Drivers OK with in-car Breathalyzer
A new survey shows that a large majority of drivers would let their insurance company install the device in their cars in exchange for a price discount.
This post comes from Des Toups at partner site CarInsurance.com.
Nearly two-thirds of drivers said they would allow an insurance company to install a Breathalyzer in their cars -- nearly twice the percentage who would allow a cellphone disabling device, a new survey finds.
CarInsurance.com commissioned a survey of 500 licensed drivers about steps they would take to save money on their car insurance bills. Even the least popular suggestion -- an onboard observation camera -- would be embraced by 20% of discount-seekers.
Here are the results:
- 64% would let an insurance company install a Breathalyzer in their cars.
- 39% would let an insurance company install a data-monitoring device.
- 37% would install a cellphone disabling device.
- 28% would let an insurance company limit how fast their car can go.
- 27% would severely restrict their driving miles.
- 24% would severely restrict when they drive.
- 20% would let an insurance company install an observation camera.
There are no outright discounts for Breathalyzers or cellphone disabling devices -- although, of course, a driving record free of DUIs and cellphone tickets is helpful if your aim is cheaper rates. No one will give you a break for a speed governor or an in-car camera, either. One company does offer a dash-cam to worried parents of teen drivers.
But there are indeed discounts for installing devices that monitor your driving habits, the number of miles you drive and the hours of the day that you are on the road -- and the discounts can be substantial. Most major insurers have a "pay-as-you-drive" program, such as Progressive's Snapshot or Allstate's Drive Wise. All look at mileage, but others also monitor driving behavior such as braking and acceleration.
Drivers in the survey were also asked about discounts for safety systems.
- 70% said anti-lock brakes would result in a discount.
- 80% said collision-avoidance systems would result in a discount.
- 31% said voice-operated controls for navigation, phone and email would result in a discount.
Of those three items, only anti-lock brakes typically result in a discount. (Newer technologies take quite a while to gain traction with insurance companies.)
See a complete Guide to Discounts for information on the discounts available for your profession, education, marriage status, military service and even good grades.
More on CarInsurance.com and MSN Money:
- A guide to car insurance discounts
- How much car insurance should you buy?
- How do I get my driver's license record?
- Buy your own Breathalyzer
- How to spy on teen drivers
- Do you owe your teen a car?
Then their kids grow up with a camera in the car, and don't mind so much when their asked install one overlooking their backyard. I mean - what's the difference? It's for crime prevention, a good cause.
And then those kid's children are asked to allow a camera inside the house, to save money on taxes on. insurance or whatever. And it doesn't feel so wrong, since they've had one in the backyard their entire lives.
And so it goes.
Several years my auto insurance company sold me on the idea I could save money by
insuring my auto, house, boat and an umbrella policy as a "bundle". I did save for two
years. Then up each insured item went. Now I'm paying as much with my "bundle' as
I paid separately.
Trust an insurance company to give me a discount with a spy device beyond the first year? No, no, no way in heck.
Anyone who thinks this stuff is in the name of safety is a buffoon. These devices are aimed squarely at releasing liability from the insurers, period.
If a driver is found in violation of any of the devices, and is in an accident, the insurance company does not have to pay the claim, period. End of story.
The goal of any insurance company is to collect fast, and pay slow, if at all.
Just another scam aimed at the average working Joe and Jane...
Yep...look at the article...then look at all of the car insurance ads on this page...sure there was a survey done...sure people are ok with this...I bet this is just a test ploy from the insurance companies and this is the survey! (They will review our comments).
The installation of these "devices" is NOT intended to save the vehicle owner any money.
They will be used by the insurance companies as but one more excuse to INCREASE your rates and, accordingly, their bottom lines!
A perfect day for them (as for any insurance company) is to only take in premiums and not pay one claim.
Anything beyond simply leaving your car in the garage forever is a risk to them and they will do ANYTHING to work towards that goal.
Wow, it is amazing to me the number of people on here who believe they are espousing intelligent and sensible viewpoints but in reality are demonstrating the exact opposite. Anyone who would allow, let alone embrace, intrusive surveillance equipment to be installed in their vehicle is really not thinking this through thus illustrating a lack of critical reasoning skills.
The obvious next steps that would be taken are not hard to imagine. Next up it will be law enforcement lobbying the government to force us to install one on our vehicles. If one life is saved in the country it is always worth it right?
That being said, feel free to install it on your own car, but you have zero right to force me to install one on mine.
People forget driving is a privilege!
If you take the time to really think about the benefits of all vehicles having this as standard equipment you have to wonder why we never did it (but that's a whole other story.
1 when you have been drinking the first thing you lose is common sense and you think you can drive.
how many people who have made the wrong decision and have paid the price. there life is ruined, god forbid you kill someone or multiple people, families Kids. i whish this on no one.
Let your car tell you when you should drive, better than a cop! car wont arrest you. Hey, you F---ked
up, sleep it off, get a ride .
Now this would only work if they are mandatory, Think about how many young lives would be saved 100 times more than with guns. how many parents would not have to bury their kids. As i said if you think about a world without drunk or stoned drivers. Only lawyers would lose out. Now wouldn't that be a great day.
It's not all about you, it's
the breathalyzer or any other device SHOULD be a REQUIREMENT for anyone who ever is CAUGHT driving drunk, texting, etc....NO IFS ANDS or BUTS....
u wanna drive drunk and get caught....then you don't drive until it's in your car for LIFE
same with texting...etc
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
A new federal safety report shows toddlers and minority children make up a disproportionate number of drowning victims.