Big Brother In Your Front Seat

Rick Zeman writes "Would you give up your privacy in your car to save a few bucks on your auto insurance? 'Safe' drivers who plug an electronic device into their vehicles will be then eligible for a discount on their insurance. They say, '...the device constantly tracks car speed. By comparing that with a clock in the TripSense device, the device figures how far the car goes, mapping it against the time of day. At the end of each policy term, the customer would download the data and see what discount he or she would get. Customers can see all their data before deciding to send it to Progressive, and can decide not to send it -- and not get extra discounts.' I wonder how soon it will be that everyone has one except those resigned to paying extra as with grocery 'convenience' cards."

Comments

No

[Lord Grey]

Would you give up your privacy in your car to save a few bucks on your auto insurance? ... the device constantly tracks car speed ...

To make this as easy as possible for insurance company representatives (or any other representatives of big business and government) to understand:

Stay the f**k out of my life.

Re:No

[maximilln]

You know that, to save the children, eventually these things will be mandatory by law.

Re:No

[foidulus]

Um, for governments you can say that, but guess what, car insurance is privately owned, if you don't like it, don't go with that company, siimple as that. Let them know you don't like it, if they lose more revenue than they stand to gain,

Re:No

[Dr Caleb]

I second that. They are there to provide me with a service. They can judge how much that will cost me by how much I cost them in the past, not how much I might cost them in the future.

I can decide if I'm willing to pay their outragous prices and contribute to their record profits (last year for example). Stay the hell out of my life.

Re:No

[jridley]

Easy enough. Don't do business with companies that do things you don't like. But don't complain when you have to pay more than your neighbor because he's proved he's a good driver, while you're an unknown risk.

Re:No

[cubicledrone]

car insurance is privately owned

It was. Now it is mandated, therefore it is a tax, and therefore it is government. That means we can bypass the whole "well, it's a private company so they can deep fry your rights in wombat shit" argument.

Re:No

[base3]

You really think this will result in discounts for good drivers? The "proven good drivers'" premiums might dip a little at first, but ultimately, they will use the chilling effect of having this device to increase the money they make from good drivers, while charging a premium for privacy for those who can afford it.

Re:No

[gfxguy]

But what about when they all require them?

It's an interesting dilema, and it's easy to say to just pick another company...

When they came for Progressive, I said I didn't have Progressive, so I did nothing.

When they came for State Farm, I said I didn't have State Farm, so I did nothing....

Etc., etc....

Until... then they came for Metropolitan, and there were no other companies to turn to...

Obviously, I think, we are beginning to understand that in order to continue having certain privelages, because so many people violate those privelages, we are going to have to accept enforcement of the proper use of those privelages and pay the penalties when we don't. Speed traps, red light cameras, black boxes... Sure, I know it's not the government... yet.

I could be flip about it and say "well, if you don't speed then why would you object?" But I won't, because we all know it doesn't end there. On the other hand, with so many people violating rules and laws, costing lives and money, something like this is inevitable.

Re:No

[DAldredge]

Or if your a GOPer it to stop TERROR!

Re:No

[JAgostoni]

At least they said it was optional. But then again, that just means they'll raise your rates and the "discounted" rates will but what you WERE paying before you decided not to install the little black box.

Re:No

[riptide_dot]

You: Stay the f**k out of my life.
InsureCo: No problem. Have a nice day and good luck driving your car without insurance.

Me: Thanks, it's very easy to drive without insurance. It's not really harder than driving with insurance, actually. Now, getting pulled over without insurance, that's a different story. Still relatively easy, but expensive. I'll go talk to company B who will give me discounts based on my lack of accidents, lack of tickets within the last three years, and the fact that I purchased other insurance policies through them as well. Have a nice day!

InsuranceCo: Wait, come back! We don't want to lose your business, we just wanted to make more money from you by proving that you speed despite your clean record!

Insurance Companies live and die with statistics. The one they're playing with now I'll bet says that even their "best" drivers that don't get speeding tickets and get into accidents are still speeding, but not getting caught. I'd imagine that most of their customers speed from time to time, so this is an easier way of increasing their rates without having to rely on the CHP or local law enforcement to catch them. I'm not against people wanting to do this, but I imagine that a whole lot of people that try this will be disappointed in the end because their premiums don't go anywhere but up because only the most cautious drivers actually go the speed limit or slower ALL THE TIME. Most people speed, and the insurance companies probably have the statstics to prove it.

