GEICO has their "radar" out for good drivers....
buxton
a large chunk of money in a nearly broke company that makes laser radar
detectors. They then donated a bunch of them to police departments across
the nation. The nice part is is that now they can help catch speeders-at
least a few of which will be GEICO customers who then get their rates
raised. Sounds like a great scam to me! (Their line was that they wanted
to insure only the best drivers, and that the best drivers don't speed,
won't be affected by laser detectors, and so eventually their rates will
go down. Sure!) Anyhow, after reading this I saw an ad in the Parade
section of my Sunday paper by GEICO. It had a picture of a state trooper
writing a ticket and said something to the effect that if this wasn't a
familiar view for you then you should apply to GEICO to save money. But
the best part was the first line of text. It said "Geico has their radar
out for good drivers." How true!!!!! If people knew just what kind of
radar they had out for them, they may not be so taken with the ad.
Anyhow, just thought it was a bit ironic. I can't fault the people at
GEICO for their brilliant marketing idea, though.
Eric
James Matthew Kokernak
Even better, in the spring edition of Geico Direct, they refer to
every driver that owns a radar detector as a law-breaking speeder.
Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
They also proceded to give a grossly misleading interpretation of
"accident forces" at 55 and 65mph to show that speeding *supposedly*
kills. They are up there on my list of most hated companies...
--Jim
Brian Rapp
>Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
_SAFETY_ benefits?!?
You mean like preventing one from driving into the world's largest
outdoor microwave oven?
What, pray tell, are the safety benefits of a device which causes people
to drive slowly if and only if radar is in use?
I'm not saying that they should be illegal or anything, I just can't
imagine any sensible safety benefits.
--------------------------------------------------
| Brian Rapp | ra...@freezer.cns.udel.edu | Ferret | "and many times confused"
--------------------------------------------------
Robert C. Lehman
>every driver that owns a radar detector as a law-breaking speeder.
>Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
>They also proceded to give a grossly misleading interpretation of
>"accident forces" at 55 and 65mph to show that speeding *supposedly*
>kills. They are up there on my list of most hated companies...
Yup, you've really got to *hate* an insurance company that encourages
their customers to obey traffic laws. Me, I'm searching for that
perfect insurance company that lowers my rates for speeding tickets,
accidents, getting stoned out of my brain and driving blind-folded, etc.
Rob
P.S. I dare not inquire into the "safety benefits" of radar detectors.
D. L. TURNOCK
(Brian Rapp) wrote:
>
> In article <20pfr8$1...@usenet.rpi.edu> kok...@rpi.edu writes:
> >Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
>
> _SAFETY_ benefits?!?
>
> You mean like preventing one from driving into the world's largest
> outdoor microwave oven?
>
> What, pray tell, are the safety benefits of a device which causes people
> to drive slowly if and only if radar is in use?
>
> I'm not saying that they should be illegal or anything, I just can't
> imagine any sensible safety benefits.
IF THE COPS ARE SMART ENOUGH, THEY WILL LEAVE THEIR RADAR UNITS ON AT THE
SCENE
OF SERIOUS ACCIDENTS. IF THIS ACCIDENT IS IN LOW VISIBILITY AREAS, THE
"SPEEDERS" HAVE AN ADDITIONAL WARNING THAT THE NON DETECTOR COMMUNITY DOES
NOT
HAVE. I HAVE ALSO SEEN RADAR UNITS USED AT CONSTRUCTION SITES PARTICULARLY
AT NIGHT TO GET THE FOLKS TO SLOW DOWN TO A REASONABLE SPEED.
BOTTOM LINE - ANYTIME RADAR CAN BE USED TO GIVE SOMEONE A HEADS UP IN
ADVANCE
MAKES IT A SAFETY FEATURE.
ME - I USE MINE SO THAT I KNOW WHEN I AM BEING CLOCKED. AN OFFICER TRIED
TO
TELL ME I WAS DOING 77 IN A 55. I WOULD ADMIT TO 65 IN A 55 BUT HE CLOCKED
THE
TRUCK THAT WAS OVERTAKING ME AND THEN BRAKED TO SLIDE IN BEHIND ME.
DAVE
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed above are not necessarily those of anybody -
including Mr. Turnock. They certainly are not those of his employer.
Mike Jones
I have no problem with an insurance company that encourages people to
drive safely. Unfortunately, that goal has become largely decoupled
from the traffic laws, which seem to have become a grand scam rigged by
the government, insurance industry, and safety lobby to ensure their
income and/or future employment. Drop the kneejerk, check out some real
information (like, say, the recent NHTSA or AAA reports on speed
limits), and become informed.
Mike Jones | jon...@crd.ge.com
As a dreamer of dreams and a traveling man
I have chalked up many a mile
Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks
And I learned much from both of their styles.
- Jimmy Buffett
Joe Morris -- Personal Account
|
| In article <20pfr8$1...@usenet.rpi.edu> kok...@rpi.edu writes:
| >Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
|
| _SAFETY_ benefits?!?
|
| You mean like preventing one from driving into the world's largest
| outdoor microwave oven?
|
| What, pray tell, are the safety benefits of a device which causes people
| to drive slowly if and only if radar is in use?
|
| I'm not saying that they should be illegal or anything, I just can't
| imagine any sensible safety benefits.
It is a an added "feature" as police usualy have their radar on at the
scene of an accident which are numerous along I40 when it rains.
But it also alerts me on the precise time I'm being clocked. That way
I know if they really clocked me within reason.
