Category Archives: Highway Safety

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Legal Environment, Regulation

New Illinois Bills
Would Harm — Not Help — Auto Policyholders

Leave a comment

Two bills proposed in Illinois this year illustrate yet again the need for lawmakers to better understand how insurance works. Illinois HB 4767 and HB 4611 – like their 2023 predecessor, HB 2203 – would harm the very policyholders the measures aim to help by driving up the cost for insurers to write personal auto coverage in the state.

“These bills, while intended to address rising insurance costs, would have the opposite impact and likely harm consumers by reducing competition and increasing costs for Illinois drivers,” said a press release issued by the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the Illinois Insurance Association, and the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies. “Insurance rates are first and foremost a function of claims and their costs. Rather than working to help make roadways safer and reduce costs, these bills seek to change the state’s insurance rating law and prohibit the use of factors that are highly predictive of the risk of a future loss.”

The proposed laws would bar insurers from considering nondriving factors that are demonstrably predictive of claims when setting premium rates.

“Prohibiting highly accurate rating factors…disconnects price from the risk of future loss, which necessarily means high-risk drivers will pay less and lower-risk drivers will pay more than they otherwise would pay,” the release says. “Additionally, changing the rating law and factors used will not change the economics or crash statistics that are the primary drivers of the cost of insurance in the state.”

Triple-I agrees with the key concerns raised by the other trade organizations. As we have written previously, such legislation suggests a lack of understanding about risk-based pricing that is not isolated to Illinois legislators – indeed, similar proposals are submitted from time to time at state and federal levels.

What is risk-based pricing?

Simply put, risk-based pricing means offering different prices for the same level of coverage, based on risk factors specific to the insured person or property. If policies were not priced this way – if insurers had to come up with a one-size-fits-all price for auto coverage that didn’t consider vehicle type and use, where and how much the car will be driven, and so forth – lower-risk drivers would subsidize riskier ones. Risk-based pricing allows insurers to offer the lowest possible premiums to policyholders with the most favorable risk factors. Charging higher premiums to insure higher-risk policyholders enables insurers to underwrite a wider range of coverages, thus improving both availability and affordability of insurance.

This simple concept becomes complicated when actuarially sound rating factors intersect with other attributes in ways that can be perceived as unfairly discriminatory. For example, concerns have been raised about the use of credit-based insurance scores, geography, home ownership, and motor vehicle records in setting home and car insurance premium rates. Critics say this can lead to “proxy discrimination,” with people of color in urban neighborhoods sometimes charged more than their suburban neighbors for the same coverage.

The confusion is understandable, given the complex models used to assess and price risk and the socioeconomic dynamics involved. To navigate this complexity, insurers hire teams of actuaries and data scientists to quantify and differentiate among a range of risk variables while avoiding unfair discrimination.

While it may be hard for policyholders to believe factors like age, gender, and credit score have anything to do with their likelihood of filing claims, the charts below demonstrate clear correlations.

Policyholders have reasonable concerns about rising premium rates. It’s important for them and their legislators to understand that the current high-rate environment has nothing to do with the application of actuarially sound rating factors and everything to do with increasing insurer losses associated with higher frequency and severity of claims. Frequency and claims trends are driven by a wide range of causes – such as riskier driving behavior and legal system abuse – that warrant the attention of policymakers. Legislators would do well to explore ways to reduce risks, contain fraud other forms of legal system abuse, and improve resilience, rather than pursuing “solutions” to restrict pricing that will only make these problem worse.

