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. Bent]

You: Stay the f**k out of my life.

InsureCo: No problem. Have a nice day and good luck driving your car without insurance.

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

[dartboard]

It's only mandated if you want to drive on public roads. If you build your own [private] highway system then you no longer need insurance. Easy-cheesey!

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

[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

[SlashHack]

I disagree with the premise. Who says that 'speeding equates to accidents?'. Give me a break. I've been almost run over by grandmas not paying attention going 10 miles an hour under the speed limit. Perhaps we should raise car insurance rates exponentially as age increases to get the real threat off the road.

Certainly if one is not paying attention, no matter who they are, they're going to cause an accident. I disagree it's just the speeders.

--
You can have my sports car when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

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

[Xzzy]

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

They couldn't enforce any such law on older vehicles. In this particular case, it would be any vehicle older than 1996, which is when the diagnostic adapter that this device uses started appearing.

I drive an early 60's, when I bought it it wasn't equipped with seat belts because at that point in history there were no seatbelt laws. First time I got pulled over for not wearing one it was quite fun to point out how I was exempt. I eventually installed some aftermarket ones because driving with no belt is plain out stupid, but the blank look the officer briefly gave me was well worth it. ;)

Considering the availability of vehicles, especially 1995 and earlier, you could go a long, long time snubbing any such law that was put in place.

Re:No

[Mysticalfruit]

I guess the solution will be to hook a logic probe upto this little box and figure out the signals so you could convince the thing you drive like "Joe Average". You'd have to add some randomness into it to make it realistic, but overall, make sure the mileage is consistent with what you drive for your commute and make it look like a realistic driver ( drive beween 60 & 70mph)

Re:No

[radish]

There's nothing stopping you starting your own insurance company...

Re:No

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

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.

You obviously have no idea how car insurance works.

Re:No

[ekidder]

Indiana doesn't require you to have insurance. You can sign an affidavit stating that you can afford to pay for any accidents you're the cause of. Or something like that. I'm pretty sure you also need to supply some proof that you can afford it, too.

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

[Monkelectric]

I drive an early 60's, when I bought it it wasn't equipped with seat belts because at that point in history there were no seatbelt laws

Oh please :) Here's how it will work: Government will require you to have insurance (which in most states it does). Insurance companies won't insure a car WITHOUT the device.

A friend of mine from sweeden says, while marijuana is legal in sweeden, you can't get a job or car insurance if you use it, so you're effectively a non-citizen.

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

[FooAtWFU]

According to the local DMV (North Carolina), car insurance is actually mandatory. You just have to be able to pay in the event of a wreck. They do some sort of check into your ability to do so. Insurance is still highly reccomended.

Re:No

[pizzaman100]

How can the device KNOW the speed limit when compared with the speed driven?

Simple, flood the road ways with an inverse tachyon matrix.

Re:No

[ArsonSmith]

RTFA!!! It uses GPS and proximity generated sonic cameras (cool tech, uses ultra sonic emiters to generate 3D images) to see what your are doing and where you are at all times. The insurance companies then take this information and send it to the NSA wher they process everything you have done over the past year and give you a terrist rating. This is then used to prioritize the people that it tracks with greater details. If you are given a high enough rateing a thought monitor will be installed. Unfortantly the thought monitor comes in the form of a very uncomfortable anal probe.

I know because I beta tested this system.

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

[trentblase]

government mandated payment != tax

In this case, you are mandated to pay a third party. 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.

Re:No

[parkrrrr]

You need to supply proof in the form of a deposit of $40,000 for the first car and $20,000 for each additional car. See 140 IAC 1-7-3 (PDF format) for the gory details.

Most of us can't afford to tie up $40,000 cash just to avoid getting screwed by an insurance company.

Re:No

[afidel]

Well in Ohio in alternative to car insurance is like a half million dollar escrow account that the state holds. This is only feasible for large corporations who are self insured and who do not wish to use the paperwork services of an insurance company (this is how most self insurance is actually done).

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

[the_Bionic_lemming]

Move to the right lane and let them pass.

Too many folks have forgotten the left lane is the "passing Lane" and refuse to get out of it because they are going "Fast enough", and even more have forgotten the rule of "Right of way" Being when two vehicles arrive at a stop sign at or about the same time - the vehicle to the drivers right goes first. I can't tell you how many times I've almost been hit by people that just don't understand there's rules to driving.