___________________________________________________________________________
Joe Morris, CNA Internet: jmo...@rock.concert.net
106 Reton Court Voice: 919 481 9843
Cary (Raleigh), NC, 27513-2807, USA Fax: 919 460 0124
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Murphy's Law: "The light at the end of the tunnel,
is the headlamp of an oncoming train".
Grayson Walker
>In article <20pfr8$1...@usenet.rpi.edu> kok...@rpi.edu writes:
>
>What, pray tell, are the safety benefits of a device which causes people
>to drive slowly if and only if radar is in use?
Powerful word, that. CAUSES. A radar detector CAUSES people to drive
slowly if and only if radar is in use. WOW!
--
FORZA!
GWA...@RTFM.MLB.FL.US "Big brown river. . ." Tuli Kupferberg, 1963
Grayson Walker
>I read in an auto mag recently that GEICO insurance had recently invested
>a large chunk of money in a nearly broke company that makes laser radar
>detectors. They then donated a bunch of them to police departments across
>the nation. The nice part is is that now they can help catch speeders-at
>least a few of which will be GEICO customers who then get their rates
>raised. Sounds like a great scam to me! (Their line was that they wanted
Exactly. GEICO has models that let them select the acceptable risk drivers
who get tickets from the unacceptable. Having partnered in giving the ticket
GEICO now raises the rate on the good driver -- who risk level never changed.
Sound ETHICAL? Not to me. They are Scum.
Alex Lewin
d.l.t...@larc.nasa.gov (D. L. TURNOCK) writes:
>In article <1993Jun29.1...@udel.edu>, ra...@pecan.cns.udel.edu
>(Brian Rapp) wrote:
>>
>> In article <20pfr8$1...@usenet.rpi.edu> kok...@rpi.edu writes:
>> >Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
>>
>> _SAFETY_ benefits?!?
>>
>> You mean like preventing one from driving into the world's largest
>> outdoor microwave oven?
>>
>> What, pray tell, are the safety benefits of a device which causes people
>> to drive slowly if and only if radar is in use?
Well, before I had detectors, I would obsessively check my mirrors
whenever I was going over the speed limit. Driving, especially at
reasonable speeds, benefits from the concentration of the driver, the
more the better. Now that I have detectors, I can think more about
driving and less about looking for cops.
There!
;-)
If legislators *really* wanted to do something about highway safety,
one *very good* thing they could do would be to instate a real driving
test, such as exist in GB and Germany (these are ones that I know).
Each of these involves at least an hour or so of tricky driving, mixed
highway and non. In GB, many, if not most, people fail the test the
first time they take it. And drivers there are quite a bit more
competent, predictable and safe than they are here, even though they
drive quite fast (and on the wrong side!).
Driving should be a PRIVILEGE; PUBLIC SAFETY should be the primary
consideration. Too many people in the US (at least) have IMHO a
rather warped notion of their RIGHTS.
;-)
flame-bait!
Alex Lewin
le...@ksr.com
James Matthew Kokernak
If you notice, most State Troopers will leave their radar units on during
a routine stop. They are not *stupid*. They know that a large percentage of
drivers have detectors and will be slowing down considerably well before
they reach the trooper. This in turn slows down the majority of traffic
as most drivers will respond to others' braking as a "does he know something
that I don't?" situation. A few officers have confirmed this and it is
pretty apparent when an normally instant-on force switches to continuous
radar at the stop. So in short, the safety benefits do not go to you, they go
to the stationary vehicles and the officer outside of the vehicle.
--Jim
James Matthew Kokernak
It has nothing to do with traffic laws. Instead of being proponents of
better driving techniques, Geico endorses a slower speed limit. I don't
expect them to encourage breaking the law. I disagree with the propaganda
that they distribute as it is misleading and not a true representation
of national driving conditions. They include this technical discussion that
is not incorrect, but it is irrelevant when it comes to occupant safety.
|> Rob
--Jim
Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.
the absolute worst attitude of a company I've ever seen. It is
an unamerican company that ideally would have us all driving
Tribants (or whatever that Russian car is called) with a max
speed of 30 mph.
Has anyone here ever had the extreme pleasure [sic] of calling them
up and telling them that you drive something like an Alltrac Turbo
Celica, and listen to the person on the other end doing back flips
telling you that they cannot insure you because of this or that, when
the real reason they *won't* insure you is merely because you drive
a turbo-charged sports (sporty) car? Also, from what I understand,
the following are among the cars they won't insure, and will drop you
immediately should you get/have a ticket if you buy one while insured:
any turbo-charged sports car
5.0 mustang
camaro/firebird
Z-24 (this last one confirmed by a Gieco customer in their newsletter)
...
Personally, I think everyone should just go out and bad-mouth Geico,
bad word-of-mouth and a good boycott will cause them to hopefully
go out of business. I'd personally love to see both them and Allstate
(another personal favorite) in Bankruptcy court, the sooner, the more
pleasure I'd have. They are both crooked as hell, allbeit in different
ways.
Ron
David Lin
#Even better, in the spring edition of Geico Direct, they refer to
#every driver that owns a radar detector as a law-breaking speeder.
#Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
#
I've never heard of any "safety benefits" associated with radar detectors.
How about tell me a couple of them? ( Don't get me wrong. I have a radar
detector myself. )
David
--
K. David Lin, Ph.D. | IEEE & NRA Member, KD6EYN, 'Vette LT1 Owner
Information Services | "If 'Vettes were outlawed, only outlaws
U S WEST Advanced Technologies | would have 'Vettes."
E-mail: kd...@advtech.uswest.com | Defend your life in STEREO - Beretta & SIG
David Lin
#...
