Posted by Benji Riggins on January 28, 2012 under Interesting Info | 
The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, a Canadian auto insurer, released last week a list of top excuses from local motorists when they were caught using handheld cellphones while driving.
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.
Posted by Benji Riggins on January 17, 2012 under Interesting Info |
New federal safety data shows texting while driving increased 50 percent last year, despite a rush by states to ban the practice.
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.
Tags: auto ins, car ins, driver safety, home ins, homeowner ins, homeowners ins, insurance agency, insurance agent, text, texting, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 29, 2011 under Safety |
If you’ve ever turned a corner without a signal only to be blasted by a honking horn – and maybe an obscene gesture from the driver behind you – you’ve set off a driver for whom not signaling is a pet peeve. That’s most drivers. When surveyed on their pet peeves, many drivers first mention others who don’t use turn signals when turning or making lane changes.
While signaling a lane change on a deserted stretch of highway at 3 a.m. may seem unnecessary, that’s a situation that few people find themselves in regularly. Most people drive where their actions on the road have a direct effect on the other drivers sharing that same stretch of highway as well as on pedestrians.
The safe, thoughtful driver always signals lane changes and builds that habit. When other drivers can predict your behavior, everyone on the road is safer.
Think before you signal: You’re planning to turn right into the bank that’s on the opposite corner of the intersection. So when should you signal your right turn? Don’t confuse the drivers coming at you by putting your signal on too soon. They might just make a left turn in front of you. But do get that signal on before you turn. Some drivers deliberately don’t signal a lane change because they fear that the drivers in that lane will speed up and close the gap, shutting out their move. That might happen occasionally, but usually if you do signal other drivers are courteous and let you in. Not signaling is dangerous and could cause an accident.
The danger at intersections: Dangers abound at intersections. An estimated 80 percent of fatal city collisions happen at intersections that have stoplights. Why are they so deadly? Because many motorists travel at speeds approaching 50 miles per hour at intersections and crashes are often t-bone hits where one car is hit either on the driver or passenger door. As you enter an intersection on a green light, look left, then right, then left again. Make sure it’s visually clear before you enter it.
Yellow means slow down, not speed up to beat the red light: Red means stop whether it’s a sign or a signal. If it’s a signal, yellow means slow down and stop! It’s pretty simple. Running stop signs and lights cause many fatalities every year. And remember, a rolling stop is not a stop in the eyes of the law. Would you rather spend your hard earned cash on a ticket or on something enjoyable?
Backing up: Many people back up without looking and that causes many accidents each year. If you don’t believe it, next time you’re walking through a parking lot (don’t do this when driving, it will distract you) check out the back ends of the cars for damage that comes from accidents caused by backing up without looking. Sadly, each year children are run over at home when cars are backed over them. Backing down a roadway is never a good idea either and on limited access highways it’s illegal. Even if it was, it wouldn’t be safe.
Freeway and expressway driving: Freeways and expressways have their own set of driving rules. Closed access highways forbid many things: stopping unless for an emergency, backing up and staying out of emergency vehicle crossover lanes are typical. Because limited access highways usually have higher speed limits, it’s critical that drivers pay attention and follow the rules of the road. One of the most important things to learn as a driver is to properly use the acceleration and deceleration lanes for entering and exiting a freeway.
When you drive safely and courteously, whether you’re on a country road, a city street or a limited access highway you’ll find that most other drivers will be courteous as well. So drive safely and enjoy your trip and consider talking to Statewide Insurance (704)821-7630 if you’re in the market for auto insurance.
Renee KolzowDecember 6, 2011 11:15 amAuto, Featured Articles, On The Road, Safety on the Road
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance quote, auto safety, car ins, car insurance quote, car safety, driver safety, driving safety, insurance agency, insurance agent, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on August 12, 2011 under Interesting Info |
The majority of Americans consider themselves to be good drivers but their habits on the road tell a different story.
American drivers believe their own driving knowledge, ability and safe driving habits are well above other drivers on the road, according to a recent study by Allstate Corp.
Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of American drivers rate themselves as “excellent” or “very good” drivers. American drivers’ positive self-rating is more than twice as high as the rating they give to their own close friends — 29 percent “excellent” or “very good” — and also other people their age, 22 percent.
Drivers also don’t think much of the driving ability of people from surrounding states. Fifty-three percent rate them as “average” or “poor,” while just 8 percent rate those drivers as “excellent” or “very good.”