Bottom line: a large company that is in the business of making money will NEVER offer incentives to their customers that causes them to lose money somehow. That's bad business.

Re:No

[darksaber]

To make this as easy as possible for insurance company representatives (or any other representatives of big business and government) to understand: Stay the f**k out of my life.

Is now a good time to say, "Who is forcing you to use these devices? This plan doesn't even force to report results after you check them."

Ignoring slippery slopes for a moment, the insurance company is trying to "prove" that you aren't a problem case waiting to happen. And why wouldn't you want to let the crazier drivers pay for the risk? Do you really like subsidizing their rates? Of course, reading the posts in other articles here, slashdot readers are pretty crazy drivers (e.g. passing at 100mph driving on the wrong side of the street) so maybe I'll be mobbed in a minute.

Also, they aren't trying to collect much information at the moment, but I imagine it would be a lot harder to justify the increased benefits of full tracking logs vs just speed logs. That, and for the non-tinfoil crowd, the detail to really recreate an accident would probably take way to much storage unless it was only the most recent data. The tinfoil crowd isn't reading this anyway.

P.S. For those who worry about it being sub-poenaed and self-incrimination, I agree it shouldn't be but it probably will. I still don't feel sorry for those who actually cause accidents by being deliberately reckless time and time again and try to hide it though.

Re:No

[SnapShot]

With all due respect, how many "good" drivers do you see on the road on a daily basis. When was the last time you saw a vehical go the speed limit (not 5 to 10 mph over, but the actual posted speed limit?)

Okay, I do it occassionally just to piss-off tailgaters...

Anyway, IMOSFHO, the real danger on the road is people who pass on the right, tailgaters, people who don't use turn signals, and people who generally act like asshats. Speed is just a multiplier for other stupid behavior. When are we going to get the black box that detects assholes?

Re:No

[foidulus]

So let me get this straight, you seem very upset about "big government" mandating you have car insurance, but you want government to stop car insurance companies to not be able to give customers discounts who VOLUNTEER to have stuff monitored on their car.......
This makes no sense, you seem mad about government regulation, but you want to answer it with, government regulation!
You can't have both......

Re:No

[sweetooth]

Well the whole reason you have insurance is so that if something bad happens while driving etc you don't have to foot the whole bill yourself. This seems much more like a tactic for the insurance companies to get out of liability should you be in an accident.

Say you are in one, the insurance company then pulls out your data and says: You drive an average of 3 mph over the speed limit based on the data you have provided for the last couple of years and that puts you in violation of our terms so you're on your own buddy.

While it may reduce the costs for some customers initially there is a point when all insurance companies will require it (assuming consumers don't complain and it's likely they won't). Then there will be no reason to give any one a price cut for using it and they can get out of paying for more claims as so many people violate the speed limit laws etc.

Then again maybe I'm just paranoid when it comes to corporations, privacy, etc.

Re:No

[Mistlefoot]

How can this work.......

I believe most accidents happen in cities, and likely at speeds under 50mph. What good does this do for an insurance company to see that I often drive at 55mph or 60mph when I could quite likely be highway driving.

45mph in a 30mph zone is far more dangerous than 65mph in a 60mph zone. How can the device KNOW the speed limit when compared with the speed driven?

Re:No

[cubicledrone]

It's not a tax

Government mandated payment = tax.

it's only mandated for people that own cars

Sales tax is only mandated for people who buy things.

Re:No

[AuMatar]

Not at all. THere's plenty of limitations to private contracts. For example, I can't sell myself into slavery via a private contract. Just because its private doesn't mean you should have the ability to violate my rights like that. Doubly so for an insurance corporation, an artificial construct created by the government that is NOT a human being.

Re:No

[cubicledrone]

In other cases (such as civil suits) the government may mandate that you relinquish damages to another party. That is also clearly not a tax.

Straw man. Different branch of government. Totally different concept. Judgements are not mandates.

Re:No

[trentblase]

How is this at all a different concept? Court orders certainly have the full backing of the law. It's the same branch of government -- the judiciary. It's a LAW that you must have insurance. If you break a LAW they make you pay a fine. Sometimes this fine goes to the government, sometimes elsewhere. These are not taxes, especially if the money goes to a third party.