#ME - I USE MINE SO THAT I KNOW WHEN I AM BEING CLOCKED. AN OFFICER TRIED
#TO
#TELL ME I WAS DOING 77 IN A 55. I WOULD ADMIT TO 65 IN A 55 BUT HE CLOCKED
#THE
#TRUCK THAT WAS OVERTAKING ME AND THEN BRAKED TO SLIDE IN BEHIND ME.
What was the outcome? Did you have any luck in convincing the cop that
he was clocking the wrong car?
mth...@gmuvax.gmu.edu
who turned 50something who never had an accident or a ticket. The
reason for raising the rates was statistics show that everyone will
get in at least one accident in their life, and it was time for this guy
to be in an accident.
Has anyone ever heard of something like this?
Ronald W Hamm
>up and telling them that you drive something like an Alltrac Turbo
>Celica, and listen to the person on the other end doing back flips
>telling you that they cannot insure you because of this or that, when
>the real reason they *won't* insure you is merely because you drive
>a turbo-charged sports (sporty) car? Also, from what I understand,
>the following are among the cars they won't insure, and will drop you
>immediately should you get/have a ticket if you buy one while insured:
>
>any turbo-charged sports car
>5.0 mustang
>camaro/firebird
>Z-24 (this last one confirmed by a Gieco customer in their newsletter)
>...
>
>
Actually I have GEICO for my auto insurance. I wouldn't call my car sporty, but
I definately think it might classify as high risk. They by far gave me better
rates than the other (approx 10) companies I checked with. I didn't even think
they would cover me, here is how I had to answer some of the questions.
Geico: what kind of car?
'72 Nova
Geico: two or four door?
two
Geico: V-8
yes
Geico: your age?
22 (at the time)
Geico: single or married?
single
Geico: Do you live in the City (Columbus, OH)
yes
Geico: Do you wear your seat belt?
No (this would have been a discount if I were the type to lie)
With all the above, they still gave me a very good rate compared to the other
companies (322/6 months). This was for coverage that was 10x more the the
required minimum of $12,500/person in Ohio. For the second six months, the
price was 300/6.
I do have to admit I don't agree with the Radar bit. I also wish I were allowed
a radar detector in my car (it voids my insurance). Overall, though, I think
they are a good company. One of my friends switched to them and my parents are
going to switch when their current policy expires.
ron
John Bolton
>Yup, you've really got to *hate* an insurance company that encourages
>their customers to obey traffic laws. Me, I'm searching for that
>perfect insurance company that lowers my rates for speeding tickets,
>accidents, getting stoned out of my brain and driving blind-folded, etc.
What you don't seem to understand is that GEICO has been giving/loaning
police departments laser guns (not detectors) so they can write more tickets.
If the cops find the laser/radar guns "helpful," they simply repay GEICO,
when conveneint, on an installment plan. Who knows, they might even be
offering a huge discount and absorb the difference themselves so they can
get the laser/radar guns in use wherever possible. And GEICO can raise the
premiums on any of its insured drivers who gets a ticket. Can you say,
"conflict of interest?" I think it's entirely within GEICO's rights to refuse
to insure radar detector users (would still piss me off, though), but if it's not
illegal for GEICO to give away/donate/loan/etc. laser/radar guns, it sure as
hell ought to be.
---
John Bolton, Software Engineer
GTE Federal Systems Division, Montgomery, AL
Internet: jbo...@mtgy.gtegsc.com
Sergei Poliakoff
|> In article <bense.225...@oasys.dt.navy.mil> be...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Silver spoon, and a paper plate. How sad.) writes:
|> >the absolute worst attitude of a company I've ever seen. It is
|> >an unamerican company that ideally would have us all driving
|> >Tribants (or whatever that Russian car is called) with a max
|> >speed of 30 mph.
|>
|> I could not agree with you more! But just for the record, Tribant was an
|> East German car.
For the record, it was Trabant.
As far as Geico is concerned, it has the right to select its policyholders
according to whatever criteria they desire. Eliminating
boy-racer types is apparently a fully disclosed corporate policy.
>Personally, I think everyone should just go out and bad-mouth Geico,
>bad word-of-mouth and a good boycott will cause them to hopefully
>go out of business. I'd personally love to see both them and Allstate
>(another personal favorite) in Bankruptcy court, the sooner, the more
So far more insurance companies ended up in a difficult fiscal state
*because* they were insuring high-risk cars. Bad-mouthing the
insurance company along the "They won't insure my Mustang !" line
is actually a compliment in certain circles and inducement to buy a policy
from such a company. In the case originally described, boycott
doesn't quite apply : Geico doesn't solicit turbo or Camaro business,
how are you going to boycott them if they don't invite you in the first
place ?
Sergei
richard welty
(Sergei Poliakoff) write:
*As far as Geico is concerned, it has the right to select its policyholders
*according to whatever criteria they desire.
in point of fact, they do not. Several states (california and maryland,
to name two) have ruled that Geico may not drop owners of radar detectors.
this is a splendid counterexample to your uninformed blanket assertion.
richard
(hadn't intended to get involved in this, but facts ARE facts, after all.)
