Advocacy & Safety - SAFE AUTO car insurance commercial

I just saw an ad on the Gator Bowel for SA insurance where a guy named Stan was being congratulated by folks as he walked down the sidewalk. A woman rides in from the left side on a bike. She has a helmet but it's not on her head - it's draped around the handlebars. Ironic for an insurance commercial.

:lol:

I just saw an ad on the Gator Bowel for SA insurance where a guy named Stan was being congratulated by folks as he walked down the sidewalk. A woman rides in from the left side on a bike. She has a helmet but it's not on her head - it's draped around the handlebars. Ironic for an insurance commercial.

:lol:

Very ironic.

I am glad you found it funny.:thumb:

To me it is saying 'Motorists have insurance, cyclists don't so you shouldn't ride a bike with or without a helmet'. The fact that the cyclist has her helmet draped on the handlebars, is very telling to me. Almost like it is saying motorists' are responsible. But cyclists are not.(sigh)

Perhaps the insurance company has run the stats and recognizes that helmets do little in the situations most people think they'll help with...

Maybe her head was hot? Maybe she rushed into the commercial take and forgot to put on her helmet, and since the commercial was done on a tight budget they just left it in? Maybe it the insurance company was saying that they like bad risks? Probably they didn't want the woman's face and hair covered with a helmet, you know, sex sells sort of thing.

Maybe her head was hot? Maybe she rushed into the commercial take and forgot to put on her helmet, and since the commercial was done on a tight budget they just left it in? Maybe it the insurance company was saying that they like bad risks? Probably they didn't want the woman's face and hair covered with a helmet, you know, sex sells sort of thing.

Very possible.

Perhaps the insurance company has run the stats and recognizes that helmets do little in the situations most people think they'll help with...

My girlfriend wears a helmet to bed every night. She doesn't want to get a concussion from the headboard.


To me it is saying 'Motorists have insurance, cyclists don't

Are you in favor of mandatory liability insurance for cyclists? I think "one road, different rules" is ok.

Are you in favor of mandatory liability insurance for cyclists? I think "one road, different rules" is ok.

I wasn't thinking in that vein. I was thinking that the commercial was insinuating that motorists are better than cyclists, because of having insurance.

Better because of having the insurance they're required to carry, that we aren't?

Better because of having the insurance they're required to carry, that we aren't?

That is what I got from the commercial.

Because, The 'take' of the commercial that was 'printed' was not printed without the knowledge of the director. Unless the director totally missed it.

I just saw an ad on the Gator Bowel for SA insurance where a guy named Stan was being congratulated by folks as he walked down the sidewalk. A woman rides in from the left side on a bike. She has a helmet but it's not on her head - it's draped around the handlebars. Ironic for an insurance commercial.

:lol:

Priceless. I see several of these every season. This is not quite as good though, as that one that has the helmet on backwards. I still have not figured out
how they do this.

Perhaps the insurance company has run the stats and recognizes that helmets do little in the situations most people think they'll help with...

:popcorn

Better because of having the insurance they're required to carry, that we aren't?

I can't find the commercial video online, so I'm only commenting secondhand, but...if that's the message, it's especially stupid coming from "Safe Auto". They appear to be an insurance company that specializes in ONLY selling state minimum insurance coverage. Since state minimums are so wholly inadequate to cover potential injuries and damages to others in most states, buying a policy AT ALL from Safe Auto is pretty much irresponsible, by definition. Sure, it's less irresponsible than driving completely uninsured, but it's still very irresponsible to drive if you can't or won't buy enough insurance to cover the potential liability your vehicle has the ability to cause. Add to that the fact that the reason many of their customers probably can't afford better insurance with higher limits is because of their past bad driving record, and it becomes even more irresponsible. In some of their other commercials they even brag about how they "don't treat people unfairly" by charging them more than other drivers with better records, and how "their customers love that". I'm sure their customers do, but the people their customers hit while insured by them? Not so much, I'd bet.

So, which is more irresponsible? A cyclist who doesn't carry insurance because his or her vehicle has very little potential to cause serious property damage and injury to others (keeping in mind that many cyclists ARE covered for liability by one or more insurance policy they carry), or someone who drives on state minimum coverage in a vehicle with the potential to cause property damage and liability far exceeding that coverage? Maybe that wasn't the message they intended to send, given how stupid it is. Maybe they were just wanting to look down on cyclists by implying that the alternative to their product is being "stuck" on a bike?