Learn More

New Triple-I Issues Brief Takes a Deep Dive into Legal System Abuse

Illinois Bill Highlights Need for Education on Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance Coverage

How Proposition 103 Worsens Risk Crisis in California

Louisiana Still Least Affordable State for Personal Auto, Homeowners Insurance

IRC Outlines Florida’s Auto Insurance Affordability Problems

Education Can Overcome Doubts on Credit-Based Insurance Scores, IRC Survey Suggests

Colorado’s Life Insurance Data Rules Offer Glimpse of Future for P&C Writers

It’s Not an “Insurance Crisis” – It’s a Risk Crisis

Indiana Joins March Toward Disclosure of Third-Party Litigation Funding Deals

Litigation Funding Law Found Lacking in Transparency Department

Cyber Risk, Disaster Resilience, Earthquakes, Floods, Highway Safety, Insurers and the Economy, Terrorism Risk

It’s Not an “Insurance Crisis” — It’s a Risk Crisis

Leave a comment

Ten states – Louisiana, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia – as well as additional plaintiffs, are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) over its new methodology for pricing flood insurance, Risk Rating 2.0. On Sept. 14, a federal hearing lasted six hours as the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt the new pricing regime while the lawsuit plays out.

Many residents of these states are understandably upset about seeing their flood insurance premium rates rise under the new approach. There may not be much comfort for them in knowing that the current system is much fairer than the previous one, in which higher-risk homeowners subsidized those with lower risks. Similarly, policyholders who have had their premium rates reduced under Risk Rating 2.0 are unlikely to take to the streets in celebration.

These homeowners aren’t alone in seeing insurance rates rise – or even having to struggle to obtain insurance. And these difficulties aren’t confined to holders of flood insurance policies. Florida and California are two states in which insurers have been forced to rethink their risk appetite – due in part to rising natural catastrophe losses and in part to regulatory and litigation environments that make it increasingly difficult for insurers to profitably write coverage.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – and the supply-chain and inflationary pressures they created – the property/casualty insurance market was hardening as insurers adjusted their pricing and their risk appetites to keep pace with conditions that were driving losses up and eroding underwriting profitability – topics Triple-I has written about extensively (see a partial list below).

“Rising insurance rates are not the problem,” says Dale Porfilio, chief insurance officer at Triple-I. “They are a symptom of rising losses related to a range of factors, from climate and population trends to post-pandemic driving behaviors and surging cybercrime to antiquated policies, outdated building codes, fraud, and legal system abuse.”

In short, we are not experiencing an “insurance crisis,” as many media outlets tend to describe the current state of the market; we are experiencing a risk crisis. And even as the states referenced above push back against much-needed flood insurance reform, legislators in several states have been pushing measures that would restrict insurers’ ability to price coverage accurately and fairly – rather than addressing the underlying perils and forces aggravating them.  

Triple-I, its members, and a range of partners are working to educate stakeholders and decisionmakers and promote pre-emptive risk mitigation and investment in resilience. We are using our position as thought leaders and our unique non-lobbying role in the insurance industry to reach across sector boundaries and drive constructive action. You will be hearing more about these efforts over the next few months.

The success of these efforts will require a collective understanding among stakeholders and decisionmakers that for insurance to be available and affordable frequency and severity of risk must be measurably reduced. This will require highly focused, integrated projects and programs – many of them at the community level – in which all stakeholders (co-beneficiaries of these efforts) will share responsibility.

Want to know more about the risk crisis and how insurers are working to address it? Check out Triple-I’s upcoming Town Hall, “Attacking the Risk Crisis,” which will be held Nov. 30 in Washington, D.C.

Learn More:

Shutdown Threat Looms Over U.S. Flood Insurance

FEMA Incentive Program Helps Communities Reduce Flood Insurance Rates for Their Citizens

More Private Insurers Writing Flood Coverage; Consumer Demand Continues to Lag

Shift in Hurricane Season’s Predicted Severity Highlights Need for Prospective Cat Risk Pricing

California Needs to Make Changes to Address Its Climate Risk Crisis

Illinois Bill Highlights Need for Education on Risk-based Pricing of Insurance Coverage

IRC Outlines Florida’s Auto Insurance Affordability Problems

Education Can Overcome Doubts on Credit-Based Insurance Scores, IRC Survey Suggests

Matching Price to Peril Helps Keep Insurance Available & Affordable

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Flood

Triple-I “State of the Risk” Issues Brief: Hurricanes

Triple-I Issues “Trends and Insights” Brief: Risk-Based Pricing of Insurance

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety

Michigan Drivers Benefit From No-Fault Reforms; Rulings Constrain Gains

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

The success of Michigan’s no-fault insurance reforms at reining in claims and contributing to premium reductions for many drivers has been crimped by adverse court decisions in cases contesting the reforms and other factors, according to new research by two Triple-I non-resident scholars. 