--
richard welty we...@balltown.cma.com
518-393-7228, Infologic, 1400 Balltown Road, Niskayuna, New York
``Mario is slowing on the backstretch'' -- Tom Carnegie
Bradford Kellogg
|> What you don't seem to understand is that GEICO has been giving/loaning
|> police departments laser guns (not detectors) so they can write more tickets.
|> If the cops find the laser/radar guns "helpful," they simply repay GEICO,
|> when conveneint, on an installment plan. Who knows, they might even be
|> offering a huge discount and absorb the difference themselves so they can
|> get the laser/radar guns in use wherever possible. And GEICO can raise the
|> premiums on any of its insured drivers who gets a ticket. Can you say,
|> "conflict of interest?" I think it's entirely within GEICO's rights to refuse
|> to insure radar detector users (would still piss me off, though), but if it's
|> not illegal for GEICO to give away/donate/loan/etc. laser/radar guns, it sure
|> as hell ought to be.
Conflict of interest? You're too kind. It's racketeering. And why do you
think they are within their rights by refusing to insure a detector user?
This presupposes that any detector user is a greater risk than any non-user.
If there is any evidence to support this supposition, it is not well publicized.
If there is no such evidence, this puts Geico in the position of determining
public policy, which is clearly unconstitutional.
BTW, did you know that GEICO is an acronym for Government Employees Insurance
COmpany? This company was not set up to service the private sector, but
somewhere along the way they expanded their bailiwick, apparently with no
adjustment to their intrinsically paternalistic reason for being.
- BK
Sean Reifschneider
>>Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
>
>_SAFETY_ benefits?!?
How about this one? The company car for the place I used to work for was quite
happy cruising at 65+ and the cheepskates didn't get a radio installed for
almost 2 years. Now imagine driving the interstate from Denver at 65 without
even a radio. SERIOUSLY hard to keep attention on the road... It would take
me half an hour to wake up once I got back to work. Always felt dangerous
driving that car. If I could have driven it 85 without fear of getting a
ticket, it would have helped keep my attention on the road.
Imagine doing that drive at 40MPH.
If slow puts you to sleep on a 60 mile trip, it's NOT safer.
Sean
--
"If you were happy every day of your life, you wouldn't be a human being...
You'd be a gameshow host." -- Heathers
Sean Reifschneider, Supreme hack
John Bolton
>And why do you
>think they are within their rights by refusing to insure a detector user?
>This presupposes that any detector user is a greater risk than any non-user.
>If there is any evidence to support this supposition, it is not well publicized.
>If there is no such evidence, this puts Geico in the position of determining
>public policy, which is clearly unconstitutional.
I'm no lawyer, so I can't really state that GEICO has or hasn't the right to refuse
to insure detector users. But it seems to me that detector users are much more
likely to be speeding, and the only OTHER way to make any kind of guess about
one's driving habits is to count traffic violations. I happen to have a terrible
tendency to want to cruise at excessive speeds on interstate highways, traffic
and weather permitting. And, of course, I use a radar detector. But you'd think
GEICO people see too many episodes of CHiPs on WTBS, where cars on freeways
spin out and smash into each other every time a car speeds by and cuts in front of
them (I especially love the cars that get airborne after rearending another). What
they fail to notice is that only the slow, law-abiding drivers, who have no inkling
of vehicle dynamics, are the ones smashing into each other. :-)
Greg L. Kimnach
>For the record, it was Trabant.
>
>As far as Geico is concerned, it has the right to select its policyholders
>according to whatever criteria they desire. Eliminating
>boy-racer types is apparently a fully disclosed corporate policy.
>
>>Personally, I think everyone should just go out and bad-mouth Geico,
>>bad word-of-mouth and a good boycott will cause them to hopefully
>>go out of business. I'd personally love to see both them and Allstate
>>(another personal favorite) in Bankruptcy court, the sooner, the more
>
>So far more insurance companies ended up in a difficult fiscal state
>*because* they were insuring high-risk cars. Bad-mouthing the
>insurance company along the "They won't insure my Mustang !" line
>is actually a compliment in certain circles and inducement to buy a policy
>from such a company. In the case originally described, boycott
>doesn't quite apply : Geico doesn't solicit turbo or Camaro business,
Intersting. I have been solicited by Geico over the last few years. Granted,
I've only had one speeding ticket and a couple of other moving violation
tickets in the fifteen+ years that I've been driving. However, I've always
driven Camaros (5 or 5.7Liters). It ain't the cars they're avoiding--it's
the drivers, and they're simply trying to maximize profits by any and all
means possible.
>how are you going to boycott them if they don't invite you in the first
>place ?
>
>
>Sergei
Greg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ED-Beta: Simply THE BEST!
"ED Beta is simply the best consumer videotape format available."
--VIDEO Magazine, Nov. 1992, page 30.
"Manufacturers may have a point when they perceive the U.S. consumer
electronics market as unsophisticated."
--VIDEOMAKER, March 1993, page88
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg L. Kimnach
I'm just waiting for the day that a "safe diver" (i.e., driving at or below the
speed limit) causes a horendous accident when he/she sees a State Troope,
"protecting and serving" by aiming that little laser gun at traffic, and decides
to change lanes and slam on the brakes without looking.
I had some expletive-deleted driver nearly take out my car when she did exactly
this. And we were both driving under 60!
Reckless driving--at whatever speed--is what's dangerous. I'd feel safer with
roads filled with speeders who are responsible, than with roads full of
law-abiding drivers who are idiots!
Geico has just increased the probability of such accidents occuring because
a driver, whether or not he is speeding, wont know about the speed trap in
which drivers will likely react without thinking. So, I guess radar detectors
can be viewed as a defensive, safety devices.
Jim Frost
>But it seems to me that detector users are much more
>likely to be speeding, and the only OTHER way to make any kind of guess about
>one's driving habits is to count traffic violations.