My girlfriend wears a helmet to bed every night. She doesn't want to get a concussion from the headboard.


Dang, you really are an animal in bed!

Priceless. I see several of these every season. This is not quite as good though, as that one that has the helmet on backwards. I still have not figured out how they do this.

Almost as funny as the Viagra commercial featuring a sailboat and the comments that some how the sailor is strong and independent. "This is The Age of Taking Action." Of course the ultimate irony is that in the last frames the jib is backwinded and the boat is being towed... perhaps the ultimate comment on Viagra itself.

Here is a blog on that commercial... http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/STLSports/STLSportsBlog/tabid/196/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/7901/What-the-Viagra-Sailboat-Commercial-is-Telling-Us.aspx

Here is the actual commercial... if you sail, look for the errors in the last frames... http://www.viagra.com/viagra-tv-commercial.aspx

So what this all says is that the directors/producers/writers, of all these commercials really don't have a clue... about the subjects of which they make commercials, and no doubt, about the products they are pushing.

My girlfriend wears a helmet to bed every night. She doesn't want to get a concussion from the headboard.

Ut-oh The S&A police are coming to get ya. "Now Seattle, is this really something that should be posted on the S&A?" :D

....."Safe Auto". They appear to be an insurance company that specializes in ONLY selling state minimum insurance coverage. Since state minimums are so wholly inadequate to cover potential injuries and damages to others in most states, buying a policy AT ALL from Safe Auto is pretty much irresponsible, by definition. Sure, it's less irresponsible than driving completely uninsured, but it's still very irresponsible to drive if you can't or won't buy enough insurance to cover the potential liability your vehicle has the ability to cause. Add to that the fact that the reason many of their customers probably can't afford better insurance with higher limits is because of their past bad driving record, and it becomes even more irresponsible. In some of their other commercials they even brag about how they "don't treat people unfairly" by charging them more than other drivers with better records, and how "their customers love that". I'm sure their customers do, but the people their customers hit while insured by them? Not so much, I'd bet.


I agree m. I wonder how many times SA has had to be dragged into litigation because they only wanted to pay the maximum benefit let's say $50K.

Insurance companies will low-ball the victims every chance they get. These insurance companies send chills up my spine.

I agree m. I wonder how many times SA has had to be dragged into litigation because they only wanted to pay the maximum benefit let's say $50K.

Insurance companies will low-ball the victims every chance they get. These insurance companies send chills up my spine.

Recently I was on a jury for a case in which the insurance company no doubt spent more for expert witnesses and lawyers to defeat the case than what the plaintiff was asking for... ironic in a very sad way.

Yes, the plaintiff lost... it was a civil case, and the defense had well outspent the plaintiff... and it only takes a majority to win.

So, which is more irresponsible? A cyclist who doesn't carry insurance because his or her vehicle has very little potential to cause serious property damage and injury to others

Ironically (or not), this is exactly the same argument put forth by people who feel that cyclists should be allowed to go through red lights and stop signs. ;)

Ironically (or not), this is exactly the same argument put forth by people who feel that cyclists should be allowed to go through red lights and stop signs. ;)

I actually am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, IF what you're talking about is differentiation in how the law officially treats different types of road users. I don't, for example, have a serious problem with the "Idaho stop"-type rules for cyclists. However, I also think that advocating lawbreaking is quite a bit different from advocating that the law treat cyclists differently. Breaking the law exposes the cyclist to greater risks associated with otherwise identical behavior, including other road users who will feel more "entitled" to treat the cyclist badly and possible legal risk (both civil/liability and criminal). Additionally, it has the potential to reduce the smooth, orderly function of the road system because it creates conflicting expectations in all road users' minds about how cyclists will behave (some people will feel entitled to run stop lights, others will feel cyclists should strictly adhere to the laws, etc). This variation in interpretations of the "unwritten rules" creates uncertainty that reduces the efficiency and safety of the system.

I agree m. I wonder how many times SA has had to be dragged into litigation because they only wanted to pay the maximum benefit let's say $50K.

Insurance companies will low-ball the victims every chance they get. These insurance companies send chills up my spine.

