On 8/20/2015 10:26 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

Want good cell phone accident involvement factors (note you
still can't claim the usage was *causal* -- just *possibly*
causal if the phone was in use at the time of the accident)?
Pass a law that makes it a crime to be found to be using a
phone at the time of an accident! I.e., *force* the data
to be collected.

Another way of doing this is to allow insurers to free
themselves from their obligations to the *insured* if the
insured can be found to have been on the phone ("Sorry,
Mr. Jones. But we won't be paying that $300,000 claim
the other party has made against you! Your *phone*
told us that it was ON and that you were talking to
Mr. Smith at the *instant* your car collided with that
of the other party" Or, playing a game, texting, etc.
Phones make great, impartial witnesses!)

Given that few people can pay $300K to the person they injured, it's the victim
that would bear the brunt here. Better if the insurance pays and then attaches
enough of the perp's assets to recoup their loss. No, the usual bankruptcy
laws wouldn't apply here, everything is up for grabs.

The disincentive isn't the potential monetary obligation;
rather, it's the "hey, you're on your own, here" aspect.
The insurance company is NOT going to be handling the
claim and potential litigation on your behalf.

BUT how is this different from the people who have no insurance at all?

How many people (*with* cell phones) do you know who don't have insurance?
There are always folks who don't follow the rules -- or, rationalize
that they *can't* (I have a "friend" who has neither license nor
insurance -- yet still drives. But, as the reason he has neither of
those is because he hasn't a pot to **** in nor a window to throw it
out of, he drives very little -- he can't afford the gas, either!).

Folks without insurance are leary of getting in an accident. If
you were afraid of getting in an accident and being prosecuted for
being on the phone, would you still use the phone while driving?
If the injured party can just jot down your license plate as you
drive off (as he could do if you had no insurance) and let the
authorities track you down (now it's "hit and run" -- a crime),
are you really going to risk the hassle that comes with that?
Just so you can jabber on the phone??

Can we assume that they drive more carefully?

I suspect they (uninsured) drive carefully and are ready to flee at a
moment's notice. And, are always in fear that someone will get their
plate number, photo, etc.

How about not having a driver's license?

The same applies. I know a (well off) individual who had no moral
problem driving on a revoked (DUI) license. He figured the law didn't
apply to him. shrug

What if they're illegals?

Living an hour from Mexico, this is a part of everyday life.
As the Republican administration likes to beat up on the Mexicans,
they have gone out of their way to make it difficult for them
to be here, legally. E.g., get driver license.

Of course, the downside of that is a (true) Mexican will have
no qualms about driving the 60 minutes south to the border *if*
he gets in a wreck, here. Possibly leaving you in a pool of blood
by the side of the road!

You can't "fix" folks who WILL break the law. I sure dislike
having to stop at stop signs in this neighborhood at 2AM when
NO ONE is on the road! But, I do -- because the law says I am
supposed to, regardless of the number of other cars that happen to
be visible.

Chances are, you pass a law telling me that I can't talk on
the phone while driving and I won't talk on the phone while
driving! For the same reason that I don't *drink* and drive...
*or* run stop signs at 2AM.

Pass that same law and, chances are, that "well off" individual that
I mentioned above will have no moral problem chatting up a storm
while driving -- for the same reason that he had no problem drinking
and driving (leading to his loss of license) *and* driving on
the revoked license!

The solution for folks like that is to have the GPS in the phone
determine your speed over land. If it exceeds a "running pace",
disable the phone. This sort of broad brush -- brought about because
of folks who don't want to play by the rules -- would then penalize
everyone (even passengers).

A process server will show up at YOUR doorstep with "papers".
*You* will shop for the lawyer. *You* will put up the
earnest money. *You* will pay for any investigators he
has to hire, reports he has to acquire, etc.

Even so, the insurance company isn't all that helpful. "Yeah, our insured was
really stupid and destroyed your car just because she was stupid and didn't
look, so we're going to give you $3K and you're on your own for finding a
replacement. Have a nice day." PROPER insurance would deliver an exact
replacement (within reason) of the car to my door within a week, having paid
for a rental while they find it. Yeah, right.

The alternative is "I'm out a car plus medical costs, I'll sue the other
party directly." (whether that's me or my insurance company filing
the suit). The other party (the phone driver) now has to answer that
suit. Which means he's got to find a lawyer, pony up some money
and be on the hook for however many *years* the process may drag on.
You can rest assured that **his** lawyer won't be in a hurry for the
case to settle! :

If he had insurance and was covered (because he didn't break the
"phone law"), then all he would see is a rate increase or cancellation.
He wouldn't have to worry that *my* lawyer got a court date to field
a motion and that necessitated *his* lawyer having to make an appearance
in the courtroom -- which WILL result in hundreds of dollars in fees
even if nothing else happens. *And* that can go on as long as my
lawyer wants to tug on that chain! Chances are, *his* lawyer will
have no incentive to avoid that extra "billable time"!