Others who American drivers rated lower than themselves include:
Teenage drivers received the lowest rating; 81 percent rated teenagers as “average” or “poor” drivers.
70 percent of Americans gave senior citizen drivers comparatively low scores.
Parents with very young children in the car received a mediocre rating, with 26 percent of American drivers rating this group as “excellent” or “good,” while 33 percent rate them as “average” or “poor.”
Even those with their own very young children are critical of their peers and rate themselves more than twice as high as “excellent” or “good” drivers — 64 percent — than they rate their fellow parents — 29 percent.
Men are more likely to rate themselves as “excellent” than women (36 percent versus 26 percent), as are college-educated drivers (35 percent) compared to those with no degree (28 percent).
Republicans also rate themselves higher (70 percent) than Democrats (61 percent) or Independents (61 percent).
Despite American drivers’ confidence in their abilities, many admit to practicing dangerous behaviors on the road.
Eighty-nine percent say they’ve driven faster than the posted speed limit, and 40 percent say they’ve driven more than 20 miles per hour over the limit.
Men are more likely to speed than women — 48 percent versus 30 percent.
Almost half (45 percent) say they have driven while excessively tired — to the point of almost falling asleep.
Fifteen percent say they have driven while intoxicated, with men almost four times more likely than women to have done so — 23 percent of men versus six percent of women.
More than one-third (34 percent) have sent a text-message or email while driving, but the prevalence of the practice changes by age group.
Those 18-29 years of age are the most likely to text while driving (63 percent) with drivers ages 30-44 not far behind (58 percent).
Texting while driving decreases with older age groups; only 25 percent of those 45-54, six percent of those 55-64, and two percent of those over 65 admit to the practice.
Most American drivers have caused some dangerous situations for others while driving.
Seven in 10 American drivers say that as a result of being distracted while driving, they have slammed their brakes or swerved to avoid an accident, missed a traffic signal, or actually caused an accident.
Fifty-three percent report having received a speeding ticket or other moving violation. Among these drivers, 44 percent say they have received three or more. More men say they have received a ticket than women — 61 percent vs. 46 percent — and those who have received tickets get more of them — an average of 4.3 per man compared to 2.6 per woman.
Fifty-six percent of American drivers say they have been involved in an accident, but only 28 percent of them say the accident was their own fault.
Regardless of confidence or high self-ratings, a significant number of American drivers experience concern about certain driving situations.
Two-thirds (64 percent) of American drivers say that driving in the snow, heavy rain or other bad weather is stressful and uncomfortable.
Fifty-six percent report the same about driving in heavy traffic, and 41 percent say that driving behind or near large trucks is stressful and uncomfortable.
Driving at night (29 percent stressful and uncomfortable), driving over a long bridge (17 percent), driving through a tunnel (13 percent), and driving on the highway (16 percent) rate lower on the stress scale.
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 survey was conducted by Financial Dynamics (FD) for Allstate.
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance, auto safety, car ins, car insurance, car safety, driver safety, driving safe, ins agency, ins agent, insurance agency, insurance agent
Posted by Benji Riggins on August 10, 2011 under Interesting Info |
Each year, GMAC Insurance conducts a survey to determine how many American drivers would meet today’s basic requirements to obtain a driver’s license.
The 7th annual GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test results projected that 18 percent of Americans—or 36.9 million people—would fail the test with a score of less than 70 percent.
Though the average score across the country was 77.9 percent, up from last year’s 76.2 percent average, 85 percent of test takers could not identify the correct action to take when approaching a steady yellow traffic light, and about 75 percent were unaware of safe following distances.
The results revealed some interesting statistics:
Kansas held the top spot for the second year in a row with an 82.9 percent average score, while Washington D.C. fell to last place with a 71.8 percent average score. This marked the first time in four years that New York did not fall to the bottom spot.
More than 27 percent of women failed the test, while only 13.6 percent of men failed.
The Midwest was dubbed the best driving region, while the Northeast was considered the worst.
Thirty-four percent of drivers in New York and Washington D.C. failed the test.
Older drivers achieved higher scores than younger drivers. However, there were strong indications that the youngest test takers, aged 16-24, are becoming better drivers.
The survey took into account 5,130 licensed drivers aged 16-65 and included participants from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The online exam consisted of 20 questions taken from state Department of Motor Vehicle (DMV) exams, with regional differentiators, such as what to do when driving in a snow, eliminated to create a universal set of questions.