Re:No

[Grishnakh]

The problem we have here is that, instead of trying to make the roads *safer*, they're trying to *save money* by not insuring bad drivers. This isn't going to help things at all; it'll only mean more uninsured drivers, who then cost the insured drivers even more money when they have a wreck. Then the insurance premiums will go up even further, despite these efforts to "weed out" the bad drivers. Refusing to insure bad drivers simply doesn't get them off the road. There are millions of poor people all over the country driving without insurance every day. Get hit by one, and your insurance has to pay you because they're uninsured (and dirt poor, so they have no money to give you).

What needs to happen is the government (because the insurance companies aren't going to do it) needs to fix the root of the problem, which is unsafe driving and bad drivers. There are other countries, such as several western European nations, which have developed much better systems for educating and policing drivers. Of course, we can't possibly look at how they do things, because that would be admitting that we're not #1...

First, the US needs far better driver education. My driver education consisted of watching silly movies from the 1950's, which recommended honking at every other car and pedestrian on the road, and basically being babysat (like most high school classes). My parent was the only real driving instructor I had. Most Americans are the same way. In Europe, you have to pay thousands for a professional driving instructor.

Second, the US needs much better enforcement of bad driving, instead of enforcement that is only intended to bring revenue to local governments (i.e. speeding). This means we need to get cops off the highways, looking for speeders at 3AM, and put them in city traffic looking for dangerous drivers. Drivers who drive in a truly dangerous fashion (such as DUI, running red lights, not yielding, etc.) should have their license revoked. And more importantly, the penalty for driving with a suspended or revoked license should be very severe, like a year in jail. Currently, people drive around all the time with no license, and the penalty is just a slap on the wrist. I don't care if they can't get to work without a car; they can take a bus, taxi, ride a bike, or better yet move someplace that's not rural.

Everyone should have one

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how soon it will be that everyone has one

I wonder how long till someone hacks it to get a discount on their insurance.
Oh and does it run Linux?

Re:Everyone should have one

[AviLazar]

Except if you get in a car wreck and the insurance adjuster finds out that you messed with the speedometer - they will recind your insurance and possibly strike you with some law that will be setup in these cases.

no

[Triumph The Insult C]

what's next after that? save a few bucks on health insurance if i walk around with a camera showing i don't smoke?

it's all the lawyers fault anyways. go put the damn black box in their car and see how they like it

That would RULE

[ToadMan8]

Mine would say I do 6 MPH below the speed limit at every given time and I never tailgate and always stop for little old ladies in the crosswalk... Regardless of my 110 MPH habits.
Or if I'm going to be crazy for a little bit I'll just deactivate it.
Remember a tip of security of a device... if you can get your hands on it, especially in your house or garage for a matter of months, it's as good as hacked. Other, non-tech savvy people may think otherwise about it though.

Re:That would RULE

[eXtro]

It's not insurance fraud. He didn't say anything about making a false insurance claim. To commit insurance fraud you have to make a false claim. If the last two steps in his plan were to crash and then file an insurance claim and lawsuit using doctored records as evidence then it'd be insurance fraud.

Great Idea!

[Laivincolmo]

I would gladly install one of these in my car. It would provide hard evidence in the case of an accident or unlawful speeding ticket.
Hey... maybe they should make them mandatory in police cars to stop all those speeding cops... Anyone else notice how cops are immune to the speed limit?

Not if your kids drive

[holden caufield]

Does anyone even remotely believe that children (let's say those under 25 still covered uner their parent's insurance) drive as responsibly as they might tell their parents?

do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[acroyear]

Because once its in there and shows positive statistics, the government might mandate it.

And once THAT happens, it becomes information they could subpoena.

So you get into an accident that you *know* was the other guys fault, but your little black box says you were speeding slightly at the time, and the courts could quickly decide that you really were partially at fault and force your insurance company to pony up (and thus increase your rates) where now the other guys insurance would have to pick it up.

Information you are not in control of will be used to control you. Better it simply not exist at all.

Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[selderrr]

there's one flaw in your reasoning : your little black box says you were speeding slightly.

Now, let's start with the assumption that the device works properly. (if you start to question that, you can't have any reasonable discussion anymore) So you were speeding. So you were breaking the law. So you were at fault. So you do deserve to be considered part of the problem.