Michigan can be viewed as “an experiment on both the promises and pitfalls of a grand vision for no-fault auto insurance,” say the authors, Patricia Born, Ph.D. of Florida State University and Robert Klein, Ph.D. of Temple University.  The policy brief, No-Fault Auto Insurance Reform in Michigan: An Initial Assessment Revised, updates prior research by the scholars. It evaluates the reforms and finds that – in addition to reduced claims and beneficial effects on many drivers’ premiums — “it also appears that the number of uninsured drivers has fallen significantly.”

Michigan’s high auto insurance premiums contributed to a large percentage of uninsured drivers. In fact, Michigan was estimated to have the second-highest percentage of uninsured drivers among the states in 2019, at nearly 26 percent.

“This motivated the state’s Governor and Legislature to significantly reform its no-fault law and revise its regulation of auto insurance,” the report says. “The reforms were enacted in 2019 and were phased in from 2019 through 2021. While these reforms and regulatory changes are relatively nascent, there is considerable interest in knowing their effects, including the consequences of eliminating unlimited medical benefits, instituting medical cost controls, and tightening auto insurance rate regulation.”

PIP costs in the state had previously caused skyrocketing premiums due to the high medical costs associated with this coverage. The researchers’ data demonstrates that PIP claims costs dropped significantly because of these reforms.

Additionally, Michigan’s verbal threshold for liability claims appears to have reduced auto insurance costs and premiums in Michigan relative to other states. However, these savings were engulfed by its high PIP costs prior to the reforms. With PIP costs decreasing, the overall cost of liability coverage has also declined.

Now, the number of uninsured drivers has also fallen as auto insurance has become more affordable due to the reforms. Overall, Michigan’s average auto insurance premium for all coverages dropped from $2,611 in 2019 to $2,112 in 2021 – an 18.3 percent decrease. From 2019 to the first quarter of 2023, the average liability premium declined from $825 to $629 – a 23.8 percent decrease. The average loss cost for PIP in Michigan fell almost 40 percent, from $465 in 2019 to $280 in 2023.

Despite these benefits, the paper says, “There are stakeholders who question whether the reforms have created a better system and are seeking to reverse or modify some of them.”

According to the study, some drivers expected greater premium savings than they have received.  Other parties who benefited from the old system (for example, medical providers and trial attorneys) “are seeking to reverse or temper at least some of the reforms that were enacted,” the paper says.

PIP claims costs have begun to rise within the last year due to recent adverse court rulings, as well as other factors, such as more frequent auto accidents.

Learn More:

Michigan No-Fault Reform Yields Fewer Claims, Lower Premiums

Despite Fewer Claims, Personal Auto Insurance Payouts Increase

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety

Despite Fewer Claims, Personal Auto Insurance Payouts Increase

Leave a comment

By Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

The average claim payment per insured personal vehicle rose between 2002 and 2022, with higher payments by insurers more than offsetting declines in frequency, according to new research by the Insurance Research Council (IRC) – like Triple-I, an affiliate of The Institutes.

“During the first half of the study period, the combination of declining frequency and increasing severity left average insurer loss costs relatively unchanged,” said IRC president and Triple-I chief insurance officer Dale Porfilio. “However, as claim frequency leveled off and claim severity accelerated, the average payment per insured vehicle for most coverages began to climb steadily until the 2020 drop due to COVID-19. By 2022, however, average loss costs for nearly every coverage had surpassed the 2019 level.”

Frequency for both property damage liability and bodily injury liability claims fell more than 2 percent annualized over the period from 2002 to 2022, while the average payout per insured vehicle increased over 2 percent for both types of claims over the same period.

