Did cops receive radar guns from insurance companies?

[DawnStorm]

One of this morning's topics on a local talk show I listen to was the seat beat law(s) in various states. A caller stated that radar guns were originally given to police by insurance companies. High speed=ticketed=higher premiums=more money for the insurance company. Sounds tinny (as in foil hat) to me. The host also mentioned that when rear views first came out, police opposed them on the basis that a speeder could see cops approaching. Riiiiight.

[diddy]

I would believe this if there were only one or two car insurance places. I find that highly dubious

[WildaBeast]

When I read the title I was thinking more along the lines of better enforcement = fewer people speed = fewer accidents = lower costs for the insurance company. That line of reasoning seems more plausable to me since the insurance industry does try to promote safe driving.

[RichardM]

To the best of my knowledge (meaning I haven't seen it in person but have read it from reputable sources) Geico and USAA have both dontated radar guns to police departments.

The alleged reason is that all speed in excess of the posted limit is always dangerous and the insurance companies are just trying to make the roads safer. The suspected underlying reason is that both these companies offer high risk policies at much higher cost to people who have a speeding ticket. And both companies are reported to drop people from their policies for a single speeding ticket.

Richard who drives faster than most but slower than many.

In principle, it just seems weird to me that a police department would (allegedly) be allowed to accept gifts from a private company.

[RichardM]

Originally Posted by Class Bravo

In principle, it just seems weird to me that a police department would (allegedly) be allowed to accept gifts from a private company.

Police departments accept gifts from private companies and individuals all the time. For it to be legal, it must be public and there must be no quid pro quo, i.e. the private company gets nothing back except maybe a tax deduction.

[Delta-V]

Originally Posted by RichardM

To the best of my knowledge (meaning I haven't seen it in person but have read it from reputable sources) Geico and USAA have both dontated radar guns to police departments

I've never heard USAA doing that. According to Car and Driver, Geico gave $950,000 to bail out LTI (a company who's LIDAR guns are inaccurate enough to have tickets thrown out in at least one jurisdiction).

[RichardM]

Road and Track or Car & Driver and my memory are my sources. Two of these are reasonably reliable.

[PallasAthena]

Originally Posted by RichardM

The alleged reason is that all speed in excess of the posted limit is always dangerous and the insurance companies are just trying to make the roads safer. The suspected underlying reason is that both these companies offer high risk policies at much higher cost to people who have a speeding ticket. And both companies are reported to drop people from their policies for a single speeding ticket.

I'm resoponding to the portion in bold here. I have USAA, and I have gotten a couple of speeding tickets. I've never been dropped from the policy, nor did I get any sort of threats, and I didn't take driver's ed afterwards. I think this is just a rumor. I don't know about Geico. USAA is so good, I've never had to find out about any other company.

[RichardM]

There are many factors that insurance companies use to rate risk and hence set rates. USAA and Geico, as far as I know which isn't very far, both have rather strict limits for who they insure. If you are 18 which is a high risk age and drive what is perceived to be a high risk car such as a Subaru WRX or a Corvette, you might be dropped for a single ticket while if you are of an alleged responsible age and drive a low powered sedan, the tolerance for speeding tickets would be higher. Hence, the simple fact that you did not get dropped from USAA for speeding tickets is not proof that it has not happened to others. And by the way, having high standards for those who are insured by a company can lead to lower rates for those customers.

ETA: PallasAthena, I see by your profile that you are just past "coming of responsible age" to an insurance company, i.e. over 25. But you also would seem to be of the female persuassion which statiscally means you are a lower risk driver than I am.

[ParaDiddle]

Originally Posted by WildaBeast

When I read the title I was thinking more along the lines of better enforcement = fewer people speed = fewer accidents = lower costs for the insurance company. That line of reasoning seems more plausable to me since the insurance industry does try to promote safe driving.

What you are proposing is entirely plausable. In fact, it makes logical sense. The only problem is that so many people simply can not let it rest there. Some seem to have no stops between "this could have happened" and "so therefore it did".

And that little campers, is how Urban Legends are born.

THE END

- P

I think it must be an american thing for insurance companies to charge more for people who have tickets.

In New Zealand and Australia you may not get insurance if you have a traffic conviction (like dangerous driving or DUIs or have lost your license in the past) but you don't get charged more if you have had speeding tickets.

You only get charged more if you have had claims in the past (or rather a discount for NOT having claims in the recent past)

[ThistleS]

Originally Posted by Stevie_Baby

I think it must be an american thing for insurance companies to charge more for people who have tickets.

In New Zealand and Australia you may not get insurance if you have a traffic conviction (like dangerous driving or DUIs or have lost your license in the past) but you don't get charged more if you have had speeding tickets.

You only get charged more if you have had claims in the past (or rather a discount for NOT having claims in the recent past)

Is insurance required for driving in Australia or New Zealand? In many states here it is required.

[Troberg]

When I read the title I was thinking more along the lines of better enforcement = fewer people speed = fewer accidents = lower costs for the insurance company. That line of reasoning seems more plausable to me since the insurance industry does try to promote safe driving.

Exactly. This is also the reason for insurance companies to hand out stuff like reflexes, bicycle helmets and first aid kits. Preventing accidents is much more profitable for them than a tiny increase in their rates.

[Floater]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Exactly. This is also the reason for insurance companies to hand out stuff like reflexes, bicycle helmets and first aid kits. Preventing accidents is much more profitable for them than a tiny increase in their rates.

This is also why the Swedish police regularly announce where and when they will set up speed traps. They are not interested in catching as many speeders as possible but to deter them from driving too fast.

[RichardM]

Speed enforcement is, in general, for revenue and not for increased safety. Speed limits are not set for safety by automotive and highway engineers but by politicians. There are many times it is perfectly safe to drive faster than the posted limits. There are many more times it is unsafe to drive the posted limit.

[Lainie]

Originally Posted by Troberg

Exactly. This is also the reason for insurance companies to hand out stuff like reflexes. . .

Reflectors, perhaps?