The Auto Channel reports that Unitrin Direct Auto Insurance is offering a six percent discount to Georgia residents who pledge “not to do things that will take their attention off the road.” Georgia product manager Andy Mason hopes its “focused driver pledge” will increase awareness of the "great importance of staying focused while behind the wheel of a car." Customers solemnly swear (online or via hard copy) “not [to] read text messages, e-mails, GPS devices or load or watch DVDs while driving.” To check the legal niceties, we phoned Unitrim Prez Scott Carter. He told us the company doesn't spy on pledge-takers. Any driver who got caught breaking the pledge would lose their discount, not the entire policy. Oh, and he spoke to us from his cell phone– in the car.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Oh, and he spoke to us from his cell phone– in the car.
Sigh.
Well he didn’t say he had taken the pledge did he?
So, aside from one’s own intrinsic honesty, is there any reason NOT to lie and take the pledge if you don’t intend to keep it? If you don’t get caught, hey, free discount. If you do get caught—and how are they going to catch you?—you still got to enjoy that discount for a little while.
Here’s a possible outcome:
-Raise rates 6.4%. Lower rates by 6% for those who request discount. Net effect: No change.
-When those request discount have at-fault accidents, try to find evidence that device was used and policy was breached so that claim can be denied. Net effect: More money saved.
Overall, sounds like a winning idea for the insurer. For the customer: Maybe, maybe not.
I can’t help but notice that despite the high-minded “don’t do other stuff while driving” talk, the explicit list of prohibited actions does not include speaking on a cellular telephone.
I’m not defending Mr. Carter’s actions. I’m just pointing out he is obeying the letter, if not the spirit, of the pledge.
I’m just pointing out he is obeying the letter, if not the spirit, of the pledge.
To be fair, I think he’s completely in line with the spirit of it. The issue seems to be with distractions that demand visual attention. A phone call, unlike a text, requires a minimal use of one’s vision.
It’s similar to the reason why the limitation is on DVD’s, but not on CD’s or MP3 players. They don’t particularly mind if you listen to music or a radio program; the problem arises if you decide to watch a movie while driving. Texting and conversing are two fundamentally different activities.
Conversing is monumentally distracting, at least while driving, using a cell phone.
http://chuck.goolsbee.org/archives/423
–chuck
Conversing carries various levels of distraction; “Honey, could you pick up some milk?” is less likely to be a problem than “JETSON! Why did you change the pitch of the T-40 Sprocket, it’s going to drive us bankrupt!”
(Habba habba habba… CRUNCH)
Assuming one has a hands free cell phone (On Star) set-up, how is talking to someone 8 miles away more distracting than talking to a passenger? (Not that most drivers have passengers).
Last weekend a woman lost control of her minivan and crossed the median and hit a car head on. A 17 year old teenager was killed. The police were able to determine through reviewing here cell phone that she had been text messaging at the time of the accident.
Rday: Was the teenager’s death caused by the woman texting or the collision with the woman’s car? The distraction that caused the woman to lose control is secondary to the fact that the woman was not in control of her vehicle. (With condolences to the teenager’s family.)
That said, liability needs to be apportioned to the woman driver, the car manufacturers, the authority that owns the highway the accident occurred on (if sovereign rights are denied), the mobile service provider, the recipient of the woman’s text message, the first responders, and the health care providers.
My guess is that the woman will face criminal vehicular manslaughter; and most everyone else will get off scotch-free.