I wouldn't say that. Only a small percentage of drivers (15%
nationally, I believe, far less around here) obey the highway speed
limits. Even assuming 10% detector ownership in the driver population
(I think it's a lot less than that) and assuming all detector owners
speed (possible but not necessarily true) that puts the non-detector
people as the speeding majority by quite a margin.
It is quite possible that detector owners tend to break the limits by
a higher margin (and thus would be a greater risk) but that would be
really hard to prove.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Sergei Poliakoff
|> In article <1993Jun3...@is.morgan.com> ser...@is.morgan.com
|> (Sergei Poliakoff) write:
|> *As far as Geico is concerned, it has the right to select its policyholders
|> *according to whatever criteria they desire.
|> in point of fact, they do not. Several states (california and maryland,
|> to name two) have ruled that Geico may not drop owners of radar detectors.
|> this is a splendid counterexample to your uninformed blanket assertion.
Counterexample is not so splendid:
first , regulations covering policy terminations are not the
same as the ones covering initial selections. In my experience, the
former are far more stringent than the latter. Since you appear to
be informed on a subject, can you clarify ?
second, insurance companies on most occasions do not reject to
write a policy outright : they don't have to, since they can simply
quote the rate that makes you sick ( I went through several rounds
of this, I know ...). I believe in some states there are regulation
balancing the rates (is NJ one of them ?), but not everywhere by
far.
Thirdly, any discussion of the insurance situation is hopeless, since
we really have 50+ insurance situations in this country, as many as
states.
My statement about Geico's rights reflects my opinion
on what the proper insurance situation should be ; I'm not Geico's
fan ; few of my friends had problems with their claims processing and
payout and this *IS* a big deal. However, if they don't want my
business and my dollars (and they don't, radar detector possession
being the least of sins), bless them. Lately I see the upsurge
in smaller insurance companies specializing in what was traditionally
considered bad risks (a professional commuting 50 miles a day one way
is bound to get a ticket once every three years). There is a huge market
of "bad risks" : Geico doesn't want a piece of this potentially
billion $ pie, fine with me, there is plenty who do.
Sergei
Bradford Kellogg
|> I'm no lawyer, so I can't really state that GEICO has or hasn't the right to refuse
|> to insure detector users. But it seems to me that detector users are much more
|> likely to be speeding, and the only OTHER way to make any kind of guess about
|> one's driving habits is to count traffic violations.
Detector users more likely to be speeding? This is what GEICO seems to think, but
as I said, there appears to be no evidence to support this assertion. So, it
becomes an arbitrary guilty-even-if-proven-innnocent scenario. This is just plain
silly. The other way you mention makes at least some sense, because it looks at
what you've done, not at what you might do, before penalizing you.
- BK
John Bolton
>
>I wouldn't say that. Only a small percentage of drivers (15%
>nationally, I believe, far less around here) obey the highway speed
>limits. Even assuming 10% detector ownership in the driver population
>(I think it's a lot less than that) and assuming all detector owners
>speed (possible but not necessarily true) that puts the non-detector
>people as the speeding majority by quite a margin.
>
That's very true, but, short of following someone around, there's no way to
accurately determine the speeding habits of a particular individual other than ticket
count and/or radar detector use, is there?
Kumaravel Natarajan
>GEICO, among many other things it can be named scum for, has, imo,
>the absolute worst attitude of a company I've ever seen. It is
>an unamerican company that ideally would have us all driving
>Tribants (or whatever that Russian car is called) with a max
>speed of 30 mph.
This digresses from Geico but...
I believe the correct word is: Trabant
They are East-German, 2-stroke, and their bodies are made of
pressed wood. (I'm not kidding!) But you're probably not too far
of the max speed mark...
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vel Natarajan nata...@rtsg.mot.com Motorola Cellular, Arlington Hts IL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
richard welty
*That's very true, but, short of following someone around, there's no way to
*accurately determine the speeding habits of a particular individual other
*than ticket count and/or radar detector use, is there?
there are two fundamental points:
1) there has never been any valid study correlating radar detector usage
with propensity to speed; that is a presumption which may not in fact
hold water, given that on rural interstates posted 55, 90+% of all
drivers speed, and on rural interstates posted 65, about 50% of all
drivers speed.
2) the IIHS (insurance institute for highway saftey, an industry mouthpiece
with a strong tendency to misuse statistics) actually was forced to admit
that they could show no correlation between speeding behaviour as
determined by points on a license and likelyhood of being involved in
an accident.
in other words, to show that there is any significant point to penalizing
radar detector owners, you must show (1) that radar detectors actually
correlate with higher speeds (not done in any conclusive way) and (2) that
speeding correlates with dangerous behavior (which appears to be impossible,
if even the IIHS has given up.)
i prefer logic and facts to notions and assertions any day, boys.
cheers,
richard
Jim Frost
>In article i...@armory.centerline.com, ji...@centerline.com (Jim Frost) writes:
>>I wouldn't say that. Only a small percentage of drivers (15%
>>nationally, I believe, far less around here) obey the highway speed
>>limits. Even assuming 10% detector ownership in the driver population
>>(I think it's a lot less than that) and assuming all detector owners
>>speed (possible but not necessarily true) that puts the non-detector
>>people as the speeding majority by quite a margin.
>That's very true, but, short of following someone around, there's no way to
>accurately determine the speeding habits of a particular individual other than ticket
>count and/or radar detector use, is there?
Since when does using the detector mean you speed? I use mine around
town quite a lot but don't make it a habit of breaking the limits (at
least not deliberately). I think of it as an extra set of eyes.
