Site etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
Site etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

20 Nisan 2015 Pazartesi

The world’s worst cities for site visitors jams




Visitors jams are a sure-fire way to trigger road rage.



2a829 uktrafficjam


They delay journeys, producing some drivers aggressive and consequently dangerous. They waste fuel, they’re noisy and they lead to pollution.


So, exactly where in the globe fares the worst for road congestion?


Sat-nav provider TomTom reckons Istanbul in Turkey is the most congested, ranking 1st for its clogged-up evening rush hour and the amount of time drivers commit toiling in traffic.


The congestion index contains measures of travel times for the duration of peak periods, congestion levels primarily based on the time and day, and delays encountered throughout a 30-minute commute.


TomTom’s annual site visitors index is measured annually and looks into the effect of targeted traffic congestion in over 200 cities around the globe.


The index revealed that, if you have to drive throughout the evening rush hour, you can anticipate to spend double the time in the car, on typical, stuck in traffic than if you ventured out at one more point in the day.


In the UK, Belfast was located to have the most congested roads, with an average of 104 hours a year spent in site visitors. It was followed by Manchester (94 hours) and Edinburgh (93 hours).


Verify out the worst offending cities in the UK and about the world…


Worst UK cities for time spent per annum in congestion 


  1. Belfast – 104 hours

  2. Manchester – 94 hours

  3. Edinburgh – 93 hours

  4. London – 92 hours

  5. Nottingham – 85 hours

  6. Brighton & Hove – 84 hours

  7. Bristol – 82 hours

  8. Southampton – 80 hours

  9. Leicester – 79 hours

  10. Leeds – 78 hours

World rankings based on overall congestion levels


  1. Istanbul

  2. Mexico City

  3. Rio de Janeiro

  4. Moscow

  5. Salvador

  6. Recife

  7. St Petersburg

  8. Bucharest

  9. Warsaw

  10. Los Angeles

71547 Banner 600





The world’s worst cities for site visitors jams

The world’s worst cities for site visitors jams




Visitors jams are a confident-fire way to trigger road rage.



5eacb uktrafficjam


They delay journeys, producing some drivers aggressive and consequently unsafe. They waste fuel, they’re noisy and they result in pollution.


So, exactly where in the planet fares the worst for road congestion?


Sat-nav provider TomTom reckons Istanbul in Turkey is the most congested, ranking 1st for its clogged-up evening rush hour and the quantity of time drivers invest toiling in site visitors.


The congestion index involves measures of travel instances during peak periods, congestion levels primarily based on the time and day, and delays encountered throughout a 30-minute commute.


TomTom’s annual targeted traffic index is measured annually and looks into the influence of targeted traffic congestion in over 200 cities about the globe.


The index revealed that, if you have to drive for the duration of the evening rush hour, you can count on to devote double the time in the car, on average, stuck in traffic than if you ventured out at one more point in the day.


In the UK, Belfast was found to have the most congested roads, with an average of 104 hours a year spent in targeted traffic. It was followed by Manchester (94 hours) and Edinburgh (93 hours).


Verify out the worst offending cities in the UK and about the world…


Worst UK cities for time spent per annum in congestion 


  1. Belfast – 104 hours

  2. Manchester – 94 hours

  3. Edinburgh – 93 hours

  4. London – 92 hours

  5. Nottingham – 85 hours

  6. Brighton & Hove – 84 hours

  7. Bristol – 82 hours

  8. Southampton – 80 hours

  9. Leicester – 79 hours

  10. Leeds – 78 hours

Globe rankings primarily based on overall congestion levels


  1. Istanbul

  2. Mexico City

  3. Rio de Janeiro

  4. Moscow

  5. Salvador

  6. Recife

  7. St Petersburg

  8. Bucharest

  9. Warsaw

  10. Los Angeles

6812a Banner 600





The world’s worst cities for site visitors jams

11 Mart 2015 Çarşamba

Evaluate.com Confirms Partnership with Google Insurance Comparison Site





Online auto insurance comparison site compare.com is now working with Google on its auto insurance compare and buy platform, Google Compare, in California.


Andrew Rose, CEO of Virginia-based compare.com, said the search engine giant approached the company because it was having trouble attracting carrier partners to its search panel and wanted to offer more carrier options to users.


The partnership will work by giving Google Compare users access to some of Compare.com’s 41 carrier partners through the Google Compare site.


“They ultimately made the decision that we were a short cut to building a panel themselves,” said Rose.


Google is offering compare.com’s providers in addition to forming their own carrier panel, said Rose. However, all of compare.com’s carrier partners are not available through the Google Compare site.


“Google Compare will collect user info and forward that information to us and we will forward it on to any of our participating carriers that want to have their rates shown on Google [Compare],” he said.


Rose said not all of compare.com’s carrier partners wanted to participate in the new Google Compare venture as some had concerns. He wouldn’t name or give an exact number of compare.com’s carriers that agreed to participate, but did say it is “somewhere in between” its 41 partners.


“In some ways, this is quite scary for insurance companies. There is concern among them about what happens if Google controls one of the avenues where they get their business,” he said.


The relationship is also non-reciprocal, meaning Google Compare opted not to share its carrier partners with compare.com. Rose said that was Google’s decision.


The partnership will work by showing Google Compare users multiple insurance quotes after they input their information – some quotes will come from compare.com’s carrier partners, and some from Google.com’s partners. Quotes may also be provided by Google’s other partner, CoverHound.com. When a user chooses to purchase an auto policy on Google’s site from a compare.com carrier they leave the Google site and go to that carrier’s webpage to finish the transaction, just as it works on compare.com’s site. Customers can also choose to call and purchase their policy over the phone.


Compare.com is compensated by the carrier just as they would be if they went straight to compare.com.


