Which?Please explain this.
I thought it would have been clear but "this" is:Which?
That Geico funds your speeding tickets or that it should be considered racketeering?
Here’s a start:
Geico’s 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 there’s no efficient way to search dead trees and that history hasn’t been turned into bits.
Same goes for red light cameras. Lots and lots of news over the years. Google “racketeering and red light cameras” and there’s plenty of reading.
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.Really interesting. I had no idea... Thanks
Whether or not laser-based speed detection would have become widely used as the result of natural forces of capitalism isn’t 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.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’ll 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. Gieco‘s 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?
The use of the word ‘factor’ is what enables the lie that that 55 mph is safer than 65 mph (on limited access interstates.)cerbomark said:Most accident investigators will tell you serious accidents (mostly not always) have part of three factors, 1 speed, 2 darkness, 3 alcohol.
The insurance business doesn’t work, at all, like any ‘normal‘ 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.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...
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!😊 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.Whether or not laser-based speed detection would have become widely used as the result of natural forces of capitalism isn’t 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 isn’t 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-o’d dive into red light cameras.
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.This will be my last post in this thread.
The insurance business doesn’t work, at all, like any ‘normal‘ business. ...