I do agree that this device is bad because of privacy issues, but the argument you're bringing up is a dead argument used by many : But sir, I WAS ONLY A LITTLE BIT AT FAULT, AND HIM THERE WAS WAY OVER IT

Who's going to draw that line ? How much can you surpass the speed limit ? 2% ? 10% ? Some say 50% depending on weather conditions. Who judges these weather conditions ? Does the forecast have a subsection "the weather is prefect to go 12.7% over the speedlimit today" ?

My point : once you admit you were at fault, you have nothing more to say about not being guilt at all. I'm not saying that you're the complete problem, but at least for gods sake ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR ERROR AND BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES. Even if that implies your insurance goes up 10% (hey, maybe next time you won't be speeding anymore and save a kids life ?)

Many people live by a standard "you did more wrong than me, so you're to blame". I have kids age 5 and 3, and they do this all the time 'okay, i broke a glass, but he broke 2 and did it first'. I don't care what the other did. You'll both get reprimanded independently of the others.

It's called growing up. Try and get some.


Note : sorry if this comment was flammable, but the kids were annoying today (heatwave overhere so they can't play outside and get obnoxious to get at me) and I burned all my fuel trying to stay reasonable.

Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[yabos]

Who says that speeding would have any fault in the accident? The accident could very well happen no matter what speed you were going.

You can't say that just because you were speeding that it was partially your fault. What if someone was speeding up behind you really fast and you punched the gas to lessen the impact? Your speed would probably be over the limit but you actually saved yourself some possible injury.

Again, what if you are on a 4 lane(2 either way) highway and you were passing someone and they chaned lanes and side swiped you? How is that any of your fault because you were going 5 or 10 or more over the limit? They should be able to judge your speed and know when it's safe to change lanes.

This box is nothing but another way for insurance companies to get out of paying you. They would no doubt have a clause in their agreement stating that if you were speeding according to their box that they wouldn't have to pay you squat which is BS.

Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[acroyear]

thing is, there's over the speed limit, and then there's driving faster than the flow of traffic.

I could easily have been over the speed limit, along with everybody else who drives 70mph on 28 near dulles airport outside DC. so yeah, i'm speeding, but i'm not the traffic risk. the guy doing 90 and changing lanes like he's in Le Mans IS, and if he hits me, its his fault no matter what speed i was doing.

in fact, in that circumstance (VERY common near DC) if I was doing the 55 speed limit, i would be presenting even MORE of a risk to getting hit by mr. 90mph.

so i'm not saying i wasn't speeding, i'm saying i was not a threat to the flow of traffic which the other individual was. should i be penalized because I was trying NOT to be a threat to traffic?

speeding is, in spite of everything they try to do with their fucking cameras and crap, a relative crime, not an absolute, and any attempt to make it an absolute simply causes traffic to STOP at the places they do it at, or penalizes the poor and middle class while the rich pay the fines (without point penalty or chance of losing their license) as if it was just a "tax in order to have the right to speed".

its a cheap tax to them.

i'm bitter about this because I got a camera-ticket a few weeks back because I 1) was driving the same speed as everybody else, but 2) had backed off just enough so that I was effectively driving "alone" (nobody near me at the time). I do this because I can't trust the other drivers to not change lanes without looking (i've had dozens of near-misses because people suck) so i match speeds with the "packs" but considerably behind them.

This means, of course, that I can get picked off like any prey not hiding among the herd. I get penalized because I was trying to remain in a safe situation where i wasn't getting swallowed up in a pack of cars full of drivers who can't drive for shit.

Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[HeghmoH]

The issue with speed limits is this:

Many speed limits are set artificially low in order to generate ticket revenue. We've all been on roads where it is actually unsafe, even potentially lethal, to drive the actual speed limit. You will not be held at fault for an accident that you actually caused because you were driving ten miles an hour slower than everybody else. You will be held partially at fault for an accident that you did not cause, simply because you were trying to avoid being a traffic hazard by going as fast as everybody else.

If speed limits were set in accordance with how people actually drive, and they were used to promote safety rather than as a device to generate revenue, then people would probably be more sympathetic with your ideas. But as long as you're forced to break an artificially-low speed limit just to avoid putting your life and other people's lives in danger, then people will try to avoid responsibility for it.