Re:No

[Politburo]

FYI it's people like you that are part of the cause the tailgating, passing on the right, etc. If you would just move to the right and let people who want to go faster go by, part of the problem would dissipate. Of course, this doesn't always work, such as in high volume areas, but it's more often than not that when I am confronted with 3 lanes of solid cars, it's caused by people going the speed limit or under in each lane, with a stretch of open road ahead of them.

Also, at least in New Jersey, you are driving illegally if you fail to yield to a vehicle that wishes to pass.

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

[5m477m4n]

I have a 1968 Firebird with only lap belts and I have been stopped as well because they just look for no shoulder strap. It's fun to tug at the lap belt and say 'it's right here.' Then they get mad and start looking for any other "violations" they can find...

btw does anyone know if these boxes could tell me my 1/4 mile times? It's too expensive to go to a track.

Re:No

[dasmegabyte]

Government mandated payment = tax.

No, a government mandated payment that goes to the GOVERNMENT is a tax. Your license and registration fees are taxes. Insurance is not a tax, it's quite different -- for one thing, you can't shop around for better rates on a tax or reduce your taxation by taking a ten hour "defensive citizenship class" Insurance is important -- it's a guarantee that if you drive your car like a weapon you'll be able to compensate your victims. In fact some states -- California comes to mind -- allow you to bypass insurance if you're willing to dedicate a certain amount of money to indemnify yourself. You can post a bond and even collect interest on it. Some other states allow super cut rate insurance on tiny cars and/or motorcycles where the chance of injuring others is low. Other states allow you to skip insurance on vehicles that are rarely used ("show" cars) and most will let you skip it if the vehicle is only driven on private roads.

You can also drive without insurance in some areas if you're renting the car -- at least, the rental company is not required to check proof of insurance before issuing the car/truck/hovercraft. But I wouldn't suggest it.

Re:No

[peg0cjs]

That sounds like fun. Eject a few bad drivers and it becomes a PPV event!

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.

Re:No

[M-G]

btw does anyone know if these boxes could tell me my 1/4 mile times? It's too expensive to go to a track.

There are a number of boxes you can buy for that purpose: http://www.gtechpro.com/

Re:No

[Reziac]

Southern California has a lot of roads where the speed limit differs depending on which direction you're going, I shit you not (frex, the speed limit northbound might be 40mph, and southbound *on the same street* might be 50mph). When I asked the CHP about this, they said something to the effect that it's a zoning thing.

Also, some areas have different speed limits and lane restrictions depending on the time of day.

Raw GPS position isn't enough; the direction of travel has to be taken into account. It would need to be so specific as to know all the posted speed limits AND all the odd quirks such as the above.

Re:No

[fatcatman]

having receipts checked when exiting a store

This isn't required. You can do what I do: Pay for your purchases, then walk AROUND the stupid exit line. When they try to stop you and say, "Sir, I need to check your receipt", just say, "No thanks!" and keep walking. If they touch you, press charges for assault (they won't; they almost certainly know better).

Once you've paid for your purchases, a private store employee has NO RIGHT to detain you. Period.

I do this at Best Buy all the time. Pisses them off, but treating me like a criminal pisses me off, too. I suppose management could tell me I'm no longer welcome there, but considering I've spent over $5k there this year alone, I somehow doubt they'd go that far.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

You spell marijuana correctly, but spell Sweden incorrectly.

Hmm, I wonder what your education consisted of? :)

Re:No

[Cerilus]

In the state of California, you don't absolutely need insurance to drive legally.

California provides for self-insurance.

This is basically a 30k bond. If you don't want to pay an insurance company, you could self insure.

This would get you out of the insurance company trap. However your bank (if you have a loan) would require insurance above the state minimum, but if you've got a car loan, what are you doing with 30k in cash for a self-insurance bond?

Re:No

[bruthasj]

Who says that 'speeding equates to accidents?'

The numbers. That's it. Look up "actuary" and understand what they do. These statements are no random happenstance, it's based on statistical science. It may not be exact, but it's much more exact than the from-the-hip-slashdot analysis we see around here.

I used to work as a programmer computing insurance costs based on monsterous actuary-generated tables. Each company has their own actuaries and methodologies.