Claim frequency – which decreased sharply during the coronavirus pandemic – remained below pre-pandemic levels in 2022, while claim severity skyrocketed, with the average loss cost also increasing. Accelerating growth in claim loss costs is a key driver of rising insurance costs for consumers.

Costs also varied widely from state to state. The combined injury average loss cost in the highest state, Florida, was over five times the loss cost in the lowest state, North Dakota. Traffic conditions, medical prices, policy limits and other insurance regulations, litigiousness, fraud, and the design of the injury tort or no-fault environment all influence these costs.

Pandemic upended insured vehicle costs

During the height of COVID-19, insurers returned $14 billion of premiums to consumers through discounts, rebates, and dividends due to fewer drivers on the road. However, risky driving behaviors like speeding and distracted driving appeared to compound while the roads were quieter. Consequently, traffic fatalities increased in 2020, despite the large drop in miles driven, with the average auto claim severity rising.

In 2021 and 2022, vehicle traffic resumed and claim severity worsened as risky driving behaviors continued. As a result, traffic fatalities rose in 2021, hitting the highest levels in 15 years. This also marked the highest percentage increase since the current reporting system began in 1975.

Although some of these pressures may stabilize, the IRC report notes that the claim environment is likely to remain challenging as people continue to exhibit risky driving behavior. Additionally, longer-term pressures on injury claim severity from cost drivers, such as heavy medical utilization, cost-shifting, and claim abuse, continue to increase insured vehicle costs.

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Technology

Crash-Avoidance Features Complicate Auto Repairs But Still Are Valued

Leave a comment

Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

As more new vehicles become equipped with crash-avoidance features, some owners report significant issues with the technologies after repairs, according to a recent report from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS).

In the survey, approximately half of those who reported an issue with equipped front crash prevention, blind-spot detection, or rearview or other visibility-enhancing cameras said at least one of those systems presented problems after the repair job was completed. 

Nevertheless, many owners remained eager to have a vehicle with these features and were pleased with the out-of-pocket cost, according to Alexandra Mueller, IIHS senior research scientist.

“These technologies have been proven to reduce crashes and related injuries,” Mueller said. “Our goal is that they continue to deliver those benefits after repairs and for owners to be confident that they’re working properly.”

Still, as problems with these technologies persist, the study notes that it is important to track repair issues to further the adoption of crash avoidance features. IIHS research has shown that front-crash prevention, blind-spot detection, and rearview cameras all substantially reduce the types of crashes they are designed to address. For example, IIHS said, automatic emergency braking reduces police-reported rear-end crashes by 50 percent.

An analysis conducted by the IIHS-affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) showed the reduction in insurance claims associated with Subaru and Honda crash-avoidance systems remained essentially constant, even in vehicles more than five years old. But repairs can make it necessary to calibrate the cameras and sensors that the features rely on to work properly, making repairs complicated and costly.

For example, a simple windshield replacement can cost as little as $250, while a separate HLDI study found vehicles equipped with front crash prevention were much more likely to have glass claims of $1,000 or more. Much of that higher cost is likely related to calibration.

The new IIHS study found that owners often had more than one reason requiring repairs to these safety features. Most had received a vehicle recall or service bulletin about their feature, but that was rarely the sole reason they brought their vehicles in for service or repair.

“Other common reasons — which were not mutually exclusive — included windshield replacement, crash damage, a recommendation from the dealership or repair shop, and a warning light or error message from the vehicle itself,” according to the study.

Repair difficulties could motivate drivers to turn off crash avoidance features, potentially making collisions more likely.  But, despite the post-repair issues, the study found that slightly more than 5 percent of owners would opt not to purchase another vehicle with the repaired feature. As reckless driving and traffic fatalities continue to rise, advanced driver-assistance systems will only become more important for the roadway safety, necessitating reliable technology.  

