Lawyers make bad drivers

February 22, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Hey lawyers and judges, you are really bad drivers. At least, that’s what one auto insurance company says.



You are such bad drivers that you rank No. 1 on insurance.com’s “Top 10 Most Dangerous Drivers by Professions” list. The company based its rankings on its own data that showed certain professions are more likely to have had an accident. In its report, 44 percent of attorneys who received a car insurance comparison quote from the company had previously made an accident claim.



Insurance.com also throws in a couple of jokes Jeff Foxworthy-style about the ranking, like “If you’re both an expert at the law and an expert at getting stopped by the law, you might be a dangerous driver.”



Other dangerous drivers include financial professionals, government workers, marketing/advertising professionals, and bartenders or waiters.



Insurance.com’s vice president believes professions that demand multi-tasking are more likely to have distracted drivers. Those that ranked low on the list – athletes and homemakers – might be attributable to the fact they are often hauling kids so they may drive more cautiously or they aren’t on the road during rush hour.



Of course, insurance.com bases this report only on information supplied by people looking for auto insurance quotes and is using the ranking as a way to sell insurance. But does the list have any merit? Do you want to fess up and admit to being a distracted driver or see a pattern of accidents among your legal buddies?

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT