Kansas News Committee looks at graduated driver's licenses

[Detector]

I have a bigger problem with people driving 10 mph under the speed limit than those driving 10 mph over the speed limit. Personally, I feel those slow drivers are a bigger danger than the fast drivers. I know it sounds whacked but I think those driving fast realize they need to pay more attention and be more alert. The slow drivers seem to think only of themselves. They think they are the safe drivers because they are going so slow nothing could go wrong. In the meanwhile they have a mile long line behind them darting in and out of the lane looking for a way to get past the idiot holding up traffic.

The mistake was calling it a speed limit. It gives the impression that while there is a limit on how fast you can go, there is no limit on how slow you can go. They need to change the speed limit signs to say 20-30mph. Meaning 20 minimum 30 maximum for those who just don't get it.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

don't be picking on us "old" people! Most of us can drive a helluva lot better and more safe than those teenagers!

Not picking on anyone. Just pointing out the obvious.

[Army_of_One]

Originally Posted by Made in the USA

And Wordy, glad to see you again, but don't be picking on us "old" people! Most of us can drive a helluva lot better and more safe than those teenagers!

Wordy isn't disputing that....He's just saying after a certian age that you be tested more frequently because there can be a drop off of skills. If you are one of those that can drive better than teenagers then hoooah. If not then that person should be taken off the road.

There's nothing more frustrating than following a Buick going 52 mph in heavy traffic headed to Wichita...you can't pass because of all the trucks. I was behind a seasoned citizen in a Buick (not sure if anyone under 50 drives a Buick) the other day and she had traffic backed up for about a mile....grrrrrrrrrrrr

[jeezeweeze]

Altho there isn't a right to drive, that would just be another group wanting to take something away from someone else that they don't like. Granted Old folks can be a hazard. And frustrating to say the least. But so are folks going thru the drive thru and eating while driving.... kids not belted in and jumping all over the vehicle. Alot of things distract drivers and make them dangerous to others.

I have to ask KC to be sure, but a few years ago I had checked on vehicle insurance and they ask me if I was a smoker ....yep.... so my insurance was going to be more costly.( because lighting a cigarette takes your attention from driving) I kept my old insurance.
Well the same could be applied to cell phones. WHAT SAY YE KC ?



Its one of those " you take your life in your own hands when you drive " You just have to try your best to stay alert.

When we were in Okinawa, new drivers for one year had to have a bumper sticker on their vehicles front and back. Big green arrow if memory serves.
This was to alert other drivers to be extra cautious around them. If you were involved in an accident with a new driver, you were held more responsible then the subject, because you were considered a professional with skills to avoid an accident. So you can bet your sweet bippy , you paid attention.

I have been driving since I was 14 ....that is a looooooooooooooooog time. The only accident I ever had was when I was 14. I ran off into a culvert ( long story). Not paying attention to my task at hand. Totaled the car. Bruised my ego. Lucky it wasn't alot worse.

I have never had a ticket in all those years....(knock on my wooden head)not even for the accident.

Having said that, I hope I have enough sense or my family has enough sense to TAKE MY VEHICLE AWAY when I get to that point of no return.


Since 60 is the new 50 and 40 is the new 30.....can we do this when I am 70 ??? LOL

[Army_of_One]

YOU per say may have a great driving record and be 110 years and have never had an accident but insurance companies don't just look at you. PLUS there is a curve where age leads to more accidents just like there is a curve for young people and accidents. I agree with the idea about people being tested more often over a certain age to include reaction time tests.

[K C Muffin]

Originally Posted by Army_of_One

I use a wireless headset....they ROCK!

me, too - but I still find myself looking at the phone to see who's calling. Gotta break that habit, then the wireless will be wonderful!

Originally Posted by jeezeweeze

I have to ask KC to be sure, but a few years ago I had checked on vehicle insurance and they ask me if I was a smoker ....yep.... so my insurance was going to be more costly.( because lighting a cigarette takes your attention from driving) I kept my old insurance. Well the same could be applied to cell phones. WHAT SAY YE KC ?

That would be right of some companies, Weezie - all the standard companies have to file their credits and debits with that state's insurance department and they have to have a statistical reason. Some stupid study showed that people that smoke are inattentive and cause accidents when they drop a lighted cigarette. Some companies bought into that hook, line and sinker. Not all of them did. Some companies charge less for homeowners insurance for nonsmokers. Same thought process. The deal is to find one that doesn't differentiate on the rates. Sounds like you did. Cell phones, cigarettes AND teen drivers spells disaster. But still, shouldn't be legislated.

[Highwayman]

Originally Posted by K C Muffin

....Some stupid study showed that people that smoke are inattentive and cause accidents when they drop a lighted cigarette. Some companies bought into that hook, line and sinker. Not all of them did. Some companies charge less for homeowners insurance for nonsmokers. Same thought process.....

The hook is that finding a group that is politically incorrect like smokers makes it OK to exploit them. Target the politically incorrect with high taxes, higher insurance rates and so on. Other folks that are getting caught up include overweight folks, drinkers, and gun owners.

My whole concept of insurance has been that we all put a few bucks into the pot and when someone needs a hand to deal with something that they draw from the pot. Now days we have a bunch of intolerant folks that think they shouldn’t have to put their fair share into the pot because they are somehow better than you.

[K C Muffin]

Well, that's true, but there's fact to bear it out. It's not about being 'better' than the other guy - it's about being different and that difference should put you in a lower or higher bracket. Surely you don't want to pay the same insurance rates (rate, not premium) for your car as a car insured in, say, Los Angeles? Or you wouldn't want to pay the same rate for a $40,000 home in Dodge City as somebody in the metro pays for $750,000, right? Unfortunately, statistics bear out that folks with a bad credit rating are often the folks that are targeted with crimes, or are criminals themselves. Those same statistics also point to other values - smoking, divorce (did you know some companies won't write someone who's recently divorced? Because they're more likely than anyone else to drive drunk.), etc. It's not an exact science, but the companies have to hang their hats on something.

It's not really about exploitation, it's more about finding ways to market your product. If a company can tout reduced rates for nonsmokers, don't you think that will win a pretty fair amount of market share? That's what they're banking on - and the state's insurance dept allows them to reduce the rates for nonsmokers based on statistical data. It's stupid, but it works.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

The hook is that finding a group that is politically incorrect like smokers makes it OK to exploit them. Target the politically incorrect with high taxes, higher insurance rates and so on. Other folks that are getting caught up include overweight folks, drinkers, and gun owners.

My whole concept of insurance has been that we all put a few bucks into the pot and when someone needs a hand to deal with something that they draw from the pot. Now days we have a bunch of intolerant folks that think they shouldn’t have to put their fair share into the pot because they are somehow better than you.

Actually it's aboutprofit for the company. They don't want to pay ANY claims.

I don't mind paying my fair share and never have. I just don't want to pay yours too. If you are more high risk you should pay more than me. If you don't like it... vote with your feet and go find a different insurance company.

[Detector]

I don't mind paying my fair share and never have. I just don't want to pay yours too. If you are more high risk you should pay more than me. If you don't like it... vote with your feet and go find a different insurance company.

Then that should hold true for overweight people as well. I shouldn't need to pay higher insurance because someone else is overweight. I should pay according to MY health right?