Learn More:

Personal Auto Insurers’ Losses Keep Rising Due to Multiple Factors

IRC Releases State Auto Insurance Affordability Rankings

IRC Study: Public Perceives Impact of Litigation on Auto Insurance Claims

Why Personal Auto Insurance Rates Are Likely to Keep Rising

Acting to Curb Rising Auto Fatalities

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Theft

Online Promotionof Car-Theft Techniques Adds to Upward Pressure on Insurance Premiums

Leave a comment

Three anti-crime organizations have asked YouTube to take down all videos that teach people how to steal Kia and Hyundai automobiles. The organizations – the National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud, and the International Association of Special Investigation Units (IASIU) – made their request in response to a spike in thefts of these vehicles.

The Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) late last year reported that bargain-priced Kia and Hyundai vehicles were being targeted for theft at rates similar to muscle cars and SUVs, based on an analysis of 2021 insurance claims. The spike is due, in part, to the fact that the models being stolen don’t have electronic immoblizers that stop thieves from bypassing the ignition.

Some thieves have even made instructional videos – shared on platforms like YouTube and TikTok – on how to perform the theft procedure using just a screwdriver and a USB cable. Since these videos started appearing on social media, police departments across the U.S. have reported drastic increases in Kia and Hyundai thefts.

In Chicago, for example, where only 328 Kias were stolen in 2021, more than 3,500 were stolen last year, CBS Chicago reported.

“Everyday consumers are being victimized by criminals using social media platforms to learn their newest illegal tricks and techniques,” said David Glawe, president and CEO of the NICB. “Some platforms are not doing enough to protect innocent victims from unnecessary harm.”

Celeste Dodson, president of IASIU, added, “When a vehicle is stolen, it is often not the end of the crime but the beginning. Vehicle thefts are associated with a multitude of criminal activity, including insurance fraud. The cost of these crimes is then passed on to consumers through higher premiums.”

Private-passenger auto insurance premium rates are experiencing upward pressure due to a variety of factors, including:

  • Rising insurer losses due to increasing accident frequency and severity;
  • More fatalities and injuries on the road, leading to increased attorney involvement in claims;
  • Continuing supply-chain issues, leading to rising costs for cars, replacement parts, and labor; and
  • More costly auto repairs due to safer, more technologically sophisticated vehicles.

Thefts of vehicles or components like catalytic converters only increase that pressure to raise rates.

The only way to turn that pressure down is to reduce claims and losses by reducing accidents and thefts. Making it harder for people to learn how to break the law and cause damage by watching online videos would be a small but needed step in that direction.   

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Technology

“A.I. Take the Wheel!” Drivers Put Too Much Faith in Assist Features, IIHS Survey Suggests

Leave a comment

Too many car owners are too comfortable leaving their vehicles’ driver-assist features in charge, potentially putting themselves and others at risk, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).

IIHS said a survey of about 600 regular users of General Motors Super Cruise, Nissan/Infiniti ProPILOT Assist, and Tesla Autopilot found they were “more likely to perform non-driving-related activities like eating or texting while using their partial automation systems than while driving unassisted.”

“The big-picture message here is that the early adopters of these systems still have a poor understanding of the technology’s limits,” said IIHS President David Harkey.

The study reports that 53 percent of Super Cruise users, 42 percent of Tesla Autopilot users, and 12 percent of Nissan’s ProPilot Assist users were comfortable letting the system drive without watching what was happening on the road. Some even described being comfortable letting the vehicle drive during inclement weather.

These systems combine adaptive cruise control and lane-keeping systems, primarily to keep a car in a lane and following traffic on the highway. All require an attentive human driver to monitor the road and take full control when called for.

“None of the current systems is designed to replace a human driver or to make it safe for a driver to perform other activities that take their focus away from the road,” IIHS said in announcing the results of its survey.

While all three automakers caution drivers about the systems’ limits, confusion remains. Tesla’s driver-assist system, which it calls “full self-driving” has received much scrutiny over the years as auto safety experts say the name is misleading and risks worsening road safety.