Tags: auto ins, auto insurance, auto insurance nc, auto insurance North Carolina, auto safety, car ins, car insurance, car insurance nc, car insurance north carolina, car safety, driver safety, driving safety, insurance agency, insurance agent, Safety, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on March 4, 2011 under Interesting Info |
N.C. legislator wants to use revenue from the tickets to help schools.
Automated speed cameras had a brief history in North Carolina, but they might have a big future.
The state would start using cameras to nab speeders around schools and road construction sites under new legislation filed by Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat.
Glazier wants a pilot program to authorize speed cameras in up to 15 school zones and 15 highway work zones at a time. It would continue for 15 years, with the potential to generate millions of dollars from speeding tickets worth $125 to $250 apiece.
That brings up the purpose of Glazier’s bill: Use speed cameras to repay a big state debt to N.C. schools.
A 2008 ruling by the N.C. Court of Appeals found that $748 million in various civil penalties collected across the state over nine years should have been paid to local schools – but wasn’t – under language in the state Constitution. So far, the legislature has paid down only $18 million of that debt.
Under Glazier’s proposal, 25 percent of the speed camera ticket proceeds would go straight to an existing schools fund, to use for driver education. The other 75 percent would be paid to local schools to “satisfy the judgment” against the state in the 2008 ruling.
“We believe this is a great way to do it,” said Leanne Winner, spokeswoman for the N.C. School Boards Association, the plaintiff in that court case. She said her group helped Glazier draft the bill.
“This will generate dollars to help the state pay off the judgment, and it will provide safety in areas that we know are very unsafe: work zones on state-maintained roads, and school zones.”
Speed cameras measure how fast a car is moving, as a live officer would do with a radar gun, and snap photos of the speeders’ license plates. The car owners get tickets in the mail, along with photos and other evidence.
Police in Charlotte used 22 speed cameras to nab 43,000 violators in 2005. Authorities said the cameras made city streets safer, with less speeding and fewer crashes. Highway safety experts at the University of North Carolina said the same thing.
But a ruling in a related court case forced Charlotte to switch off its speed cameras in 2006, after using them for only two years.
Charlotte had used most of the fees collected from speeders to finance the camera program technology. The court said that money belonged instead to the schools. City leaders said they couldn’t afford to start spending local tax money for the cameras.
Charlotte was the only city with speed cameras, but it was one of several forced in the same case to stop using similar cameras to catch red-light runners. (Raleigh and Cary still have red-light cameras because the law that authorized them has not faced a similar court challenge.)
Glazier’s bill proposes civil penalties close to what a driver would face with a regular ticket: $250 for speeding in a highway work zone, $125 for speeding in a school zone. No insurance points would go on the driver’s record. Signs would be posted to warn drivers of the speed cameras ahead.
There are plenty of questions about how the camera system would work and how much money it would raise. Glazier could not be reached for comment Monday.
Reduced speed limits around schools are posted only for school days – and only for a few hours a day, when children are walking and biking to school in the morning and home in the afternoon. Other states have used speed cameras to reduce accidents around schools, Winner said.
DOT does not cut speed limits around road-work sites as frequently as it did in past years, and it long ago dropped the “highway work zone” language still used in state law. Nowadays, DOT engineers are likely to post reduced speed limits – with flashing signs that warn of $250 penalties – for only a few hours or days at a time.
Mikael Gross, a legislative staff attorney who helped draft Glazier’s bill, said it would be up to DOT to decide where and how to use the cameras.
Glazier would have DOT pay for the cameras, estimated at $11 million a year, from its Highway Fund. DOT would recoup the cost by reducing money it now transfers to schools for driver education, about $31 million a year, Gross said.
By Bruce Siceloff
bruce.siceloff@newsobserver.com
Posted: Tuesday, Feb. 22, 2011
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/02/22/2081823/speed-cameras-may-be-on-the-road.html#ixzz1Enj0PuBE
Posted by Benji Riggins on January 26, 2011 under Insurance News |
The age group with the highest accident rate over all other groups is 16-year-olds. The leading cause of death for US teenagers is car accidents, which account for more than one in three deaths in this age group. Statistically, they are the most expensive to insure and as such, their premiums for automobile insurance are the highest. Here are tips on how to keep costs down for young drivers while keeping them safer.