Trust me, all of your concerns are taken into account: age, car type, tickets, wrecks, distance from house, car color, job, marriage, kids. Etc. These guys look at what happens based on all of this information. They do everything to mitigate risks based on this information and they're good, real good. They gather as much information as is necessary for their computations and as much is allowed by law.

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

[rworne]

The device is similar to the Davis Carchip if not this particular device. It hooks up to the OBDII port and reads the car's vitals from there.

Remember, it's a device drivers can simply plug in to the car. OBDII is a serial protocol that would be a bit harder to hack than the speedometer pulse wire.

Some things the CarChip does that this device will likely do:

1. Record times the device was disconnected
2. Record times data was downloaded/memory cleared
3. Keep a record of the speeds via timed snapshots
4. Keep a record of the date/time car was used (and how long).

It can keep track of vehicle usage (in my case) for the last three months with logging data points every 5 seconds.

No records of destinations or GPS tracking on these base models.

Disclaimer: I don't work for the company, but I have a Carchip E/X installed as insurance against unfair tickets and warranty "abuse" claims by the manufacturer.

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.

Re:Everyone should have one

[pizzaman100]

I wonder how long till someone hacks it to get a discount on their insurance.

It would be no different than committing odometer fraud. Sure, it can be done, but it's cheating (used car buyers in one case, insurance companies in the other).

Entrapment

[rainman_bc]

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

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.

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%?

Re:Entrapment

[Lumpy]

doesn't matter, Progressive tries entrapment all the time. Dont send them an affidavit from your last insurance company? well that "low" rate now is increased by 50%.

progressive = insurance for bad drivers. Most mainstream insurance companies like State Farm and AAA are actually much cheaper than progressive if you are a safe driver already. I'm insuring 2 vehicles + a RV for almost $100.00US less a month than the 1 vehicle I had insured under progressive.(I have had no tickets or accidents for almost 14 years now) also, if you ask for any discounts after they jack your rates, they tell you to sod off.

it's a gimmick trying to get more bad drivers to switch to them... and then they up your rates like MAD when you have to renew.

you have to look at the company first.

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.

Re:Entrapment

[mc6809e]

Bingo! Charging a surcharge if you're not willing to give up your civil liberties is illegal isn't it?

What civil liberties are being given up here?

What I see is two people making a deal. One offers a discount to the other if you voluntarily provide additional information.

That's not giving up civil liberties.

Now, if the government stepped in and prevented such deals, that's an obvious violation. People should be able to decide for themselves if such agreements are good for them.

Re:Entrapment

[miskatonic alumnus]

For me, all the joy was sucked out of driving YEARS AGO. Look at all the maniacs on the road today. It's not uncommon to see some jackass wait until you are 2 feet from the intersection before jumping into traffic, causing you to slam your brakes, only to pull into a gas station on the other side of the street to get a pack of smokes (or whatever.) I absolutely HATE driving anymore -- it is a bloody chore to me, and I dread it each and every day. Unfortunately, the available alternatives aren't much better:

Bicycles? You gotta be kidding me. At least with a car, I'm armored.

On foot? I tried that for a few years while attending college. Discounting the fact that it's a monumental pain-in-the-ass to lug 3 bags of groceries home from a store 12 blocks away, you STILL have to play "dodge the automobiles." One time I was about to head East across an intersection. A West-bound car was at stopped at the opposite side. Lights turn green, car has no blinkers on, I enter the crosswalk, car proceeds to accelerate and TURN LEFT nearly turning me into a hood ornament! Then the guy parks about 15 feet down the street. So, I go up and bang on his window -- and he looks up from his MAP with a startled expression on his face!

Aside from the danger -- bear in mind that in the U.S. automobile accidents are the #1 killer of people in the age groups 15-44 -- there are the costs of payments, insurance, fuel, and repair, not to mention the much higher environmental costs of pollution.

Automobile ownership is HIGHLY HIGHLY OVERRATED. If I could get by without one, I would. I welcome mass transit with open arms.

Hacked...

[MrBlue VT]

How long until this is hacked? I predict even before it hits the mainstream and they are still running trials.

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

And with that news

[Evets]

Porsche stock went down 22%

Re:And with that news

[ryane67]

and Kia's stock went up 22%

Avis does something similar, don't they?

[millermj]

Someone told me once that if you rent an Avis car with GPS capabilities and you are speeding, the system will alert the main office and add fees to your car rental bill. I don't care to verify the story; I drive fast as it is.

