Great political minds think alike

[Bill Glasheen]

Those who know me know that I can't drive 55.

OK, so that's a bit anachronistic. But really, this obsession with slowing cars down was ridiculous, and remains ridiculous when roads were designed (at great expense) to manage higher speeds. I can't tell you about all the many cat-and-mouse games I played with the law when driving to another city to study martial arts at o'dark thirty on Sunday mornings. Fifty-five mph on an open stretch of I64 with nobody on the road? You've got to be kidding me! Worse still, Virginia was one of two states where radar detectors were (and still are) illegal. However... getting caught with a radar detector isn't a moving violation.

Drinking and driving kills. Driving distracted kills. Driving in congested traffic kills. Driving in congested traffic increases fuel costs.

You say driving faster on highways will increase fuel consumption? That's only true if you're talking about a single car on an open road. But when you're talking about a busy interstate highway, then increased speeds will improve volume flow, which perhaps paradoxically reduces congestion and leads to smaller numbers of congestion-related accidents. Many of the past studies linking highway speeds with traffic deaths didn't take into account the fact that road traffic dropped dramatically when the Interstate speed limits dropped to 55. For quite a while, the fuel wasn't available to drive, and people stayed home. Fewer man-hours of driving will lead to fewer accidents.

Then there's the whole libertarian argument. Is it really your right to lower my risks by legislating rules to protect me?

Anyhow, yesterday was the first day in office for a new Governor McDonnell. And he didn't waste any time with this. Go figure.

McDonnell pledges to reopen rest stops within 87 days, increase speed limit to 70 mph for some roads

There was a mild tremor on the political front last November when the governor's mansions changed parties in New Jersey and Virginia. It seems that "change" wasn't everything it was cracked up to be, and the promised "open" government wasn't. Hmm, go figure that a politician behaves like... a politician.

I tweaked my friend Gene a bit a few months ago about Schilling possibly running for Kennedy's old seat. Gene blustered a bit, and Schilling never stepped into the arena. But go figure that Democrat candidate Coakely labeled Boston hero Schilling a "Yankee fan" for supporting Republican candidate Brown.



Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. You can't make this stuff up.

So what say you Massachusetts residents today? Are you going to make history as well? We shall see. Be back in a day.

- Bill

[mhosea]

As a pro-life conservative, I suppose it doesn't matter, but for my part I'm not impressed with Coakly. She spoke at my son's college graduation. I hadn't quite placed where I recognized her from until the Louise Woodward case got mentioned in some article or other (she was assistant prosecutor). I have this pet peeve about prosecutors abrogating their role as truth-seekers and simply playing the most competitive game they can. I watched that case and decided that the prosecution's theory was wrong, that she might have been guilty but it probably did not happen when and the way the prosecution said it happened. I'm sure the prosecutors knew this, but their problem was that their time line was the only one that could result in a conviction, because the entirely circumstantial nature of the case required that only the accused have access to the child during the critical time frame. Absent that, there was reasonable doubt. Tough cookies! You're not supposed to fight for a lie just because you think it supports the interests of justice! If indeed Matthew's condition were not due to being shaken, and if the precipitous decent had happened at another time, then maybe Deborah Eappen herself would have been convicted by this crew. Fast forward a decade and now the medical basis of the case is in doubt.

[IJ]

Re: protecting the individual by reducing speeds, I think the cat is out of the bag, what with the cigarette sin taxes, seatbelt and helmet laws, transfats out of NYC foods, and safety standards for cars. It's also worth pointing out that speed doesn't just affect the driver, but also anyone that driver hits. E = 1/2 MV squared. Also, I strongly favor injury reduction methods provided we live in a culture where others absorb the mistakes of stupid drivers. E.g., if I have to pay for your traumatic brain injury heck yeah you're wearing a helmet like it or not. When you agree for us to let you go peacefully on the roadside or guarantee coverage, THEN go damage your brain.

I do agree things have changed since the 55mph law, but among them also are: heavy, high SUVs zipping down the road with their bumper at the level of a driver's head. These are stupid vehicles, prone to rollover and at a greater risk of smushing others, and perhaps their presence would affect ideal speeds. The reality will be difficult to sort out without dedicated study. We've got other reasons to get rid of most of the SUVs out there, however.