Re:Entrapment

[wwest4]

Isn't entrapment when you are goaded into doing something illegal you wouldn't otherwise do?

This is part of the trend toward automated mass transit. Suck all the joy/autonomy out of driving by constraining the ways you can legally drive, and after a while there will be no "freedom" in having your own car. You may as well get on the subway with a toy driving wheel and make vroom-vroom sounds.

Re:Entrapment

[base3]

Finally--someone gets it. A "discount" for having the device is really a surcharge for not having it.

driving data

[teiresias]

I'd put it in my car. While (possibly) helping with my insurance, the data that this would retrieve would be interesting as it pertains to the mileage I'm getting and so forth.

If I was a law abiding (i.e slow) driver, I'd like this more since it's hard evidence I can show my insurance company with possible and unknown rewards. However, as a young, hotheaded twenty something, my premiums would only go up ;)

- 'Congratulations Mr.Johnson, according to our records you haven't gone above the speed limit in four years.'
- 'And what does that entitle me to?'
- '$30 off your next payment.....oh wait, see here - 1 year ago you went 2 miles over the limit. Make that $15.'
- 'Um...thanks.'

Why this idea is crap.

[GoRK]

The only standard way this data is available on vehicles is via OBD-II. Such dataloggers are already commonly available and used by mechanics to diagnose problems, but here is the real problem -- you could dupe them VERY esily. It would take any sensible programmer with a copy of the (free) standards less than a day to create some kind of simulator that you plug the device into instead of your car.

The only real benefit I see to this problem is that if you call them out on it, you'll probably be able to get the 'safe' rate without having to plug the thing into your own car.

there are already database records of speeding

[gnat_x]

any person who has an ez-pass which is the new trend at least on the east coast is already having their travels through toll booths recorded in a database.

if you enter the NJ turnpike at the south end and drive to the north end, its a simple equation to figure out if your average speed was higher than the speed limit.

there are ez-pass scanners everywhere, including buildings all over manhatten. but everyone in the NYC area has them because it makes their lives and their commutes easier (as the name would suggest) and cheaper.

people don't seem to have a problem with those things being recorded if it means they don't have to pay more/ wait in line.

Yes, please.

[HawkinsD]

Auto insurance is an extremely competitive industry. They employ armies of actuaries to allow them to tinker with rates constantly.

The actuaries tell them that could make substantial rate cuts, and advertise them like crazy (in ads even funnier than Geico's "I just saved a bundle...") if they could only make their process of weeding out relatively dangerous drivers more precise.

I wear a pretty fancy tinfoil hat most of the time, but I'm a safe driver, goddammit, and I can prove it, by my behavior. So: yes, please. I'll take it.

Different drivers...

[osobear]

Does the thing have GPS to know where I'm going and figure out what the speed limit there is, or do i get insurance discounts because I only ever drive on 25 mph roads... at 45 mph?

Re:Entrapment

[cubicledrone]

Ding! We have a winner! :)

The grocery stores charge up to a SIXTY PERCENT PENALTY for not handing over an address, social security number, etc. Why not auto insurance? And why not say, 150%?

Misleading Brilliance

[shirai]

Wow... This is brilliant on the part of the insurance company.

1. They allow drivers to voluntarily put this device in their cars for reduced insurance rates.

2. Drivers get used to having these devices in their cars.

3. Now that everybody is used to it, it is much easier to require it for insurance. So, they require it for insurance. With a few insurance companies doing it, it becomes the norm.

Of course, the caveat to the insurance companies is that fast driving does not mean dangerous driving. Many drive slower and (seemingly) safer but have more accidents.

Unfortunately, those boxes can't measure driver skill or the situations under which good/bad driving occurs. For example, 100 km/h is safe on the highway unless there is a lot of traffic with heavy rain and/or snow. Also, I drive a van at a fraction of the speed of my sports car. Driving at any speed in a van is much scarier than burning rubber in a sports car.

Re:I doubt this will take off

[mc6809e]

Especially if they decide that you should pay more for excessive speeding. How many people actually obey the speed limit all the time?

It may not even matter to the insurance company.

Seriously. An insurance company looks at all these things statistically. If there is no statistical relationship between speeding and how much they have to payout on a claim, they aren't going to charge extra for speeding.

