so we’ll let healthcare insurance companies take over auto insurance as well? 
meanjoe, that makes perfect sense. Thank you for speaking up.
Wish they would do this on school buses,so they could have full power on mtn grades,then cut back to standard power on the flat road-Kevin(I believe it could be done)
It would seem that logic would dictate that it’s more hazardous to drive substantially slower or substantially faster than the prevailing traffic. If there are 99 cars doing 80 MPH on the road, and there is one person doing 55 MPH. The person doing 55 is creating an unsafe situation for him/herself and everyone else the road, regardless of the speed limit actually is. It’s not rocket science.
over the road trucks do have this capability. The trucks are tracked via GPS and the person at the home office/third party can monitor and adjust several aspects of the truck. The can changed ECU programing of the engine to allow for more boost/power when a truck approaches a mountain range, one the truck is over the mountain, they dial it back down for better fuel economy.
Actually, the federal Constitution is a brake on the federal gov’t not the states unless it specifically refers to the states. Each state has their own constitution to place limits on them.
It seems to me that going to 60 seconds might well be more likely to prove that I am not the cause of an accident that to prove I was the cause. It sounds good to me. If it results in removing hazardous drivers, I will vote for it.
People seem to be concentrating on the 15 to 60 seconds issue when I see the use of this transmitted data being used to set your insurance rates as more of an issue. Things like when you are told your rate is set at X dollars because of data recieved, are you allowed a chance to review this data yourself, or can the company just say that have recieved detremential data and not have to prove it? What about transmitted data being corrupted by interference and you get stuck with the rate hike, what safeguards prevent this?
Keep trading away your freedoms for percieved security and soon you will have both, no more to trade and full security, it will be called a police state.
Colorado already allows auto insurance companies to refuse payment if you are driving illegally when the accident occurs (actually has allowed this for several years). That does not relieve them of obligation to pay the other damages though. So, if you are speeding and cause an acccident with another vehicle, your insurance would still be liable for the damage to the other vehicle and the medical payments to the other people involved. They just would be allowed to refuse to pay for the damages to your vehicle.
In practice, this rarely happens. Your insurance premiums just go way up. But it does give the insurance company an out when things such as fleeing the scene of a crime and getting into an accident are concerned.
That sounds fair to me. It keeps my insurance premiums down, and shifts the burden to where it belongs.
Remind me to only carry liability insurance should I ever move to Colorado.
This seems grossly unfair to me: I carry insurance, pay the premiums so that, if ever I’m in an accident, I’ll be covered.
It’s the insurer’s job (not mine) to determine in advance the likelihood that I break motor vehicle laws, and to set premiums accordingly.
Unless I intentionally wreck my car–that’s insurance fraud–I ogught to be covered.
“It would seem that logic would dictate that it’s more hazardous to drive substantially slower or substantially faster than the prevailing traffic. If there are 99 cars doing 80 MPH on the road, and there is one person doing 55 MPH. The person doing 55 is creating an unsafe situation for him/herself and everyone else the road, regardless of the speed limit actually is. It’s not rocket science.”
I disagree. If someone wants to obey the law, they should be allowed to. If some idiot can’t look ahead and see that a driver is traveling much slower than he is and react safely, he is the problem, not the slow guy. I just returned from Austria and there aren’t speed limits on cars in the boondocks (unless you are going through a tunnel). But there are speed limits on trucks and buses. They are limited to 100 KPH, while I traveled at 150 KPH. Many drivers went faster than I did. Yet, we all made it just fine by observing each other and reacting to traffic patterns before they became a problem.
An interesting but meaningless thread. You have no right to drive; it is a privilege. You get a license by agreeing to abide by your state’s rules. Rights on the road? You have the right to remain silent…
P.S. Ron-man, you happened to be the last one, so I answered you message. I’m on your side in this side-bar.
silverqc, that makes perfect sense to me. Why should an insurance company sponsor the negative results of illegal behavior?
meanjor75fan, should your homeowner’s insurance cover any injuries I might sustain while breaking into your home? Should my medical insurance have to pay for the kidney transplant I need because my heroin addiction fried both of my kidneys?
No insurance company should be required to cover illegal activity. Break the law at your own risk, as it should be.
It’s not so meaningless when you consider your privilege to drive can be taken away without you even being charged with a crime. In many states, your license can be seized for refusal to subject yourself to a sobriety test. There’s no due process because driving isn’t a right. My license reads “Operation of a motor vehicle constitutes consent to any sobriety test required by law.”
Before people go around saying what is and isn’t constitutional, I wish they would at least understand the differences between statutory law, administrative law, and stare decisis. Few people really understand administrative law and how particular agencies have been granted the power to enact laws unilaterally. It’s perfectly constitutional.
I absolutely agree that if one chooses to drive the speed limit or even below, that they should be allowed to. I’m just stating that it may not be best choice depending what the prevailing speed is, regardless of the legality of the prevailing speed. This is where the interpretation of “safe and prudent speed” comes into play. There’s no real right answer for every situation.
Your comments about the speeds in Austria are correct. However in most European countries the skill level of the average driver is higher than the average American driver. They don’t just give out licenses to anyone with a photo ID and heartbeat like we do over here.
Whiety, since this is getting long and several issues are involved perhaps you clearly state what you are saying is “perfectly constitutional” and too what part of the discussion your determination applies. (please give the long version not the shorthand)
What I am claiming “foul” too is the manufacture installing a device in your car that provides real time driving parameters to a insurance company (not accident data to a government agency) that will be used to set your insurance rates and you are prevented by law from disabling this device, that is the senario that I have a problem with.
Does the Colorado law require that the illegal behavior “proximately causes” the accident? (This isn’t a trivial point: my (sober) uncle once fell asleep, crossed the center line, and hit a drunk driver: the drunken state did not “proximately cause” the accident–falling asleep at the wheel did.)
If there is no requirement for proximate causation to void an insurance document, then the insurer is free to be as trivial as he wants to be: “Yes, you were T-boned while driving with the green light…but telemetry indicates you had non-functional license-plate lights at the time and were thus in violation of motor vehicle code [blah, blah]. We’re denying your claim.”
(Not that they necessarily would, but they could, absent proximate causation. I wouldn’t buy insurance, that I can only utilize if the insurer “chooses to play nice.”)
P.S. Comparing a home invasion to driving a bit too fast is absurd. “Apples to apples” would be comparing a home invasion to “accident incurred while driving the getaway car.”
It was not my opinion it was my position. You don’t realise how much suspense you are keeping me in wondering just what you are rambling about… not.
“It was not my opinion it was my position.”
So it’s not your opinion that this would be unconstitutional, but that is the position you are taking anyway? Could you please explain that?
meanjoe75fan, just call up your insurance agent and ask if your policy covers illegal activity. If you don’t like the answer, you can always shop for a new policy and ask for one that covers illegal activity. Just march right into the insurance agent’s office, and say “I want a policy that covers me when I choose to beak the law.” Let me know how it goes.
When you think about it, our law enforcement and judicial systems aren’t doing a very good job of deterring crime. Perhaps making a law that punishes criminals by voiding their insurance policies would be a better deterrent.
If you had a computer that collected that kind of telemetry, you would also see a warning on your dashboard. How hard is it to check and replace burned out light bulbs?
You make it sound like such a hardship to keep you and your car legal. Is it really?