[Bill Glasheen]

I do agree things have changed since the 55mph law, but among them also are: heavy, high SUVs zipping down the road with their bumper at the level of a driver's head. These are stupid vehicles, prone to rollover and at a greater risk of smushing others, and perhaps their presence would affect ideal speeds. The reality will be difficult to sort out without dedicated study. We've got other reasons to get rid of most of the SUVs out there, however.

The first vehicle my spouse purchased was a Mercedes 240D. That oil burner was built when the highway speed was 55 mph, and the car showed it. A diesel engine that small that isn't turbocharged is both uneconomical and anemic.

Similarly there was a tendency to build lots of top-heavy suburban assault vehicles when the speed limit was lower. Given how badly these thing behave at higher speeds, I'm thinking that gas mileage isn't the only thing to discourage future vehicle owners.

It's also worth mentioning that the data support vehicle speed differential and not absolute speed as a critical metric. If the traffic flows in unison, no problem. And there aren't going to be a lot of trees to run into on interstate highways.

I pay (dearly) in advance for my health care, so nobody's going to tell me what I can or can't get when the sheet hits the fan. If my insurer wishes to raise my rates, I'm sure they're going to do it anyhow. But interestingly enough, the auto insurance price models seem more interested in my credit rating than my driving habits (considering I don't drink anyhow). Go figure. Could it be that those data are on my side as well?

- Bill

[IJ]

"I pay (dearly) in advance for my health care, so nobody's going to tell me what I can or can't get when the sheet hits the fan."

Oh? Is that so? Best of luck and I'll see you in "Sicko 2"!

[Bill Glasheen]

Oh? Is that so? Best of luck and I'll see you in "Sicko 2"!

Indeed that is so. Since being switch from employee to contractor by a Massachusetts employer (the state with universal health-care), I now have to pay for my insurance with after-tax dollars. Funny how that universal health-care thing is working.

Don't think I wouldn't change things if *I* was czar. But I'm not.... so I just beach about it.

As for Sicko... If Michael Moore points any camera towards me, he's going to be wearing it. Imagine this poster child preaching to us about health and health-care.



A picture is worth a thousand words.

- Bill

[MikeK]

Hey Bill,
Good to see our Senior Senator diving for cover.

Statement by Senator Jim Webb:

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

FWIW, I drive I64 daily from Glen Allen to Charlottesville (58 miles each way). In four months I haven't seen one accident along the road, excepting for the cars that slid off during the big snow. Now this is a straight shot drive through some beautiful country side.

On the other hand in the opposite direction there are accidents galore on the Glen Allen to Richmond city run (17 miles) which I currently don't have to do. The difference is amount of traffic, GA to CVille is light, while GA to R is quite heavy.

[Rising Star]

Scott Brown!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jason Rees]

History is made.

[Glenn]

It's also worth pointing out that speed doesn't just affect the driver, but also anyone that driver hits.

About 15 months ago my car was totaled when an oncoming driver had a diabetic seizure and her car veered over into my lane. I saw her coming and got over to the right far enough to avoid a head-on, but she hit my front left wheel and broke it off. Her car continued on another half-block or so, narrowly avoiding other traffic, before finally coming to a stop. I ignored my car and stayed with her until the police and paramedics arrived as she was seizing the entire time. She was with a high-risk insurance company, possibly due to her medical condition.

This morning an oncoming driver lost control going too fast on the icy roads (this freezing fog we've been having every day over the past week or so is soooo much fun), jumped the median curb, traveled across the 15-20 foot median to my lane, sideswipped my car (the one that replaced the totaled car), continued on another 20 feet or so to hit the car behind mine, and finally came to rest back in the median (maybe she forgot to take her foot off the accelerator throughout this?). The side of my car is banged up pretty well, but at least it is drivable and presumably not totaled.

I gotta say, I'm feeling mighty affected by these drivers!

auto insurance price models seem more interested in my credit rating than my driving habits

Pricing insurance based on credit ratings is nothing more than a scam to milk the people least able to afford it, simply because they will not get much sympathy (even though credit ratings have as much to do with industry practices, market forces, and the cost of health care as they do with consumer behavior). Having a lower credit rating does not make anyone a worse driver just as having a higher credit rating does not make anyone a better driver.