Re:Avis does something similar, don't they?

[generic-man]

That was Acme Rent-A-Car in 2001. Slashdot covered the story.

Re:Avis does something similar, don't they?

[eln]

Avis doesn't, but a no-name company in Connecticut got sued for doing it

Re:Avis does something similar, don't they?

[morcheeba]

Nope, that was acme rent-a-car. They've been ordered to stop and refund $13,000 in fees that they collected.

But, the system is still in place. The car dealership I use has a similar system, and if you drive out-of-state or too fast, you'll never get a free loaner car there again.

Progressive?

[eln]

The catch is that you have to be insured by Progressive. Bleh. I had their service for a year, then jumped to State Farm and am paying $300 less per 6-month term then I was before.

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? No thanks.

Re:Progressive?

[cmallinson]

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? No thanks.

The system only checks your speed to determine distance travelled, not speeding. To tell if you're speeding, the system would need GPS, and a knowledge of the speed limits in the area. checking for speeding, however, would be the logical next step.

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.

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.

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

[sploo22]

And the word of the day is... INSURANCE FRAUD. Meaning 5 years in prison and a $50,000 fine if you get caught.

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?

Re:Great Idea!

[extremescholar]

If you check out you state laws, you'll find that the local police, state highway patrol, etc. are exempt from the speed limit. Call your local congressman and complain.

Re:Great Idea!

[rainman_bc]

Anyone else notice how cops are immune to DUI laws? We used to own a restaurant in Vancouver. When the cops came in, it was friggin' christmas for us. Fifty drunk cops acting like asses. Then when it came time to leave you'd get the response "I'm a cop, I don't lose my license if I get stopped at a road block; they just follow me home"

Friggin' crock of shit if you ask me.

Re:Great Idea!

[Phurd Phlegm]

If you check out you state laws, you'll find that the local police, state highway patrol, etc. are exempt from the speed limit. Call your local congressman and complain.

I think it's usually only in cases where they're supposedly engaged in speed-enforcement activities, e.g., clocking someone. Of course, that is universally ignored.

Re:Great Idea!

[kfg]

If you check out you state laws, you'll find that the local police, state highway patrol, etc. are exempt from the speed limit.

I checked out my state laws and found out that they aren't.

They are permited to exceed the limit when in hot pursuit or when calibrating their speedometers. At all other times they are as legally bound to the limit as you and I.

The same applies to right of way rules.

Running lights at 90 mph in order to be first in line at Dunkin Donuts is right out; and if they hurt anybody while doing so they are in deep, deep shit, because they have violated the law.

KFG

Re:Great Idea!

[Pig Hogger]

Tell that to the Sûreté du Québec rookie cop who killed 3 other officers while DUI on his first day on the job, in Trois-Rivières... He's not a cop anymore, and never will be again...

Not for me

[ack154]

The customer would then plug the device into the on-board diagnostic port under the dashboard. The port is on all models sold in the USA since 1996.

Looks like I'm out, I have a '94. I don't have Progressive anyways, but it's not even compatible with my car.

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.

Less than 0.1% of the time and it's only 5%?! Now I don't live in Minnesota, but I don't think I'd get much discount at all. The highway speedlimit here in NY is either 55 or 65 (depending) and my avg speed would probably be 65+ and 75+ (respectively) for a lot more than 0.1% of the time. Maybe that would get me 0.1% discount?

IMO, I think they'd have to offer a little bit more of a discount for the masses to really consider it. I'd slow down a bit if it were worth it. But for someone who may be paying $500/yr for insurance and getting MAYBE 5% off, that's only $25, or maybe $2/month. Just doesn't sound too enticing to me, though some people may jump at the opportunity to save a little. But your results may vary.

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?

Re:Not if your kids drive

[PitaBred]

I did. My dad lets me drive his vette because he trusts me implicitly.
But then again, some parents are morons whose sweet little angel could NEVER do ANYTHING wrong...

What about legitimate speeding

[PitaBred]

Because that truck is trying to merge and the assholes next to you and behind you are crowding too close to make slowing down or changing lanes an option that doesn't result in an accident?
Or how about the dumbass who goes slow as hell on the highway, causing more of a danger to others than the guy who goes slightly over the speed limit?
Hell, what about the number of morons I've had to avoid becuase they can't figure out which fucking lane to turn into in a double left turn?
My point is speed isn't the only deciding factor in accidents, and if you have a device that measures only speed, well, it's like asking a blind man to describe the mountain vista to you. He can only say so much about it, in a non-contextual way, in a situation where context is of the utmost importance. It's the reason we don't have automatic pilot on cars yet... context is too important.