“From the carrier’s standpoint, the policy still came from compare.com and they will compensate us. Then we pay Google a share of what we were compensated by the carrier,” said Rose.


Compare.com doesn’t charge customers to use its site and the same is true on the Google Compare platform. Compare.com charges carriers a flat fee per sale that is based on the segment of business. Carriers are only charged if a customer actually buys the policy from the company. Compare.com then uses that money to advertise on behalf of the carriers.


Also just like the compare.com site, the rate doesn’t change when the customer leaves the Google Compare site or calls the listed phone number to purchase. Rose says this has been a critical part of his company’s success so far because the consumer can finish their transaction without any other costs.


Compare.com was established in 2013 and is the U.S. version of confused.com that started back in 2002 in the UK and is also owned by parent company, Admiral, the former owners of esurance.com. Compare.com began writing business in the U.S. market in 2014 with auto insurance and just recently changed its name from comparenow.com, which Rose said was unrelated to the partnership.


Rose said compare.com partnered to power the back-end of Google Compare because they thought it was a good opportunity for compare.com’s insurance company partners and would help elevate comparison sites like compare.com.


“This creates a big win for the insurance company. They can integrate with us once and then can also get Google’s traffic as well,” he said. “It was a very big decision for us to say yes we want to partner with them, but we think that the more consumers that use comparison shopping for insurance the better it will make it for us all.”


Rose says it will also help compare.com enhance and build its brand, as compare.com will be mentioned with each rate that is returned by them.


“We are going to be the brand name that consumers actively choose,” he said. “It’s a different strategy and we would rather be a part of it than not.”


Rose said it is possible that compare.com’s carriers could eventually choose to work directly with Google Compare rather than go through compare.com, but he doesn’t see that happening because, “Our current panel members value their relationship with compare.com and we value them.”


His message to agents is also one of optimism – he encourages them to work with compare.com because the company accommodates agents through its process, saying, “We know how important and powerful they are.” He says agents shouldn’t consider comparison sites a death to their business and rather find ways to work with them.


“This is a reality you are not going to be able to stop, so work with a partner that knows the insurance business and values the agency proposition,” he said.


Currently, the partnership between compare.com and Google Compare is just for auto insurance in California, but Rose says they are open to working with Google in other states when it expands, though nothing has been decided on now. Compare.com currently offers auto insurance comparison quotes in 48 states and plans to expand into homeowners and renters insurance later this year.


Rose said some of his carrier partners are taking a wait-and-see approach to the Google Compare platform and the companies that have opted to participate can change their minds at any time or just not return a rate – they are not locked in to participating. But he thinks as time goes on more carriers will become comfortable and want to take part in comparison model platforms.


“Just as with our business, it took some time to get the first 5 carriers and now we are on our way to 4 dozen. Once you start gaining momentum the insurance carriers don’t want to be left out,” he said.


Compare.com isn’t locked in to the Google Compare deal either – while they have a contract, which details cannot be disclosed, Rose said they can get out of the deal “in a reasonable period of time, like with any contract.”


He doesn’t expect that will be the case, however.


“We all have spent a lot of time and effort to make it work and are invested in it and want to see it succeed. And we did it because we want to see comparison models succeed,” he said.


Related:


  • Google Compare for Car Insurance has Arrived

  • Google to Face Same Obstacles Selling Insurance Online, Says Overstock’s Byrne

  • Walmart Begins Selling Auto Insurance Online

  • Insurance Agents Urged to Follow Overstock.com, Insuritas Online Sales Model

  • Buying Insurance Is Like Online Dating? Or Loving a Local Agent?

  • Has Online Shopping for Auto Insurance Peaked?

  • UK Online Aggregators Now Have 40% of Personal P/C But Not Commercial



7ecd0 p 89EKCgBk8MZdE







Evaluate.com Confirms Partnership with Google Insurance Comparison Site

16 Eylül 2014 Salı

Texas’ Oil Boom Counties See Rise in Site visitors Deaths






Vehicle crash deaths are substantially up in parts of Texas exactly where oil and gas production is booming the most.


The Houston Chronicle reports that deaths rose much more than 50 percent in the West Texas counties located on the Permian Basin. Deaths also went up about 11 percent in counties linked with the Eagle Ford and Barnett shales, according to Texas Department of Transportation records.


The records do not show how many of these deaths might be straight linked to the oil and gas market.


But deaths in commercial trucking accidents and multiple-fatality crashes have gone up on roads near drill web sites and key highways like Interstate 20.


Texas has surpassed California as the state with the most annual visitors deaths in the United States.


Copyright 2014 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may possibly not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.







Insurance news headlines delivered to your e-mail.

Get a free of charge subscription to our well-known e-mail newsletter.






1abb9 p 89EKCgBk8MZdE







Texas’ Oil Boom Counties See Rise in Site visitors Deaths

1 Eylül 2014 Pazartesi

Delay in Connecticut DMV Site Snags Immigrant Licenses






A delayed start in Connecticut’s motor vehicles website is causing confusion among some immigrants over how to seek the state’s driver’s licenses.


The Hearst Connecticut Media Group reports that the Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles was to launch a website in September where applicants could make applications.


The launch was delayed until December to make sure the website could handle the large number of anticipated applicants. DMV officials said as many as 200,000 immigrants may apply for licenses.


Immigrant groups are organizing to help avoid scams and prepare immigrant motorists to register for licenses.


The state’s General Assembly and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy enacted legislation last year allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses. The idea was to make it easier to register cars and obtain insurance.


Copyright 2014 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.








Like this article?

Subscribe to our free email newsletter.






cb865 p 89EKCgBk8MZdE







Delay in Connecticut DMV Site Snags Immigrant Licenses