My understanding is that an insurance company cannot, under any circumstances, be held liable for more than the maximum liability benefit, even through litigation. The insurance company basically assumes liability "in place of" the insured party, who is liable for the actual amount of damages caused. Once the coverage limit is reached, the insurer is off the hook, and any further recovery would have to come from the insured party directly. Which often doesn't work out very well for the victim if they don't have much or any money or assets. They are still liable, but getting the actual money out of them is another story: presumably they wouldn't have purchased such low insurance limits if they had any money to protect in the first place.

(Personally, I'd like to see the minimum coverage limits legally allowed raised to levels that are actually reasonable and realistic for the liability risks that people have the potential to cause. Unfortunately, that would likely cause more people to drive uninsured as they would be priced out of the market, so it would have to be paired with a hardcore crackdown on uninsured driving, etc.)

Hi there, nice information provided. thanks for that. keep posting of blogs in the future. thanks once again..
http://www.theonlinegenericrx.com

My family and I was hit by a drunk driver who was driving a company vehicle, blew a .09 and had an empty twelve-pack in the vehicle with him.

Our hospital bills reached well over 75k and the policy had a max benefit of 50K. We were forced into litigation in order to recover just enough to pay the doctor bills, and to replace our brand new vehicle that was totaled. Not to mention the police cruiser which was also totaled because we were sandwiched between the vehicles.

In some states, when there is a crime being committed, then the insurer accepts the responsibility for the vehicle that they insure. (more or less policies aren't worth the paper they are written on...)

We went to court and won well over what we needed to replace the losses and the injuries we incurred. Including damages for my 8 year and 6 year old sons who were in the back seats. I'm very thankful we are all alright. My wife however, will always suffer from her disability created when the accident happened.

Folks, I know that tort is something that is damaging to the country, but if you are involved in an accident, especially in the commission of a crime ie; drunk driving, speeding and failure to stop. Then you need to find a good attorney and take care of your family/self.

BTW, the defendant was released on time served (2nd offense) 200 hrs community service, and loss of license for 12 months, and $2000.00 fine. I would have gladly settled for less, had they spent about a year in prison. But that is the way it goes. Smack the wrist, and send them on out there to harm someone else. After a second DUI, it's tough to convince me that they are reformable unless they stop drinking completely.

I really hope this person did.

We had a similar instance in my family; my sister was hit by a drunk driver head on after the drunk crossed the center line. She also had one of these nearly worthless policies, although it turned out later that she wasn't current on payment and so even that had lapsed. Everyone was relatively okay, but there were some major medical bills. Drunk woman claimed to have no money, job, or assets (she was actually illegally working under the table). Did I mention she was above 0.20 BAC and was also smoking marijuana at the time she caused the crash? She basically got no serious punishment from the criminal courts: mostly just probation, with one night in jail served, and a minimal fine. We and our insurance company sued her (to recover their UM payment) and won, but no one has managed to get a dime from her because she lives an "off the books" lifestyle not using banks, paying taxes, etc, and titles her cars in other people's named, etc.

These low limits policies really need to be illegal.

I actually am somewhat sympathetic to that argument, IF what you're talking about is differentiation in how the law officially treats different types of road users. I don't, for example, have a serious problem with the "Idaho stop"-type rules for cyclists. However, I also think that advocating lawbreaking is quite a bit different from advocating that the law treat cyclists differently. Breaking the law exposes the cyclist to greater risks associated with otherwise identical behavior, including other road users who will feel more "entitled" to treat the cyclist badly and possible legal risk (both civil/liability and criminal). Additionally, it has the potential to reduce the smooth, orderly function of the road system because it creates conflicting expectations in all road users' minds about how cyclists will behave (some people will feel entitled to run stop lights, others will feel cyclists should strictly adhere to the laws, etc). This variation in interpretations of the "unwritten rules" creates uncertainty that reduces the efficiency and safety of the system.

In Idaho, many drivers and cyclists alike don't know about the "Idaho stop" law, which means that a law-abiding cyclists who uses this maneuver has every bit as much potential to reduce the smooth, orderly function of the road system because it creates the conflicting expectations in road users' minds...

It seems like you and I are more or less in agreement.

In Idaho, many drivers and cyclists alike don't know about the "Idaho stop" law, which means that a law-abiding cyclists who uses this maneuver has every bit as much potential to reduce the smooth, orderly function of the road system because it creates the conflicting expectations in road users' minds...

It seems like you and I are more or less in agreement.

I didn't know this rule until I read it on here awhile back. I still stop and wait at lights because of that reason. The only times I don't are in the early morning and there's not a car on the road.