The highway is a different story, but it wouldn't be if the speed
limits were set sanely. I rarely exceed 75mph on roads designed for
at least that (and were marked at that speed prior to the 55mph
legislation) and with most traffic going roughly that speed.
Obviously I'm a maniac who must be stopped.
Nowadays ticket count is usually in direct proportion to highway miles
travelled and has little relevance as to a driver's actual habits. If
the police spent time around town ticketing people who did asinine
things rather than raping people's pocketbooks on the highway tickets
would be a much clearer indicator and the truly bad drivers would be
penalized. That might make sense, though, so we'll never see it.
My $.02.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
John R. Daker
In a previous article, we...@etamin.crd.ge.com (richard welty) says:
>
>i prefer logic and facts to notions and assertions any day, boys.
>
>cheers,
> richard
That is _NOT_ the way things are done around here boy. You commie pinko.
Rhetoric and ranting first. And last.
Facts? What facts?
--
DoD #650<----------------------------------------------------------->DarkMan
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. - Albert Einstein
___________________The Eternal Champion_________________
richard welty
* Thirdly, any discussion of the insurance situation is hopeless, since
* we really have 50+ insurance situations in this country, as many as
* states.
* My statement about Geico's rights reflects my opinion
* on what the proper insurance situation should be ; I'm not Geico's
* fan ; few of my friends had problems with their claims processing and
* payout and this *IS* a big deal. However, if they don't want my
* business and my dollars (and they don't, radar detector possession
* being the least of sins), bless them.
skipping over the trivia, and coming right to the point:
i'd agree with you, IF: insurance companies could be prosecuted under
the Sherman anti-trust act. unfortunately, federal law extempts insurance
companies from anti-trust actions, leaving them a matter for states to
regulate, leading to wide variation, from the unregulated to the completely
mis-regulated (a la new jersey: if over 1/2 of the drivers in a state are
in the risk pool, then something is SERIOUSLY out of whack.)
the auto insurance companies are extempt from anti-trust, badly regulated
(or not regulated), have closed books, and their own special brand of
newspeak (any paid claim is a `loss', and so they confuse the issue by
talking about their losses every year as if they were showing that much
red on the bottom line.) if they had to operate like normal business,
i'd be damned interested in seeing how things worked; you can bet that they'd
be very different.
cheers,
richard
Gregory P Dubois
>In article <1993Jun29.1...@udel.edu> ra...@pecan.cns.udel.edu (Brian Rapp) writes:
>>In article <20pfr8$1...@usenet.rpi.edu> kok...@rpi.edu writes:
>>>Apparently they don't see the safety benefits of radar detectors.
>>
>>_SAFETY_ benefits?!?
>
>How about this one? The company car for the place I used to work for was quite
>happy cruising at 65+ and the cheepskates didn't get a radio installed for
>almost 2 years. Now imagine driving the interstate from Denver at 65 without
>even a radio. SERIOUSLY hard to keep attention on the road... It would take
>me half an hour to wake up once I got back to work. Always felt dangerous
>driving that car. If I could have driven it 85 without fear of getting a
>ticket, it would have helped keep my attention on the road.
>
>Imagine doing that drive at 40MPH.
>
>If slow puts you to sleep on a 60 mile trip, it's NOT safer.
This was a 60 mile trip? So at 65 it would take ~55 min, and at 85, ~42 min.
That assumes door-to-door 65 or 85 mph travel; if the trip contained any
city driving at the ends, the difference would probably have been less. Did
13 minutes really make such a difference in making you get tired, become
less alert, and so on? Perhaps an alternate explanation is that driving at
85 requires more attention from the driver, perhaps not even entirely
consciously, and so makes it harder to get sleepy; or perhaps it is simply
the feeling at 65 that "I could be going faster" that leads to boredom
and/or frustration. Maybe one of these is what you meant anyway.
Anyway, this counts as a possible safety benefit of speeding more than of
radar detectors. I think the original implication in this thread was
that there are safety benefits which support the use of detectors aside
from their primary purpose of allowing speeding with (relative) impunity.
I always used to fight the temptation to speed (and risk tickets that I
couldn't afford) on long drives in California by telling myself that I
would have to speed quite seriously and consistently to really save a
significant chunk of time. The extra level of attention needed to drive
safely at, say, 85, is something I found ultimately stressful and tiring
when stretched over many hours. (I was driving an Accord, to be sure --
there are quieter and smoother riding cars with better high-speed handling
out there, obviously.)
Grayson Walker
>>
(Welty)>>i prefer logic and facts to notions and assertions any day, boys.
(Daker)>That is _NOT_ the way things are done around here boy. You commie pinko.
>Rhetoric and ranting first. And last.
Atta-BOY, John. When you are unable to refute Richard's position, take
the traditional tactic of character assasination. Smear him. Question
his politics and intellectual prowess. Because you can't deal with him
on his level -- logic and facts. "Commie pinko" is a particularly
articulate and telling remark.
Assasino! ATTA-BOY, John.
--
FORZA!
GWA...@RTFM.MLB.FL.US "Big brown river. . ." Tuli Kupferberg, 1963
Alex Miller
their computer database and guarantying to sell it, at a
good price, within 14 days. In fact, they promise to sell
my car for $700 more than I advertised it in the newspaper.
They charge $249 for this service, and say that $239 will be
refunded if the car isn't sold within 14 days.
There are some things which make me uncomfortable
with their deal:
#1 they want payment by electronically debiting
my checking account, i.e. they want to know
the full routing code on my check
#2 how can I verify they actually provide the
service they claim - i.e. with a newspaper or
magazine I can actually see my advt.