Re:What about legitimate speeding

[gradius3]

While you do have many good valid points, the insurance companies spend a lot of money on statistical data to back up many of their claims. There are reasons that young males are targeted for higher insurance premiums - they have more high dollar accidents statistically. Females, by sheer number do have a higher number of accidents, but they don't cost the insurance companies as much. This correlates to speeding - those who speed excessively have the most costly accidents. Like it or not, that's how the statistics stack up.

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

[selderrr]

I know that in the USA, speed limits are different from europe. Where I live (Belgium), speed limit is 120km/h on highways. Practically everyone goes over that by a margin of 10km/h. Which is tolerated by cameras. I used to do it too, until we bought a new car, a renault traffic, which is a LOT bigger than our previous car, an opel tigra. The renault can do 150km/h easily, as did the tigra (shitcar BTW), but since you have a completely different view of traffic (it's a van), you feel speed diferently. Nowadays I drive 120km/h tops, and found out a few things :

- I consume 15% to 25% less fuel. Amazing isn't it ? This is mainly due to not constantly accelerating to 130-140 just to break again 1 minute later. My speed remains far more constant
- I get everywhere at the same time as i did when i drove faster. There is ZERO difference on average. I do Brussels-Ostend (150km) every week, and there's really no difference since i started driving slower.
- I feel safer, calmer and less stressed. I never thought that this 10km/h speed difference would make such a mental difference. I 've started listening to music again, since at 130-140km/h, i had to focus on traffic instead of music.
- the whole 'you have to drive along with the flow' thing is complete and utter bollocks. Traffic flows in blocks, that group themselves around a group of trucks who can't bypass eachother since they have speed limiters. Cars just move from block to block. The speeders wiggle their way thru these blocks a few % faster than the rest, and then pull up to 150km/h untill they reach the next block 10secs later. I just reach that block 12seconds later.


Honestly : just give it a try and drive slower. you'll notice that most of your prejudices are balooney.


Note : driving slower has one explicit effect : middle fingers from freaks who think their lives are so filled up, they really need those 10% they think they can shave off in traffic. Usually types who wash their car every week and thereby lose hours of time :-)

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:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it

[drinkypoo]

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.

While I have been known to exceed the speed limit, and in fact been cited for it on numerous occasions all of which are more than four years in the past because I have slowed down on the freeway (while speeding up almost everywhere else, amusingly) I strongly disagree with your apparent assignation of blame. Driving the actual speed limit should never put you in danger through YOUR actions. It puts you in danger through the actions of the assholes who are driving too fast for their abilities.

Allow me to clarify: I drive plenty fast on twisty roads. I accept that if I should drive up someone's ass in my little sports car, that I will bear the responsibility. Not only is that the law in California, but it also makes sense. If you are going too fast to see what is ahead of you, you are going too fast. As Nimoy said in Star Trek IV: Bring the Money Home, "I would accept that as an axiom." Consequently, when I believe that the road ahead looks sketchy, or my visibility is reduced too significantly due to tight turns (or whatever) I slow down. It is the only responsible thing to do.

I agree that it can be dangerous to drive slowly, but I think it's more annoying than dangerous. It's not the fault of the people driving slow, unless they're driving REALLY slow.

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

[acroyear]

not always.

speed limits along residential roads are partially set to protect children, but actually are more often set to control noise.

in Sterling, there's a 4-lane divided road through town, with service roads, meaning cars in the main road are 45+ feed away from the sidewalk that any kid might walk along... ...but the speed limit is still 35 (often exceeded during day time).

turns out the reason is not safety (the road in and of itself qualifies for a 45), but noise. cars and trucks driving a steady 35-40 are much quieter than vehicles accelerating to try to get back up to 55mph.

What is next?!