[Bill Glasheen]

Pricing insurance based on credit ratings is nothing more than a scam to milk the people least able to afford it, simply because they will not get much sympathy (even though credit ratings have as much to do with industry practices, market forces, and the cost of health care as they do with consumer behavior). Having a lower credit rating does not make anyone a worse driver just as having a higher credit rating does not make anyone a better driver.

I understand your emotional response, Glenn. But the fact of the matter is the data say otherwise. Look... I'm in the business of predictive modeling in health care. The parent company that bought mine several mergers ago is in the business of predictive modeling in property and casualty insurance, and sell models to companies like the one you used to work for. They have the best data in the world, and the best data mining software in the world.

This isn't a matter of taking advantage of poor people. It's like those CSI programs where the director of the center implores his people to let science (and not their hearts) make the conviction. When you put all the data in and allow for all effects, cross-effects, socioeconomic adjustments, etc, certain variables rise to the top as being most highly correlated with the likelihood to incur an automobile insurance claim. And believe it or not, your credit score explains more about the future than whether or not you had a previous accident. It makes no sense for an auto insurance company to set rates for stupid reasons. They're in the business of making money in a competitive environment. That means pricing their policies to get just enough margin but not too much, and doing it better than their competitors. The ones who make the most rational choices win.

Why is this so? Certainly there's no causality per se. But smart people can read the tea leaves, and hypothesize why people who can't control their money are the ones most likely not to be able to control their cars.

As I am want to say, it is what it is. Debate why it is all you want. It would make for an interesting thread.

- Bills

[Bill Glasheen]

BOSTON—A little-known Republican shook up the balance of power in Washington by winning a U.S. Senate seat in Massachusetts, a result that imperils President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities and points to trouble for his party in this year's elections.

With 99% of the vote counted, Republican Scott Brown was leading his opponent, Massachusetts' Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley, 52% to 47%, according to the Associated Press, which declared Mr. Brown the winner.

The Brown victory forces the White House and congressional leaders to decide how—or whether—to salvage their long-sought health-care overhaul.

- WSJ

[Glenn]

I think that is the aspect of the insurance industry that bothers me the most, particularly P&C. We are required to have it yet we are automatically punished in advance based solely on profiling (gender, age, credit score, etc), before any error or crime is commited.

Our credit rating took a dive a few years ago due to a series of health issues that snowballed our finances downhill. Fortunately we were able to take some steps to avoid bankruptcy and our credit has been slowly rebounding (although now after my layoff we have to be very careful, we are one health issue away from being in that boat again). It goes down a lot faster then it goes up. Yet my P&C insurance companies have never had to pay out a dime on me. It would be undue punishment to charge me a higher rate based on my credit rating rather than on my driving history. Fortunately my current P&C only uses credit scores as a factor in some of their products but not all, for example they use credit scores in the pricing of products that provide the cost of fully replacing a totalled vehicle, as opposed to the typical payout of what the vehicle was worth at the time of the accident.

[Bill Glasheen]

Glenn

Credit score isn't the model; it's one of many variables in P&C risk models. Your other behaviors come into play. If you are lucky and the right data are available to the modelers, you will be appropriately priced. If not...

As a consumer, you have a right to shop and to get the best deal for YOU. If your really are good risk, the company that priced you the lowest deserves to have you as a customer. Even if you aren't, you have a right to hop on board with a company that underestimated your risk. It's all part of the process. And your experience will eventually be part of the data which help build models of the future.

Price shouldn't be the only thing you look at. God knows I've had to walk from (health) insurance companies which wouldn't pay when contractually they should have. Many things come into play in your decision, including the likelihood of you needing their intervention and the kind of service they typically deliver.

Good luck.

- Bill

[Glenn]

Price shouldn't be the only thing you look at. God knows I've had to walk from (health) insurance companies which wouldn't pay when contractually they should have. Many things come into play in your decision, including the likelihood of you needing their intervention and the kind of service they typically deliver.

Oh definitely, and if price was the only factor I would not be with the company I currently have, particularly since it is the same one that laid me off almost a year ago. I know I can get insurance for less, but so far I haven't found the same coverage that I want for a big enough discount to make it worth changing, particularly since I have been satisfied with the service and I have a good relationship with the agent.