Has anyone heard of UniSearch or know of other companies
which operate this way. Does this sound legitimate?
Alex
ami...@almaden.ibm.com
Scott J. Minch
Speeding tickets allow GEICO to jack up insurance rates and make $$$.
Radar detecters help speeders avoid speeding tickets.
Therefore:
Radar detectors cut into GEICO's profits.
--
####### ######### SCOTT J. MINCH ----------------| Opinions expressed |
##### ####### Software Engineer -------------| are not those of |
### A - B ##### The Allen-Bradley Company -----| my employer. Your |
### ##### 747 Alpha Drive ---------------| mileage may vary. |
###_______________##### Cleveland, OH 44143 ----------| This offer void |
##### QUALITY ####### 216/646-3639 (direct dial) ----| where prohibited. |
####### ######### mi...@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com ----| GO BROWNS! |
James Matthew Kokernak
Did I miss something? I thought that was a joke...
OP...@vm.cc.latech.edu
about how much money they were sure to save me, how I was practically
pre-approved, how great they were, etc, etc,. When I applied, and tried
to hold 'em to them to their claims, they came up with numerous reasons
why 'no, we really can't insure you' because blah blah blah....
I have an excellent driving record; I don't drive a turbo charged car,
or any other valid reason for their refusal. They had no idea what kind
of car I drive. They just make all sorts of promises and don't deliver.
And they just keep sending me this kind of crap through the mail and
bother me.
They are nothing more than irresponsible insensitive jerks who, IMHO,
should take a flying leap at the moon and get bent. I would pay good
money to urinate on their corporate grave. I obviously hate them very
deeply.
Warmly,
Doug
DANIEL EDWIN GHIDALI
This thread seems very interesting...one minor comment...for all those who are
complaining about GEICO's no-radar detector policy: Don't tell them!!!
What are they going to do? look under your seat for it when they see the car?
what they don't know, won't hurt them..(or the Speed Gestapo for that matter)
just my $.02 worth.
--
*******************************************************************************
* DANIEL EDWIN GHIDALI *
* North Carolina State University: degh...@eos.ncsu.edu *
* Ziff-Davis Benchmark Operation/PC Week Labs:Sauron@zdbop_east.ziff_davis.com*
* Compuserve:76170,611 Genie:Deghidali America Online:DanielG738 *
*******************************************************************************
Sean Reifschneider
>This was a 60 mile trip? So at 65 it would take ~55 min, and at 85, ~42 min.
>13 minutes really make such a difference in making you get tired, become
>less alert, and so on? Perhaps an alternate explanation is that driving at
>85 requires more attention from the driver, perhaps not even entirely
>consciously, and so makes it harder to get sleepy; or perhaps it is simply
>the feeling at 65 that "I could be going faster" that leads to boredom
>and/or frustration. Maybe one of these is what you meant anyway.
Yes, I was speaking of the more attention that comes with the higher speed,
not the actual reduction in time. Though at my calculations, it's just over
23.6% LESS time at 85 (it was about 57 of 60 miles ON the highway). Of course
in the other company car (sport/utility Montero) sitting way up above the
road, 65 felt about right.
>Anyway, this counts as a possible safety benefit of speeding more than of
>radar detectors. I think the original implication in this thread was
Well, with a detector I would have been going 80-85 instead of 65.
>I always used to fight the temptation to speed (and risk tickets that I
>couldn't afford) on long drives in California by telling myself that I
>would have to speed quite seriously and consistently to really save a
>significant chunk of time. The extra level of attention needed to drive
Yes, that does work. But after a 10 hour drive, saving 10-20% is pretty
reasonable. But I find a higher speed actually keeps my attention better
and isn't stressful. Especially on I-70 through Kansas or the roads down
to Texas. Kansas is 600 miles of broken pavement <thump...thump...thump>.
Sean Reifschneider
>they fail to notice is that only the slow, law-abiding drivers, who have no inkling
>of vehicle dynamics, are the ones smashing into each other. :-)
Reminds me of the time I was going through one of those exits that turns you
270 degrees to get onto another highway running under the one you're on. I
mistakenly decided NOT to pass the Eagle that was in the right lane and pulled
up behind her. She took the exit at 20MPH, and at the bottom pulled onto a
fairly crowded interstate (I70 in Kansas) doing 30MPH. I should have just
stopped on the ramp so I could be matching trafic, but I figured she HAD to
speed up before getting on the highway. A delta of 25-30MPH on a highway
is NOT good, especially when other cars are trying to get on the ramp that
begins where the one you're getting on ends.
Sean <who would rather be passing the cars on the highway when merging. Makes
for fewer suprises...>
Sean Reifschneider
>This presupposes that any detector user is a greater risk than any non-user.
>If there is any evidence to support this supposition, it is not well publicized.
I seem to recall (but I could be wrong) hearing years ago when I was researching
RADAR (the organization) that there was some study somone was citing that found
that radar detector owners drive more miles per years and have less accidents
per mile than non-detector owners. Would probably be the case if comparing me
to my mother, and to my SO if you count not-her-fault accidents.
Sean
Sean Reifschneider
>accurately determine the speeding habits of a particular individual other than ticket
>count and/or radar detector use, is there?
How about acident (NOT *TICKET*) count? How about if cops stopped pulling over
the brand new 911s or Vettes for going 7 over the limit and start pulling over
the folks driving 7 over the limit in '81 Subarus with rusted out body pannels
and $30 tires. How about pulling over the COP doing 90+MPH in a 40 zone without
overheads past a sub division.