[SpiritOfGrandeur]

Report -- You traveled 4 hours this month at speeds of over 100 miles per hour...
-- You traveled 1.2 hours this month at speeds of over 120 miles per hours...
-- It is estimated that you traveled 0.0 hours below the speed limit this month...
-- You traveled 3432 miles this month...
-- You spent 60.4 hours in the car this month...
-- You need a life...
-- You have had 0 girls in the car this month...
-- You have had your laptop in the car for a total of 60.4 hours...
-- LOSER

Nothing like helping the self-esteem and getting a 0$ discount

Re:I doubt this will take off

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people actually obey the speed limit all the time?

Four.

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.'

speed and time of day?

[morcheeba]

I wonder how well Progressive's device will corralate with actual accident rates. It can't tell the difference between going 55 on a highway and going 55 in a preschool parking lot. Or, for that matter, 20 mph in the lot, and 20 on the highway.

Hopefully they'll do more than just histogram your speeds -- maybe they'll try to categorize your driving -- local, stop-and-go, freeway -- and then maybe check to see how often you suddenly decellerate. Jazz it up right, and you could detect cell phone usage, too.

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.

Nothing new...

[fiannaFailMan]

...about this kind of technology. European lorry drivers have had to use tachographs for long time to assist law enforcement in ensuring that driving hours regulations are adhered to. As time has gone on they have become more difficult for drivers to tamper with, so the days are gone when a driver can just 'pull the fuse' on the tachograph when his hours are up and keep on driving.

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.

Re:there are already database records of speeding

[markpg]

That thought has crossed my mind often.

I travel the turnpike every weekday -- Exit 7A to Exit 1. A quick scan of my ezpass account confirms I'm averaging about 80mph along the 60 miles (going just slightly faster than the average...that's where I feel safest).

It's just not like McGreevey to overlook the millions in potential revenue, especially since there won't be many people voting for him again anyway.

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.

go monopoly

[Psymunn]

well... over here in BC Canada, the government has a monopoly on car insurance. what can you say to that?

Re:go monopoly

[twbecker]

How about "Stay the fuck out of my car, eh?"

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.

Re:go monopoly

[rudeboy1]

And on that note, I'm starting a new acronym:
SDCOM

Sprayed Diet Coke Over Monitor.

Nice one.

Re:go monopoly

[rastos1]

As oposite to: "Wanna fuck in my car?"

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?

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.

From my cold, dead fingers

[Trurl's Machine]

Big Brother In Your Front Seat (...) "Would you give up your privacy in your car to save a few bucks on your auto insurance?

Give up privacy of my back seat? Never. No way. Okay, okay, certainly not for just few bucks, but serious offers will be considered. Oh, you said "front seat"? No problem then.

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.

Boycott Progressive

[asv108]

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

1. If your a progressive customer call up your agent and complain, tell them you won't be doing any further business with the company.
2. If your not a progressive customer use their contact form and let them know what you think.

Bidding starts at $1 - NO RESERVE

[birukun]

You are bidding on one (1) Sunday Driver Profile (SDP)package.

Includes:
1 SDP download (compatible with GEICO, AAA, Allstate, Progressive, and Farmers)
1 SDP handbook that includes background information of driving habits for answering those aggressive insurance agents

Don't pay extra for insurance! Let the Sunday Driver profile work for you - guaranteed to meet the specifications of your insurance company or your money back.

SATISFACTION GUARANTEED

"I used the SDP package and saved 100s of dollars on my insurance! Thanks SDP!" - M. Gecko, San Diego

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...

Good idea - consider the flip side

[Moooo Cow]

I'm an independent computer consultant, probably like a lot of other Slashdot readers. So, put your business hat on and consider this from that perspective.

Suppose you're bidding on a contract to upgrade/replace a computer system for a potential customer. In order to give a proper cost estimate, you'll need to know as much detail as possible about the requirements. Perhaps this would include something like the average number of transactions per day performed. If all the customer can do is say that there is "a bunch" of transactions, your estimate will be very approximate, and you'll have to pad it accordingly or add a large contingency factor.

However, if the customer could produce for you an automated log of all daily transaction counts for the last month, you would have a precise understanding of what to expect, and could estimate accordingly. This may result in a lower estimated cost, and increase your chances of winning the bid.

Essentially, this is what Progressive is doing - they are asking for more detailed information in an effort to win your continuing business. If you don't provide that information, that's fine... but then they will have to rely on a more approximate estimate of risk, and the quote they provide you with will likely be higher based on less precise information. If you're a prudent businessperson, you'd be trying to do the same thing whereever you can.

Why not hack the data before sending it in

[DropIt!]