And it makes business sense, too.

Suppose speeders showed no difference in their odds of getting into an accident, yet Big Insurance Corp A charges extra money for people with speeding tickets.

Big Insurance Corp B discovers during routine data-mining that there is no relationship between speeding and payouts and so charges less for insuring speeders.

At some point Corp B has all the "speeders" business while A is out of luck because they over-charged.

Profitable insurance companies look at all kinds of things that might not seem relevent like credit reports, car color, and profession. Yet, when they dump all this information into their systems they find correlations. And these correlations allow them to more accurately price insurance for people.

Those companies that use personal judgements like, ALL SPEEDERS ARE A BIG RISK -- CHARGE $$$!!! aren't going to be able to compete if their judgements are inconsistant with statistical reality.

YES! YES!

[hummassa]

and the data goes by MY HD before going to the company! As good as hacked indeed.

discount vs surcharge

[Animaether]

That depends..

If all my apples cost 20ct/piece for everyone, has for many years, whatever.
And you fill in a form that gets you a bonus card, and entitles you to get them at 15ct/piece.

Does that mean you got a discount ?
Or does that mean everybody else got a surcharge ?

Considering everybody else is still paying their 20ct/piece, as they have in the past, there is no change in the situation for them.
There is, however, for you. You can get them cheaper. You are getting.. a discount.

The situation you're talking about is this..

Apples used to cost 20ct/piece
Then I raise the cost to 25ct/piece, whilst introducing the bonus card. You fill in the info, I get you the bonus card, and you can once again get your apples for 20ct/piece.
Everybody else, however, would be paying the 25ct/piece.
In THAT case.. everybody else is getting a surcharge, whilst nothing changes for you.

Of course you could go halfway. Up the price to 22.5 or 17.5 for those with the card - in which case everybody else would get a surcharge - albeit a 'minor' one, whilst you would still get a discount - albeit a 'minor' one.

That said...
Of course insurance companies will raise the prices for those who opt not to get it. That's been the case for almost every piece of technology, though they're usually smart enough to make this a gradual change.
I.e. at the introduction of airbags, they didn't just raise the price insanely immediately - just gradually, until the time came where most cars do have an airbag - therefore not having an airbag makes you a clear minority.. a minority which, compared to the others, is a liability.

How does the device know

[Tenebrious1]

The progressive device doesn't include a GPS. So how's the device know if I'm doing 55 down a highway, or 55 down the adjacent local road blowing through red lights?

Re:How does the device know

[earthforce_1]

And that time it recorded me doing 75 MPH, I was vacationing in Montana.

Fixed speed limits are a crock anyway, how does it tell the difference between driving on an icy covered road in a blizzard, and a clear day with dry roads and unlimited visibility, with no traffic? Driving 50 in the first case may be suicide, yet it is legal. Doing 50 on the open highway in clear conditions, you are a traffic impediment.

Data Context?

[slackerboy]

According to the article: In Minnesota, where the highway speed limit is 70 mph, drivers who go over 75 less than 0.1% of the time get an extra 5% discount.

So what happens with the guy that always drives 60, but only drives in the 25MPH school zones? Data without context is worthless!

Plus, on a $1200 annual insurance bill, you'd only save $60 by giving up your privacy...

Re:Entrapment

[mc6809e]

Gotta love this. It's entrampment. They assume if you don't wish to upload your driving data that you are a bigger risk.

And what's wrong with that?

It all depends on the statistics they gather and whether or not there is a correlation.

Profitable insurance companies don't use personal judgements. They use statistics and look for correlations.

If people that upload are less a risk, they should be charged less. If people that don't upload are a greater risk, they should pay more.

The burden of payment should fall on those that are most likely to cause an accident.

It's not a tax

[SuperMario666]

You still have a choice among insurance companies. Choose one that doesn't snoop into your business.

Re:It's not a tax

[HeghmoH]

And once they all mandate it, then what? You're forced to buy from them by the government, and they all force you to use these devices. In effect, the government is forcing you to use them, if that ever happens. They shouldn't get a free pass just because private companies act as an intermediary.

Re:go monopoly

[buchan232]

I have to say... its a good thing for you the government has a "monopoly" on insurance rates. Here in Alberta Insurance is privatized and it is INSANE what they can get away with.

