five holiday theft states are California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia. California had the highest overall number of holiday vehicle thefts. The majority occurred on President’s Day with 507 thefts. Following the national trend, Texas, Florida, Illinois and Georgia had the highest number of thefts on New Year’s Day and all top five states had the lowest on Christmas Day.

The full report, “2010 National Crime Information Center (NCIC) Holiday Vehicle Theft Analysis,” can be accessed here.

Source: www.nicb.org

By Melissa Stewart

December 8, 2011

The Consumer Product Safety Commission says injuries involving falls from ladders while stringing lights, cuts from broken glass ornaments and other decorating activities are on the rise. The government estimates that more than 13,000 people were treated in emergency rooms for such injuries during the last two months of last year, up from 10,000 in 2007.

The commission also reminds that those twinkling lights on the Christmas tree can erupt into flames in a matter of seconds.

CPSC says Christmas tree fires are blamed for about four deaths each year and $18 million in property damage.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study calculated societal costs from binge and heavy drinking beyond what consumers pay at the bar or liquor store. It’s the first such federal estimate in more than a dozen years.

The study looked at costs that included — among other things — lost work productivity, property damage from car crashes, expenditures for liver cirrhosis and other alcohol-associated medical problems, and money spent on incarceration of drunk drivers and criminals using alcohol.

The CDC estimated excessive drinking cost society nearly $224 billion in 2006, the most recent year for which all necessary statistics were available. That worked out to about $1.90 per drink, 80 cents of which was spent by federal, state or local governments, the researchers estimated. The rest came from drinkers, their families, private health insurers, employers, crime victims and others.

Most of that was related to binge drinking, in which four or five alcoholic beverages are consumed on one occasion.

“Binge drinking results in binge spending,” said CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden.

CDC officials noted that while some health benefits have been associated with, say, a glass of wine each day, there are no health benefits linked to excessive drinking. They also said the new study likely represents an underestimate of the total cost.

Smoking has been estimated to cost society about $193 billion annually. An older study estimated the cost of not exercising to be around $150 billion.

The study was released by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.

By MIke Stobbe | October 19, 2011

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost “in a series of small fires.” The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued….and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be “unacceptable fire,” and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurancecompany accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the “fires.”

But… After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

The study “Aggressive Driving: A Consumption Experience,” by a Temple University Fox School of Business professor, is thought to be the first to comprehensively examine how personality, attitude and values contribute to aggressive driving behaviors.

Driving is one of the most common consumptive behaviors, and aggressive driving causes a third of all accidents that involve personal injuries and two thirds of all fatal accidents in the United States.

“It explains much of the phenomenon we knew existed,” said Ayalla Ruvio, lead author and an assistant professor of marketing at the Philadelphia university. For instance, “we know men tend to be more aggressive drivers and we know men tend to see their cars as an extension of themselves more than women.”

Ruvio’s article, published online in the Journal of Psychology & Marketing, takes a consumer behavior perspective of this phenomenon and features two studies conducted in Israel. One took a holistic look at the influence of personality, attitudes and values gathered from 134 surveys of men and women with an average age of 23.5. The second study, of 298 people, built from the first and added the factors of risk attraction, impulsivity, driving as a hedonistic activity and perceptions about time pressures.

The studies found:
•People who perceive their car as a reflection of their self-identity are more likely to behave aggressively on the road and break the law.
•People with compulsive tendencies are more likely to drive aggressively with disregard for potential consequences.
•Increased materialism, or the importance of one’s possessions, is linked to increased aggressive driving tendencies.
•Young people who are in the early stages of forming their self-identity might feel the need to show off their car and driving skills more than others. They may also be overconfident and underestimate the risks involved in reckless driving.
•Those who admit to aggressive driving also admit to engaging in more incidents of breaking the law.
•A sense of being under time and pressure leads to more aggressive driving.

The study findings “suggest that the perception of the car as an extension of the self leads to more aggressive behavior on the road rather than increased driving cautiousness,” the authors wrote, adding that “individuals may view cars and the road space they occupy as their territory and will seek to maintain control over it and defend it as necessary.”

Ruvio said the implications of this study can be seen in numerous cultural contexts because of the strong link between cars and identity. She points to the “soccer-mom” stigma of minivans, the Thelma and Louise personas, and songs such as Shania Twain’s “You Don’t Impress Me Much,” with its line, “I can’t believe you kiss your car goodnight.”

Source: Temple University, Philadelphia

The system, called “Family Link,” lets the owners of cars and trucks equipped with OnStar log onto a website to find their vehicle’s location at any time. Owners also can sign up for e-mail or text message alerts on the vehicle’s location.

“Our subscribers have asked us for a solution to help them stay connected to their family when they’re on the road,” said OnStar President Linda Marshall said in a statement. “What parent hasn’t asked their teenaged driver to call or send a text when they arrive somewhere, only to not hear from them?”

The program will be tested with 10,000 OnStar subscribers, then the company will decide if it will be offered to all of the system’s 6 million customers.

It will be offered at no additional cost to subscribers. OnStar’s main plan costs $18.95 per month.

GM made the announcement this week at an auto industry conference in Traverse City, Mich.