They give you the data before you send it in. I assume it would be pretty easy to rewrite the data in order for you to maximize your "discount."

But that would be wrong.

-DropIt!

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Ugh

[splerdu]

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

Re:Ugh

[Chris Mattern]

Good for you. Countless studies prove you wrong, of course. Greater speed means more accidents and more deadly accidents as sure as night follows day. But people don't want to believe that, so they don't.

Chris Mattern

Re:Ugh

[Idarubicin]

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

If this were true then an insurance company wouldn't be offering a discount for the people who don't drive fast.

Insurance rates aren't set randomly--they're set based on the average expected claims for a given combination of driver and vehicle (plus a percentage on top for the company). Presumably this company has done the research and found that there is indeed a correlation between lower speeds and reduced risk of accidents.

True, the correlation isn't perfect--there are some fast drivers who are not dangerous, and there are some dangerous drivers who don't drive fast. This measure must have some significant predictive value, though, or else an insurance company wouldn't try to adopt it. Remember, they work with statistics. If on average faster drivers are involved in more accidents or more expensive insurance claims than slow drivers, then it makes sense to them to provide a discount to drivers who seldom speed.

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

Ahead of the curve

[maximilln]

I'm already ahead of the curve. I ditched my car and started using public transportation and the ankle express because the automotive and insurance industries had already squeezed the last drop out of this turnip.

Sure, I walk more, and get derided by my coworkers, and have to put up with horrible commuting hours, and have to carry an umbrella every time I go somewhere (just in case), and get demeaning looks from everyone in society...

But it has nothing to do with social classes, or social engineering, or rich vs. poor, because ultimately it's my choice. No one is forcing me not to have a car. No one's forcing me to walk everywhere. I still get the same opportunities that everyone else gets. I have yet to be turned down by any hot chick who has subsequently been picked up by a "responsible citizen" who owns their own transportation. There are no hidden systems at play.

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.

Here's how the insurance companies will scam you

[Billy the Mountain]

It's just like grocery store member cards, you start using them, you save right? Wrong, initially, maybe, but now, by using them, you're paying what you would have paid before the program existed and if you don't use the card you're hosed.

Same thing with this: You start out saving money, prices creep back up to normal. Those that refuse to submit to the program are hosed.

BTM

Fasle Sense

[failedlogic]

What are they thinking?

Not only is there obviously possible entrapment but what data exists that driving at the exact speed limit makes you a safer driver?

There are many other situations this will not cover: changing lanes without a turn signal, running lights, tail gaiting, driving *under* the speed limit (which can be just as unsafe), and drive-by shooting?

All of these could be more unsafe than going 10 MPH over the limit. Are they going to start monitoring that too? Will they forward high speeds to the police to fine you? What I would like to know is who will be monitoring the insurance agents' cars ... or will their devices be rigged?

Just give it to mom...

[harpoon]

Sure, just give the box registered in your name to your mother, or grandmother.

Alternatively, turn the box on only for "safe days", i.e. when you're driving slow because of traffic or alcohol consumption.

Re:Just give it to mom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, just give the box registered in your name to your mother, or grandmother.

Good god, no! I don't want my rates to sky-rocket.

Have you *seen* how people in our parent's generation drive? They scare the shit out of me.

Yup

[Greyfox]

One explained that to me once. If you ticket a cop speeding through your zone, they'll ticket you for speeding through their zone. Even if you weren't particularly speeding. So everone exercises a quid-pro-quo and no one tickets anyone else who's a cop. That means as a cop you could habitually do 110 in school zones and you'll never get ticketed for it.

If you donate to their pension fund and put that little sticker they send you on your car, they'll be more inclined to let you go. It's not the get out of ticket free card that being a cop is, but unless you were doing something radical or they're WAY under quota, you'll likely just get off with a warning.

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

Speed limits change..

[Armchair Dissident]

How does it know you're breaking the law, and where's my right of appeal? There's no mention as to the accuracy of the program. If - for example - I'm driving from a 40mph limit into a 30mph limit, and I hit 30 just before or just after the 30 sign post, do I take a hit on my premium?

What if they get it wrong? Do I have a right to appeal?

I complain regularly about speeding drivers, but this is not a good solution!

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:Entrapment?

[Strange_Attractor]

Gotta love this. It's entrampment.