They can pretty much charge you whatever they feel like and there is nothing you can do. The prices are so radically different from one company to the next every year you have to spend a month shopping around to get the best rates.

You make it sound like government regulated insurance is a bad thing, I say try and live on the other side of the mountains.

Ugh

[splerdu]

I've always maintained that there's a big difference between driving fast and driving dangerously.

Re:Ugh

[Moderation abuser]

Countless, so you'll be able to quote one then? Cos I can quote studies that show that the correlation between speeding and accidents is weak and tenuous. Various types of bad driving are far more important factors.

e.g.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/onethirdemail. html

Re:I doubt this will take off

[Lord Kano]

Why is that some people seem to think that it's their god-given right to flaunt the speed limits if they personally think it's appropriate?

Because speed limits are often set artificially low as a revenue generation device.

Remember when congress got rid of the 55 mph speed limit? All of a sudden, states all over the country raised their speed limits. Montana even eliminated speed limits on some highways. Are we to assume that this one budget decision made all of these roads safer to drive at higher speeds?

When I used to drive back and forth between "home" and college, there was a section of highway that was straight, flat and level for about 5 miles. When no cars were around, it was perfectly safe for me to drive at 85 or 90 mph. It was patrolled by state police and state police only used radar at that time, so I would turn on my detector, pump up the tunes and cruise.

LK

Re:Progressive?

[Brandybuck]

Also, what about those of us who constantly go 5 mph above the speed limit? Would we be targeted as reckless drivers because we "speed" most of the time?

Insurance companies only care about risk, and could care less about the actual letter of law. If five miles over the speed limit is safe then they won't care. They WILL care if you're driving at the speed limit while everyone else is driving five miles over, though.

Until insurance companies are nationalized, or they start offering ticket insurance, don't worry about it.

Speeding

[Thieron]

How useful would this be though, if you speed? I drive 20+ miles of highway each way on my commute. The speed limit is 65. Everyone is at 70+. What about neighborhoods where the limit is 30? As long as I don't have to send the data, I might consider it, but what is use if I'd never send the data since I speed.

The only people that would use this are the ones that can't, seniors that drive 55 in the right lane while people fly by them (at least you hope they are in the right lane).

How long until technology like this becomes madatory? How long until to drive you need to blow into a device to make sure you are not drunk and then the car won't go above the speed limit, etc?

Re:Chg Vehicle Type

[duffbeer703]

The reason for the low insurance is low costs, not mileage.

Motorcycle riders involved in accidents dont' tend to need as much medical attention as car and truck drivers -- because they're usually dead.

Interesting.

[Hanna's Goblin Toys]

So if you're going 16 in a 15mph zone, and I drive into the side of your car by running a stop sign while going 15mph, you're at fault?

Awesome. Where do you live?

Re:Progressive?

[CristianoMonteiro]

Well, i think that the "weekend drivers" are more dangerous than the rest of us. Good driving is an ability developed while driving ! Like any other physical activity, the more you practice the better you get.

Better stats to collect

[gerardrj]

Rather than just speed, distance and time of day I think there are some more telling statistics the could record:
1. Acceleration/deceleration rates. Constantly starting from traffic lights at full throttle or stomping the brake just before turning in to a driveway? Higher rate.
2. Lights. Don't turn your headlights on at sunset? higher rate.
3. horn. constantly honking in traffic? Aggressive driver or poor planning. Higher rate.
4. Turn signals. Use them, get a lower rate. Don't your rate goes up.

To me those stats go more toward being a safe driver than simply vehicle speed. Speed doesn't kill, it's the sudden changes in speed that injure. If just speed killed, we should all be dead; we're all traveling a t perhaps 100,000 miles per hour all the time

speed != safety

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be a very unsafe driver at 25 miles an hour, and a very safe one at 100.

I would like to see insurance companies invest some federal lobbying funds in trying to make the driving test a little more stringent, and improving driver education. Most drivers aren't aware that a 10,000lb hummer will take longer to stop than a geo metro, and have maybe 5 times the human squashing energy - even at 25mph.

Re:Boycott Progressive -- why ?

[morzel]

The best way to deal with blatant violations of privacy by a large corporation is a strong negative consumer reaction.

