Just looked them up 1800+ to progressive 1200. Itās nuts.
Insurance is double with Geico ?
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Which?
That Geico funds your speeding tickets or that it should be considered racketeering?
Hereās a start:
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...here-be-light/
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/20...d-legislature/
Geicoās funding of speed enforcement is not something they run ads about but it has been well-reported since last century by Car & Driver, Motor Trend, Autoweek Etc. Back in the days when news was inked on dead trees. Sadly thereās no efficient way to search dead trees and that history hasnāt been turned into bits.
Same goes for red light cameras. Lots and lots of news over the years. Google āracketeering and red light camerasā and thereās plenty of reading.
https://voiceofoc.org/2014/03/santa-...mera-contract/
Joined
Ā·
968 Posts
I thought it would have been clear but "this" is:
"Geico is pretty much why speed enforcement is enabled with laser-based speed detectors."
First link.
Joined
Ā·
968 Posts
Got it
Joined
Ā·
968 Posts
It is. I haven't quite figured out where I land on this. GEICO is an insurance company and if they think reducing speeds through traffic enforcement will increase their profits, I can see why they would do it. I have my doubts that they would have done it if it wasn't going to ultimately make them money. I also have my doubts if what they did drastically changed what happened after but who knows. It seems to me that if it wasn't them who kept that company afloat, someone else was either going to make it happen or create a better system. Hard to know in retrospect.
MOO & FWIW
Joined
Ā·
768 Posts
Varies by location, age, and miles driven. My daughter pays more for her 4-year old Honda Civic than I do for the Porsche - she has basic coverage required by State law and I have much higher coverage due to umbrella requirements. She lives in a metropolitan area and I live in a rural location. Can't really compare what others are paying to your specific situation since no one can decipher the algorithms insurance companies use to set rates. Shop around, things change frequently.
Whether or not laser-based speed detection would have become widely used as the result of natural forces of capitalism isnāt the issue. However, when an auto insurance company funds development and distribution of the tool, the use of which enables them to remove money from your pocket, it is the moral equivalent of your doctor injecting you with poison every year at your physical so as to make you sick enough to have to make more appointments.
If there was remotely credible proof that 65 mph in a 55 zone or 80 mph in a 65 zone on limited access highways caused more accidents per passenger mile, then there might be arguable justification. But there isnāt and speed limits are, for the most part, set for reasons that have nothing, objectively, to do with motor vehicle safety. Thus, it is simply a way to take money from your pocket.
Anybody here remember back in last century when speed limits on highways were 60, 70, 80 mph? Does anybody think those limits were set by picking numbers from a hat?
Last, if you really want to get p-oād dive into red light cameras.
Joined
Ā·
451 Posts
As a dissenting opinion, although I can fault Geico for some of their practices, I cannot fault them for encouraging, even subsidizing, speed limit enforcement. I am sure they have a plethora of statistical data correlating speed in excess of the posted limit with an increase in claims. As a presumably well managed business, with data showing higher speeds mean more claims, less profit, and then higher premiums, they would be irresponsible to not discourage speeding. Our premiums paid will go up if claims are excessive so, yes, I hate F&%#ing radar/laser speed enforcement, but I also don't want to pay even higher premiums that would result if there was not an effective incentive to inhibit speeds.
Geico is not in business for altruistic reasons or to do any of us a favor; they are there to make a profit and that is not at all unreasonable. If it was my business, I would do the same so I cannot be hypocritical and fault them for seeding the market with speed enforcement devices. I also do not fault those, like myself, that typically exceed the speed limit by about 15 mph (85 in 70) but recognize I am just taking a known risk of a ticket and the FHP and insurance companies have a different incentive. It is essentially a fair game, with respect to financial considerations, but one I hope to mostly win.
Now, all that being said, I had radar detectors in my cars starting with a Fuzz Buster in the 70s to the best available Escorts until 2015 or so although I have not bothered with them for the past five years or so.
Geico is not in business for altruistic reasons or to do any of us a favor; they are there to make a profit and that is not at all unreasonable. If it was my business, I would do the same so I cannot be hypocritical and fault them for seeding the market with speed enforcement devices. I also do not fault those, like myself, that typically exceed the speed limit by about 15 mph (85 in 70) but recognize I am just taking a known risk of a ticket and the FHP and insurance companies have a different incentive. It is essentially a fair game, with respect to financial considerations, but one I hope to mostly win.
Now, all that being said, I had radar detectors in my cars starting with a Fuzz Buster in the 70s to the best available Escorts until 2015 or so although I have not bothered with them for the past five years or so.