I wouldn't mind being entramped a little, even if I had to pay more for my insurance...<G>

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.

Intercept and cap?

[SuperKendall]

Since the OBDII interfcae is fairly standard, it seems like it would be easy enough to build an interceptor to plug in between the device and your OBD port that just mad sure it capped the reported speed at some realistic value, like 73...

The thing about the device that seems stupid to me is it can't tell what kind of roads you drive on. I make it a point to almost never take the highway, so in my case an average reported speed of 75 would make me quite a risk! But from the standpoint of the insurance company it would be just fine.

I image if they were smart they would also measure things like accelleration, and figure out if you are hitting the gas too hard - sure you might save 5% for a while but I'll bet they could build up a set of data that would let them really increase rates later based on all kinds of wierd things detected from your driving habits (like panic braking too often).

I would only hope that it would have accelerometers to detect weaving of the car, for those people that just can't seem to figure out where the lanes are...

Old news...

[SixArmedJesus]

What people don't realize is that these little black boxes are already happening without people's consent. I work for a luxury car company, and this is standard. I should know. I'm the one that programs the replacements for when the originals breakdown. It has been for years. It's just a matter of time before it works it's way down to "low end" vehicles.

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?

It Depends

[bhima]

I've got two vehiciles: a VW camper van and a Ducati MH900E.

With the VW it is physically impossible to go that fast (without solid rocket bosters welded to it), so it's no big deal. Honestly I would MUCH rather it drove it self.

The Ducati...How can I say this...it is not possible to restrain it to the speed limit in the town I live in (mostly 30km which I mostly ignore).

Obviously I don't use this "progressive" insurance though but I think this sort of thing for everyday drivers is no big deal, how fast do you need to go to work and to the store? I can choose not use it on my Ducati :).

Additionally I most add I have lived in the US and for the love of all that is holy Somebody needs to teach y'all how to drive! ;-)

The Obvious Solution

[switcha]

Once you get back from driving crazy, you and your mischievous, but good-natured friend put the car up on jacks and run it in reverse for awhile to turn all the...

Cameron, NOOOOOOO!!!!

*Screeeeee* *crashhhhhh*

All I know is that...

[ModernGeek]

... 50% of every paycheck I get (after tax, etc), goes straight to insurance companies. Not giving me much else to live off of. I hate this. I only drive to and from work, I don't goof off, or do stupid shit. I just want to get back and fourth to work, and live happy. I can't stand having this tax on something that is now nesessary to live in this world. There is no way I could get back and foruth to work without my car. I havn't had an accident or wreck yet, and don't plan to. I'm only like 1-2 miles from work. I can't bike or walk it though, since the entire city is based around a highway that you get pulled over on for biking on or walking on.

Re:All I know is that...

[funaho]

Yep I have a similar problem. $200/mo for car insurance simply because i live within the City of Detroit. That's with State Farm...GEICO was over $300/mo! It tends to slowly creep up every six months too...not my much, maybe a few bucks at a time...but it's annoying and ridiculous. Only accidents I've been in in the past 13 years were two cases of being hit by OTHER people running red lights. Last ticket of any kind I got other than a parking ticket was a speeding ticket in Indiana in 1994.

Auto insurance is a scam that you have no choice but to bend over for. For political reasons Detroit has no usable mass transit (rich white folks north of the city, second richest county in the US, are terrified that *black people* might be able to come up there if we had busses or trains....the horror!). And it's not like I can walk 35 miles to work every day. :(

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.

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

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.

I've gotta know...

[Thedalek]

Since when is the velocity of my car, something which is directly observable externally, considered private? In't this a bit like saying to people, "Please don't look at me as I walk by. I don't want you to know where I am or whether I'm running."

Whether you're driving naked, provided it's not visible to other drivers, is your own business. What music you listen to, provided it's not audible from 50 feet away, is private (check your local laws for variations). The speed of your multiple-ton chunk of sharp metal, glass, and flammable liquid is not private.

Whatever Orwellian fantasy you may be indulging in probably falls short of what has already been true for years: "They" have been able to tell exactly where you are and what you are doing for a long time now. Most of us are too boring for it to matter. If you're going to be paranoid, do it properly.

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).

coming next:

[jafac]

A welcome improvement - folks who eat poorly, smoke, and don't excercise will get their health insurance rates jacked up.

I'd agree with that far more than the corporate big-brother in my car.