How is this a 'blatant violation of privacy', if people can either voluntarily sign up for the service (with discounts) or still use the good old service (sans discounts)?
This device is no conditio sine quae non to get car insurance at progressive: Progressive sees it as an option to offer lower rates with limited risks on their side. And even if it were compulsory, you're still free to get your car insurance somewhere else...

If Progressive somehow got their hands on this kind of data without your consent, then we'd be talking about big privacy issues. Now it's just a company trying to lure clients from the ideal (ie: crash-free) demographic...

Re:Ahead of the curve

[Leebert]

I'm already ahead of the curve...the automotive and insurance industries had already squeezed the last drop out of this turnip.

Funny, I'd argue that you've already given up and they've beaten you.

Will the insanity ever end?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell? This counts as an invasion of privacy? What? Did the submitter or the editor even read the goddamned article?

The device records mileage and average speed. It has no GPS. It has no built-in maps. It has no compass. It has no ALIEN MIND CONTROL DEVICES.

This is an opportunity for an insurance customer to lower their insurance costs by voluntarily proving that they are a statistically safer driver. Nothing more. It is not an attempt by insurance companies to find out that you went to 3rd Street and Hennepin Avenue to have kinky sex with a stevedore and a transvestite hooker.

Good lord. Shut off the paranoia already.

Prying, Discrimination, Extent

[4of12]

Note that intrusion into your privacy is already part of insurance that you buy.

You have to put down your gender, age, ZIP code, make and model of the car you drive.

All of those items already go into determining what the insurance company will charge.

Interestingly, though, there's been some reluctance to explicity discriminate on some factors, such as race, because of the backlash that would ensue. I'm not even sure if gender discrimination on insurance rates is permitted everywhere.

Likewise, there was some hesitance about genetic profiling to deeply probe a potential client's propensity to develop disease, although a physical examination is required for a life insurance policy.

But reigning in the level of privacy intrustion is definitely where you need to provide input to your government. They're the ones that often require you to demonstrate you have car insurance before they'll issue you a new registration sticker for your car.

My favorite option, though, is to start using those infernal copyright laws to protect and to limit the distribution of data about me in the same way that those laws protect and limit the distribution of data about Britney Spears voice.

Any insurance company that sells a piece of that information to anyone without my permission should be fined.

Radar detectors = generally legal (in USA)

[RogL]

A minor correction: radar detectors are generally legal throughout the USA. Last time I checked, there were only 4-5 states prohibiting their use. Unless you drive a tractor-trailer; I believe those are prohibited nationwide.

An interesting science experiment

[hacksoncode]

Here's an interesting scenario: people who want this discount will of course slow down more on freeways to get it.

Let's suppose our theory is correct, and these people are more of a hazard than those that travel with the flow of traffic.

If insurance companies are smart, they will observe this and realize that they can't conceivably start charging a surcharge for slower drivers.

Their only possible response will have to be to quietly discontinue the program.

Let's assume for another moment that the opposite happens, and these drivers actually *are* statistically safer (I don't believe that for a second, BTW).

Clearly, and insurance company would have to be foolish not to offer a discount to these truly safer drivers. The cost of the program is a sunk cost. Once they've implemented it, if even 1% of their customers use the system and they can save money with it, they will continue using it.

So, we can prove our hypothesis by watching and seeing whether this program continues for any length of time.

Is this a flaw in the system's logic

[imlepid]

All I know is that a large part of the populous (senior citizens) get in a large number of accidents yet also drive very slowly. If they really wanted to develop a system that would reward safe drivers they would have to find a way of mesuring the driver's reaction times (the most lacking part of an elderly person's driving skills).

A ricent side note: The NTSB approved a reccomendation standardzing the "black boxes" in cars like they have in trains and planes, although it stopped short of requiring them. I had herd this was prompted by an accident in Santa Monica, CA last year, where an elderly man crashed into the farmer's market there. Supposedly, he inadvertently stepped on the gas pedal when he was going for the break.

I wonder how many discounts this gentleman would have been in for had he been using the system mentioned above, (i.e. a system which gives discounts simply for driving at or below the speedlimit).

Re:All I know is that...

[Kiryat Malachi]

Before you bring race into it (and, having lived in Detroit, I know race *is* part of it) I would suggest there are 3 MUCH bigger reasons why mass transit in Detroit is a non-starter.

GM.
Ford.
Chrysler.