The U.S.government has set no standards for these features, which are some of the newest technologies on vehicles today. A patchwork of state laws and voluntary federal guidelines is attempting to cover the testing and eventual deployment of autonomous vehicles in the United States. 

Learn More:

Background on: Self-driving cars and insurance

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety

IRC Releases StateAuto InsuranceAffordability Rankings

Leave a comment

Louisiana, Florida, and Michigan are the three least affordable states for personal auto insurance, according to a new report by the Insurance Research Council (IRC). The three most affordable states, IRC finds, are Hawaii, New Hampshire, and North Dakota.

The state-by-state affordability rankings by IRC – like Triple-I, an affiliate of The Institutes – are based on insurance expenditures as a share of median household income. The report draws on data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), which are only available up to 2019 and, therefore, don’t reflect more recent circumstances, such as the pandemic and the inflationary impact of supply-chain disruptions and the war in Ukraine.

Before these events, auto insurance nationwide had been becoming more affordable since the 1990s, when premiums as a percentage of median household income averaged 1.9 percent.  By the 2010s, it had decreased to 1.6 percent, and, in 2019, that figure stood at 1.56 percent.

During this 30-year period, median household income grew 2.9 percent annually.

Affordability varies dramatically by state, with Hawaii coming in as the most affordable, with expenditures standing at 0.95 percent of income. The least affordable state is Louisiana, with the average expenditure-to-income ratio more than three times higher, at 3.01 percent.

The report notes that attempts to reduce these costs must focus on key cost drivers, including accident frequency, repair costs, injury claim relative frequency, injury claim severity, medical utilization, attorney involvement, claim abuse, uninsured motorists, and litigation climate.

Looking ahead

Pandemic and post-pandemic riskiness of U.S. highways could also impact future affordability trends.  After decades of decline, U.S. traffic deaths have increased in the past several years due to more speeding, driving under the influence, and not wearing seat belts during the pandemic. In 2021, U.S. traffic fatalities reached a 16-year high, with nearly 43,000 deaths. 

“When everyday life came to a halt in March 2020, risky behaviors skyrocketed and traffic fatalities spiked,” said National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) administrator Steven Cliff.  “We’d hoped these trends were limited to 2020, but, sadly, they aren’t.”

In 2022, NHTSA estimates, 9,560 people died in motor vehicle crashes between January and March, up 7 percent from the same period in 2021, making it the deadliest first quarter since 2002. 

The IRC report highlights the role of attorney involvement in driving up insurer expenses – and, ultimately, policyholder premiums – in states where auto coverage is least affordable. As attorney involvement tends to be more prevalent in bodily injury claims cases, the NHTSA numbers are important for understanding anticipated upward pressure on premium rates.

All these factors contribute to increased frequency and severity of claims and, ultimately, higher premiums as insurers seek to maintain required levels of surplus to ensure their ability to keep their promises to policyholders. 

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety, Technology

Cellphone Bans Cut Crashes; TelematicsCan Help ReduceDistracted Driving

Leave a comment

Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

State prohibitions on cellphone use while driving correlate with reduced crash rates, according to recent research by the Insurance Institute for High Safety (IIHS). However, overall results were mixed among the states studied, with different legal language, degrees of enforcement, and penalty severity, providing possible explanations for the differing outcomes.

The study observed crash rate changes in California, Oregon, and Washington after legislation to prevent cellphone calls and texting while driving was enacted in 2017, with the research looking at overall numbers from 2015 to 2019. These numbers were compared to control states Idaho and Colorado.

Notably, the study found:

  • A 7.6 percent reduction in the rate of monthly rear-end crashes of all severities relative to the rates in the control states;
  • Law changes in Oregon and Washington were associated with significant reductions of 8.8 percent and 10.9 percent, respectively;
  • California did not experience changes in rear-end crash rates of all severities or with injuries associated with the strengthened law.

Still, state governments face several hurdles in their efforts to prevent crashes caused by cellphone use.

“Technology is moving much faster than the laws,” said Ian Reagan, a senior research scientist at IIHS. “Our findings suggest that other states could benefit from adopting broader laws against cellphone use while driving, but more research is needed to determine the combination of wording and penalties that is most effective.”