Iāll see if I can summarize: Gieco benefits directly from its customers breaking the law and provides law enforcement with the tools to detect law breaking. Giecoās interest in its customers is not motivated by promoting safe driving it is in fact furthered by its customers breaking the law. What other ramifications follow naturally?Not sure I d agree with your DR analogy but every time I ve been pulled over it was because I broke the law. Where are we going here?
This is of course true for all auto insurance companies now and their interests are enshrined in traffic laws that allow them to raise rates when we break speed limits set for reasons other than traffic safety. They all suck and not just because of this issue. (Re-read my first post in this thread about how to choose the company that insures your Porsche. You canāt get away from them, but you can decide to use a criteria more important than price if you so choose.)
The use of the word āfactorā is what enables the lie that that 55 mph is safer than 65 mph (on limited access interstates.)cerbomark said:
For example, and this is non-notional: If you are speeding through a green light (and that fact is on the accident report) and get t-boned by a limit-obeying driver running the red light, then āspeedā is listed as a āfactorā and swept into the statistics that āspeed kills.ā
Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Iām not going to fight this long-ago-lost battle anymore. If you are not entrenched in your certitude that speed kills then consider the following:
- the question of why limits were, following the 1980s, increased from 55 to 65 on many interstates and to 70, 80 on some?
- if 55 is safer than 65 or 70, 80, then why not set the interstate limit to 45? or 35?
- how were highway speed limits set before The Energy Crisis when the double-nickel was imposed?
This will be my last post in this thread.
The last sentence contains a clue to the answer to question three in my post above.
The insurance business doesnāt work, at all, like any ānormalā business. All of your assumptions are incorrect in the context of auto insurance as it relates to this thread. There are many good books that describe why this is the case and the machinations that led to their non-normality. You own logic chain is flawed: If speed does not kill, but in fact, slightly higher speeds are safer, then insurance company profit is maximized when you break the law by speeding since they have enabled law enforcement to catch you and have enshrined their profit margin and ability to raise rates in law.
The last sentence contains a clue to the answer to question three in my post above.
Joined
Ā·
968 Posts
I totally agree with most of what you said. My personal take is that the 55mph speed limit taught us all that laws were meant to be broken and turned us all into criminals!š Before that most people generally abided by the limits & looked forward to going where they either didn't exist or were much higher. The current limits in many places are usually totally unjustified and that's the reason why so many people speed. This makes it worse as now the delta between slowest & fastest is greater than before. Add that to the fact that most drivers couldn't pass a drivers test on a good day & you've got a recipe for a real mess. That is a major issue in my eyes.
I don't buy the bit about Lidar & doctors. They aren't selling us the cars that are going to be caught on Lidar. If they were doing that, then I would agree with you. FWIW, I don't consider an insurance company funding a radar/lidar technology any different than that same company pushing for 5mph bumpers, backup cameras, safety belts, etc. We can argue about the value of each but it is no different in their view. Each of those could be considered a safety item if you're an insurance type person. I don't necessarily agree with any of this and tend to think it's just making us more stupid over time, but noble goals frequently have unintended consequences. Such is life and we can't stop it!
MOO & FWIW
Funny. State Farm called me for a renewal quote. They came in at 2k a year. I told them my progressive quote of 1200 after they showed me their hand. The sales woman said oh yeah thatās a good rate, Progressive is good for fast cars.
Joined
Ā·
451 Posts
Thank you. I did not realize that. Please educate me how the insurance business works and why their big picture model is different from other businesses. I had always understood, statistics or actuary tables underscored much of how insurance company's work. Nevertheless, I have no direct knowledge of insurance companies so I would like to understand what is really happening.
Do statistics support the often used statement "Speed Kills"? I suspect the insurance company more looks at the cost in benefits paid, rather than lives as a result of greater speeds, but would also really like to understand exactly how this works.
Now, I do believe whole heartedly speed, well in excess to that of the prevailing flow of traffic, does cause unwanted dangerous high speed events. Also, more speed means more energy available to do damage and more damage means it costs more to repair a vehicle. Ergo, an insurance company has to pay greater benefits. So, logically, no matter if it is or isnt a matter of killing people, I would think all insurance companies would want to do all they can to minimize the benefits they pay and that means encourageing lower speeds and less potentially damaging energy available. Please explain why this is not correct as I have no inside knowledge about insurance companies but this does seem reasonable.
21 - 40 of 40 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!