There are regulations that drop premiums and keep drivers safer. Some state requirements include certified driver’s education courses for young drivers to get a license by 16 years old. If these are not completed they will need to wait until they are 18 years old. These classes help teens learn good driving habits and can reduce their automobile insurance rates by up to 15 percent. These certified classes are not required in all areas but they can be taken on a voluntary basis to get low-cost automobile insurance.
Most automobile insurance companies offer discounts up to 10 or 20 percent for students who maintain a minimal GPA, often called a good student discount. Teens can also gain cheaper rates by maintaining a clean driving record. Speeding tickets, accidents and other violations greatly increase premiums. By avoiding these, some companies will offer consistently lower rates each year the teen has remained free of traffic violations and accidents.
In addition to educating young drivers, there are also laws in various states that are intended to keep teens safe when behind the wheel. Besides the mandatory certified driver’s education classes, there are laws limiting time driving at night, graduated licenses, and a specific minimal amount of time driving with adult supervision. Parents and guardians can also give their young drivers rules to keep them safe. Studies have shown that accidents that involve young drivers are often caused by distracted driving. Examples of these rules while driving can include not using cell phones or not listening to music. They can also include a curfew to keep teens off roads during the high-risk times of weekend evenings and nights.
Tags: auto ins, auto safety, automobile ins, car ins, car safety, driver safety, insurance, insurance agency, insurance agent, teen driver, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 20, 2010 under Insurance News |
The United States is lagging behind nearly every other high-income country in reducing annual traffic fatalities, said a report released this week by a U.S. government research panel.
There’s some good news: U.S. traffic fatalities fell 9.7 percent in 2009 to 33,808, the lowest number since 1950. In 2008, an estimated 37,423 people died on the highways, a decline of 9.3 percent from the previous year.
But dramatic declines in traffic fatalities in the U.S. over the last several years are likely due to a sour economy in which people drive less, rather than lasting changes in behavior, the report suggests. As the economy improves, researchers said, fatalities are likely to rebound.
“The experience of the past three years is not grounds for concluding that sustainable progress has been made on traffic safety,” the report said.
In the 1970s, the U.S. fatality rate was the lowest in the world. But because safety efforts have improved more slowly in the United States than elsewhere, most high-income countries have now matched or gone below the U.S. rate, said the report by the Transportation Research Board.
Countries with comparable living standards where fatality rates per mile (kilometer) of travel were substantially higher than in the United States 15 years ago are now below the U.S. rate, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Finland, Norway, France and Britain.
“The United States can no longer claim to rank highly in road safety by world standards,” the report said.
From 1995 to 2009, fatalities dropped 52 percent in France, 38 percent in Britain, 25 percent in Australia, and 50 percent in 15 high-income countries for which long-term fatality and traffic data are available, the report said. But they dropped only 19 percent in the U.S.
The dramatic declines in fatalities in other nations have been achieved in part through the kinds of programs that have sometimes generated opposition in the U.S: speed cameras and speed measuring devices, sobriety checkpoints and mandatory motorcycle helmets, for example.
If such programs were widely adopted in the U.S., it’s probable that thousands of lives could be saved each year, the report said.
Researchers estimated that nationwide, sustained and frequent use of checkpoints to detect drunk drivers could save 1,500 to 3,000 lives annually. Systematic speed control programs applied nationwide could save another 1,000 to 2,000 lives, the report said.
If every state required all motorcyclists to wear helmets, about 450 deaths a year could be avoided, the report said. Increasing the rate of seat belt use just 5 percent — from the present 85 percent to 90 percent — would save about 1,200 lives.
“Where is the public outcry against these preventable deaths?” said National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman.
“Americans should strive for zero fatalities on the road. We should be leading, rather than following the international community when it comes to roadway design and safety measures,” Hersman said. “But it is a sad fact that the U.S. is in their rear view mirror and falling further behind the rest of the world when it comes to highway safety.”
By Joan Lowy
November 17, 2010
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/11/17/114965.htm#ixzz161pfFiRD
Tags: auto ins, auto safety, car ins, driver safety, insurance, insurance agency, insurance agent, motorcycle ins, road safety, traffic, vehicle ins
Posted by Benji Riggins on June 1, 2010 under Safety |
As more states are allowing souped-up golf carts and other low-speed vehicles on public roads, safety researchers for the insurance industry say they should apply the brakes to this trend even though the carts may be eco-friendly.
Crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety show that the mix of low-speed vehicles (LSVs) or minitrucks and regular traffic is a deadly combination.
