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
Posted by Benji Riggins on December 16, 2009 under Safety |
Karen Cordova, a 17-year-old high school student and part-time supermarket cashier, admits she sometimes texts friends while driving home from work late at night, lonely and bored.
The Arizona teenager knows it’s illegal in Phoenix and dangerous. She once almost drifted into oncoming traffic while looking at her phone.
But would a nationwide ban stop Cordova and her friends from texting in their cars? No way, she said.
“Nobody is going to listen,” Cordova said.
With momentum building in Washington for all 50 U.S. states to outlaw text messaging behind the wheel, there is evidence that the key demographic targeted by such legislation, teen drivers, will not pay much attention.
At least one major study has found that, with mobile devices now central to their lives, young people often ignore laws against using cell phones or texting in the car.
The number of text messages is up tenfold in the past three years and Americans sent an estimated 1 trillion in 2009.
Some police agencies, while strongly in favor of such mandates, say its tough for officers to enforce them.
The California Highway Patrol has handed out nearly 163,000 tickets to drivers talking on hand-held phones since mid-2008. But it has issued only 1,400 texting citations since January in a state of 23 million drivers—not for lack of trying.
“The handheld cell phone is relatively easy for us to spot, we can see when somebody has their phone up to their ear,” CHP spokeswoman Fran Clader said.
“But with the texting it’s a little bit more of a challenge to catch them in the act, because we have to see it and if they are holding it down in their lap it’s going to be harder for us to see.”
Already 19 states and the District of Columbia ban texting by all drivers, while 9 others prohibit it by young drivers.
TEXTING CAUSES ACCIDENTS
In July, Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer, citing a study that found texting drivers were 23 times more likely to be in an accident, introduced a bill requiring states to prohibit the practice or risk losing federal highway funds.
Since then, Senator Jay Rockefeller has offered his own bill that would achieve the ban through grants to states.
In October, during a three-day conference in Washington on distracted driving, President Barack Obama signed an executive order barring federal employees from texting behind the wheel.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said he would seek to expand that rule to bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines and called the conference “probably the most important meeting in the history of the Department of Transportation.”
But a much-cited study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that usage of cell phones for calls and texting in North Carolina actually ticked up slightly after the state banned them for drivers under the age of 18.
A study by the Automobile Club of Southern California found that texting by drivers dropped after the state’s law took effect, but it did not break down the data by age.
“What I would say is that texting and cell phone devices have become such a component of life for teens and for young people that it’s hard for them to differentiate between doing something normal and doing something wrong,” said Steven Bloch, senior research associate for the Automobile Club.
The problem is not unique to the United States. In Britain, a public service announcement on texting while driving drew worldwide attention for its extremely graphic imagery.
The spot shows three texting teen girls in a horrific head-on collision with another car, and lingers on shots of their bloodied faces shattering the windshield as a child whose parents have been killed cries for her dead mother to wake up.
In 2007, Phoenix became one of the first U.S. cities to ban texting while driving, although Arizona still has no statewide law.
Out of a group of four high school students interviewed by Reuters in Phoenix, three admitted texting while driving and a fourth said he had stopped only after his cousin caused a serious traffic accident while sending a message.
Cordova’s classmate, 17-year-old Anna Hauer, says she often texts her boyfriend when she drives and doubts she or her friends would stop because of new legislation.
“By the time they pull you over, the chances are you are going to be done with your text anyway so they can’t exactly prove that you were texting,” she said.
