Talk about irony. On June 27th for the first time ever, my 1997 Saab was the focus of a diary on Dailykos. It's not for nothing that we Jewish people are superstitious enough never to talk about anything that's going well, like one's good health, good fortune..... or having a solid reliable car. Or if we do we utter magic words, "kenahora," that provides a suspension of the evil that could come from such hubris.
The diary was really about a new federal law, that the N.Y Times happened to use a car just like my SAAB to illustrate. I feigned indignity that the law called my car a clunker; in various comments describing it as reliable, comfortable and something that should not be turned into scrap, as this law would promote.
But I never said "Kenahora."
So, exactly four days later, just as my forebears knew, I was punished. As I was driving up Interstate 5 to a tennis game, traffic started to slow. I was about to describe it as "bumper to bumper" but that description is the essence of the story. When we slow down, based on recent observations, the norm is to leave about a half a cars length between you and the car in front of you, even more if you are still moving very slowly.
"CRASH," from the back of the car I felt the force.
First I took stock and realized I wasn't hurt. I motioned the driver of the car that hit me to pull over to the shoulder (we were on the far right lane)and she got out of her car/truck. (I'm still not sure which it was, a small truck or a car with truck like features) The young woman apologized profusely, but I was angry and said, "you just ruined my car." She said that that it's not that bad because she had insurance and that they would pay for the repair.
But I knew the cost of body work, and while this car fit my needs perfectly, the three thousand dollar book value maximum payment would not allow me to repair or replace it. To add to the irony, when we sold our much older car, I took the collision insurance off of the SAAB because of this low book value.
Now, to part of this title, "Why you should be worried." To answer this I have to refer to an article in today's N.Y. Times that describes The lethal effects of the increase in use of cell phones in automobiles.
Was the nice young woman who hit me engaged in a conversation on her cell phone? I don't know, and actually right now, only she knows, since her insurance company never asked her. They didn't because they have refused my claim since she was struck in the back of her car by someone else. After the accident, after she gave me a copy of her insurer's confirmation of active coverage, whose name for now I won't disclose, after she said they would pay for it, only then did she mention that she, herself had been hit.
According to California law, If a car is "pushed" into another car, they are not liable, and neither is their insurer. While she may have been hit, perhaps tapped by another car, based on what may have been some slight paint chips on her tow hitch, there is no evidence that she was "pushed" into my car, or that she made any attempt to try to stop that first person from leaving the scene.
This was a personable outgoing young lady, who not only did I have an immediate sense of empathy with, but I image so do many others. Statistics reported in the Times article show at any given time 10% of all drivers are on cell phones, increasing their accident rate four fold.
I would guess that among outgoing people under thirty who find themselves in slow traffic, and who do not follow up on a promise to call their insurer immediately, and wash off the evidence of their being rear ended, and only return numerous calls from their insurance agent after a week......the percentage of cell phone drivers are dramatically higher.
Like many social-political issues, we chose to notice defects in them only when it bites us on our own ass. The article in the Times describes how growing cell phone use may be already causing the death and maiming of thousands of Americans....with the problem growing rapidly with the new technologies to divert drivers attention.
The stonewalling of the insurer also resonates to the actions of other insurers, those health care insurers who hold lives in their hands, not merely reimbursement for a damaged auto. If I had been severely injured, and if there were a zero or two on the potential damages, I would have no trouble finding a lawyer to take this case on contingency.
But, like so many insurance issues, in smaller cases the insurance companies have the systems in place to deny payment, while the injured party is inventing the wheel of challenging them from scratch, with all the work and research that goes with it.
I've covered several different issues in this diary, but the most pressing is the myth of multi-tasking, that allows people to believe they can have an intense cell phone conversation, and still attend to the road.
I have one simple suggestion that might stem this emerging danger.
While it is politically difficult to restrict conversations on cell phones (and requiring they be hands free is no help) if an accident occurs, checking whether someone had been on their cell phone should be required/allowed by the insurer, and/or the police. And just like evidence of intoxication (which can be less debilitating than cell phone use), add to the penalty and be part of the determination of guilt in ambiguous circumstances.
Let me hear from you all on any of the issues I've raised