LSVs are designed for tooling around residential neighborhoods, and minitrucks are for hauling cargo off-road. While these vehicles have a lot of appeal as a way to reduce emissions and cut fuel use, they don’t have to meet the basic safety standards that cars and pickups do, and they aren’t designed to protect their occupants in crashes, researchers note.
“By allowing LSVs and minitrucks on more and more kinds of roads, states are carving out exceptions to 40 years of auto safety regulations that save lives,” says David Zuby, the Institute’s chief research officer. “It’s a troubling trend that flies in the face of the work insurers, automakers, and the federal government have done to reduce crash risk.”
Practically every state allows LSVs, also called neighborhood electric vehicles, on certain roads, mostly with 35 mph or lower speed limits. Eight years ago just over a dozen states permitted them but now 46 do.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) defines appropriate performance and safety standards but has no say in where LSVs are driven. The same goes for minitrucks, which are legal to operate on some roads in 16 states, even though they weren’t designed to meet U.S. safety or emission standards. The trend to grant minitrucks access to regular roads began in 2007 and is growing at a quick pace.
“On one hand you have NHTSA saying these vehicles were meant for low-risk, controlled environments or farm use, and on the other hand states are pushing them out onto the highways,” Zuby points out.
LSVs were envisioned as a low-cost, eco-friendly way to tool around gated communities in the Sun Belt where they would have little interaction with larger vehicles. NHTSA doesn’t require LSVs to have airbags or other safety features beyond belts since they’re intended for low-risk driving. Most minitrucks in the United States are used right-hand-drive vehicles imported from Japan, where they can operate on roads as long as they pass inspection every 2 years. Vehicles that fail often end up exported to North America. Also known as Kei-class vehicles, minitrucks are smaller than conventional pickups and weigh about 1,500 pounds. They must be imported with governors to limit speeds to 25 mph or less to be exempt from Clean Air Act provisions but can go much faster.
NHTSA in 1998 established safety standards for LSVs to be used on “short trips for shopping, social, and recreational purposes primarily within retirement or other planned communities with golf courses.” They must be able to go at least 20 mph but no faster than 25 mph. Basic features are required: headlights, taillights, stoplights, turn signals, reflectors, parking brakes, rearview mirrors, windshields, safety belts, and vehicle identification numbers.
Minitrucks weren’t an issue when NHTSA wrote LSV rules. The agency in 2006 amended the standards to include vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings up to 3,000 pounds, and now 4 states require minitrucks to meet LSV standards. Still, NHTSA believes minitrucks should keep off the road. In a July 2009 letter of interpretation, the agency said that because “these vehicles are not manufactured to meet U.S. safety standards, NHTSA cannot endorse their use on public highways.”
The Energy Department estimates there are 45,000 LSVs on U.S. roads. New LSVs qualify for up to a $2,500 tax credit under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Many states also offer tax incentives.
“Lost amid the talk about so-called sustainable transportation is any regard for the safety of people who ride in LSVs and minitrucks,” Zuby says. “We’re all for green vehicles that don’t trade safety for fuel efficiency.”
For eco-minded consumers, a better choice for regular traffic is a crashworthy hybrid like the Toyota Prius or another fuel-efficient car. Also worth a look are the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt, two battery-powered cars slated for delivery later this year, researchers say.
Crash Tests
To show that LSVs and minitrucks are no match for even the smallest of regular cars and pickups, Institute researchers tested two GEM e2 electric vehicles and a Changan Tiger Star minitruck. The GEMs were in side tests, one using a moving deformable barrier and the other using a Smart Fortwo as the striking vehicle. The Smart is the smallest passenger vehicle on US roads that meets crashworthiness standards. The Tiger struck a Ford Ranger XL regular cab pickup in a frontal offset test. The Ranger is one of the least pricey small pickups on the market. It earns an acceptable rating in the Institute’s frontal crashworthiness test, the lowest rating in its vehicle class.
The test dummies in the GEMs and the Tiger recorded indications of seriously debilitating or fatal injury to drivers in real-world crashes. In contrast, the Smart performed well and the Ranger reasonably so in similar crash tests.
“There’s a world of difference between vehicles that meet crashworthiness standards and those that don’t,” Zuby says. “It may be time for Congress to step in to extend federal passenger vehicle safety standards to LSVs or else restrict them to the low-risk traffic environments they were designed to navigate.”
Read more: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2010/05/20/110034.htm#ixzz0oVAahTGf