Distracted driving remains a major issue

Distracted driving remains a significant problem on roads nationwide. Indeed, distracted driving increased more than 30 percent from February 2020 to February 2022, due largely to changes in driving patterns spurred by the coronavirus pandemic, according to research by telematics service provider Cambridge Mobile Telematics.

The Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) reported that more than 3,100 people died in distraction-related accidents in 2020, with an estimated 400,000 people injured each year in such crashes. The true numbers, according to the study, are likely higher due to underreporting. The report also found that cell dial, cell text, and cell-browse were among the most prevalent and highest-risk behaviors.

Telematics can help

Telematics, which uses mobile technology to track driver behavior and provide financial incentives to drive less and often and more carefully, can help reduce dangerous driving. The more consumers positively react to the incentive, the less they pay for their insurance.

Research from the Insurance Research Council – like Triple-I, a nonprofit affiliate of The Institutes, focused on this exact issue, studying public perception and use of telematics. The study found that 45 percent of drivers surveyed said they made significant safety-related changes in the way they drove after participating in a telematics program. Another 35 percent said they made small changes in the way they drive.

During the pandemic, insurance consumers’ comfort with the idea of letting their driving be monitored in exchange for a better premium appeared to improve. In May 2019, mobility data and analytics firm Arity surveyed 875 licensed drivers over the age of 18 to find out how comfortable they would be having their premiums adjusted based on telematics variables. Between 30 and 40 percent said they would be either very or extremely comfortable sharing this data. In May 2020, they ran the survey again with more than 1,000 licensed drivers.

“This time,” Arity said, “about 50 percent of drivers were comfortable with having their insurance priced based on the number of miles they drive, where they drive, and what time of day they drive, as well as distracted driving and speeding.”

Auto Insurance, Highway Safety

Pot Legalization Link To Car Crashes Variesby State, Study Finds

Leave a comment

Max Dorfman, Research Writer, Triple-I

Recreational marijuana use is associated with automobile crash trends, according to a paper published in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. However, the study also noted that retail marijuana sales aren’t solely responsible for the general rise in accidents.

Legalization of recreational marijuana use was correlated to a 6.5 percent growth in the rate of crashes involving injuries and a 2.3 percent rise in those involving fatalities. With legalization and retail sales, the study found that the total impact was a 5.8 percent rise in injury crash rates and a 4.1 percent increase in fatal crash rates.

But these results were inconsistent across states, with the effects on injury crash rates varying from a 7 percent decrease to an 18 percent rise and fatal crash rates ranging from a 4 percent increase to a 10 percent decline. Colorado experienced the biggest rise in injury crash rates after legalization and retail sales, coming in at 17.8 percent. Nevada experienced the largest decline in fatal crashes, at 9.8 percent.

“Legalization removes the stigma of marijuana use, while the onset of retail sales merely increases access,” said lead researcher Charles M. Farmer of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. “But access to marijuana isn’t difficult, even in places without retail sales. Users who previously avoided driving high may feel that it’s okay after legalization.”

Farmer added, “Studies looking for a direct causal link between marijuana use and crash risk have been inconclusive.” Unlike with alcohol, no objective measure yet exists for how impaired a marijuana user has become.

As Triple-I notes, most studies find that marijuana use results in impaired coordination, memory, associative learning, attention, cognitive flexibility, and reaction time. Although it is clear from this research that driving ability is diminished, the extent of impairment continues to be studied.

Younger drivers are at higher risk of traffic accidents than older drivers, with younger male drivers at high risk. Early evidence indicates that younger male drivers are most likely to drive under the influence of marijuana.

Another study, in the journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, suggests chronic, heavy use of recreational marijuana impairs driving skills, even when the driver is not high, with those who started regularly using marijuana before 16 years old showing the worst results.

These results demonstrate that the effects of marijuana vary widely across demographic groups, making it all the more important for everyone to be cautious when using the drug.