Sean Reifschneider
>Reckless driving--at whatever speed--is what's dangerous. I'd feel safer with
>roads filled with speeders who are responsible, than with roads full of
>law-abiding drivers who are idiots!
Reminds me of this interview they had with a physician available for the Grand
Prix in Denver. They asked if he didn't think it was odd to be giving medical
attention to people who were 'asking for it' by driving fast. His response was
something to the effect of:
This isn't dangerous. You have trained professionals driving well maintined
equipment. You want to know what's dangerous? Driving I-25 during rush
hour.
David W. Crawford
customers they do, and refusing or discouraging the customers they
don't want.
Do high performance car models show up more often in iusuance claims
or suffer more losses than similarly valued "non-performance" autos ?
I say "claims" and not "crashes" because I want to include losses due to
theft and vandalism.
One factor that predicts risk of having a claim is the distance driven.
The more you drive, the more chance you have of having a claim and
also of having a moving violation (unless your radar detector keeps
you out of trouble). So if GEICO is looking to weed out high
milage drivers, they could approximate, and weed out detector owners,
and those with moving violations.
Incidently, GEICO was at first willing to insure me, a radar detector
owning owner of a turbocharged car. It might have helped that my car is a
four door diesel VW Jetta, and that when they asked if the car was equiped
with a radar detector, I said "No", which is in fact true, since my
detector is never installed in the car. It's an Escort Solo, a very small
cordless 9 volt bettery powered unit, which works as well in my shirt pocket
as on my visor.
BTW, did you know that GEICO is an acronym for Government Employees Insurance
COmpany? This company was not set up to service the private sector, but
somewhere along the way they expanded their bailiwick, apparently with no
adjustment to their intrinsically paternalistic reason for being.
Yes, I knew that. The reason the finaly declined me, after I accepted
their quote ($600/6 month, to from work/school, full coverage) was that
I'm not a documented(TM) US citizen. Somewhow, they didn't get around
to asking that during my first three conversations with them.
Scott J. Minch
>
> This thread seems very interesting...one minor comment...for all those who are
> complaining about GEICO's no-radar detector policy: Don't tell them!!!
They have a legal right to know. If you lie to them it's fraud, which is a
felony.
> What are they going to do? look under your seat for it when they see the car?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
How about refuse to payout any claims, sue you to recover any previous claims
(plus lots of punitive $$$$) and turn you in to a federal prosecutor if they
ever catch you?
> what they don't know, won't hurt them..(or the Speed Gestapo for that matter)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^
Funny you should mention the Gestapo. It was the ends-justify-the-means-even-
if-it-means-telling-lies arrogance that typified the Nazi regime.
> just my $.02 worth.
> --
> *******************************************************************************
> * DANIEL EDWIN GHIDALI *
> * North Carolina State University: degh...@eos.ncsu.edu *
> * Ziff-Davis Benchmark Operation/PC Week Labs:Sauron@zdbop_east.ziff_davis.com*
> * Compuserve:76170,611 Genie:Deghidali America Online:DanielG738 *
> *******************************************************************************
I have a great deal of contempt for most insurance companies (especially
GEEK-O) and I don't like the revenue-enhancing practices of the law enforcers.
But one thing I can't stand is cheaters. It's the lowlife scumbag liars and
cheats that help drive up insurance rates for the rest of us. You should run
for congress. ;^)
SMinch
Alex D Rodriguez
>In article <1993Jul3.0...@ncsu.edu>, degh...@eos.ncsu.edu (DANIEL EDWIN GHIDALI) writes:
>>
>> This thread seems very interesting...one minor comment...for all those who are
>> complaining about GEICO's no-radar detector policy: Don't tell them!!!
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>They have a legal right to know. If you lie to them it's fraud, which is a
>felony.
They don't have a legal right to know. They are allowed to ask though. If
based on the answer to this question they can refuse to provide coverage I
think varies from state to state but whenever they have been challenged Geico
has lost in every instance. If you read the piece of paper where they ask the
question at the bottom it states that willfully providing flase infromation
means that they can drop coverage retroactiviely.
>
>> What are they going to do? look under your seat for it when they see the car?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>How about refuse to payout any claims, sue you to recover any previous claims
>(plus lots of punitive $$$$) and turn you in to a federal prosecutor if they
>ever catch you?
This they can do and would not be a pleasant experience.
-----------------
Alex Rodriguez
russell.w.keating
>I've never heard of any "safety benefits" associated with radar detectors.
>How about tell me a couple of them?
Here is my understanding of how the idea that "people that use radar
detectors are safer drivers than those that do not" was formed.
When radar detectors first came out they were expensive, not in the eye
of the general public (advertised in car magazines) and not understood
by the general public. So who bought them? People that were realy
into driving. People that read car magazines. People that were serious
about their driving. People who thought about driving and enjoyed it.
A driver that THINKS about their driving is a better driver that the person
that just gets in the car, turns off their brain, and goes from point A to
point B.
Now, many years later, radar detectors are cheap, advertised all over
the place, and many more people have them. Can the thoughts of the past
apply today (because you have a detector on your dash, you are an above
average driver)? I don't think so.
Here is one example of why I dont' think so;
This is a true story. A cop stops a driver. The cop was not using
instant on. The driver had a detector that was functioning. The cop
asks the guy "Why didn't you slow down? Didn't you see me? I even saw
the light from your detector.". The driver replied "oh ... I wasn't
paying attention".
--
Russell Keating, N9LIL ------------> Send email to: russ...@ihlpb.ATT.COM