Slashdot Mirror
Insurance Companies Try Out Auto Black Boxes
tekiegreg writes "It looks like the first black box test for auto insurance companies is underway. While this may be a privacy issue, it can also make better drivers out of everyone if insurance rates are adjustable based on the way everyone drives. This was covered on Slashdot before however this seems to be one of the first workups, that can even include tests on speed and braking, not just location."
I thought this was a good idea, but then I remembered: "I'm in my 20's and I drive a Camaro". Bad news.
I wouldn't mind if my driving safety was monitored for lower rates but I wouldn't want my speed watched ;)
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/10/16 49252&tid=158&tid=126
/. subscription. This exact same insurance company and program has been covered before (past 30 days).
This is why I didn't renew my
Who are you kidding...this is going to turn into another way for them to raise rates and drop people. Sort of like health insurance won't cover some people unless they can pass a physical or charge inordinate amounts of money if you are a bit overweight.
The first time they clock you doing anything over 75 or 80 mph they'll probably be sending you notices. They start sensing sharp breaking and wild turns you may just find yourself without insurance. Chris Rock once said it should be called "in case shit" because you have in case shit happens. And you don't exactly get your money back if you don't. Now they'll see the shit coming and drop you before they have to make a payoff.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
I'll delay getting one of these as long as humanly possible, but once they become mandatory, I'll be in a world of hurt. Tailgating, speeding, not quite coming to a complete stop at a stop sign... you name it. I'll get nabbed for it.
I REFUSE to drive like an old person!
What it can do, is force everyone into driving with a black box. Driving without one will become prohibitively expensive, even though the statistics will show that with/without doesn't really affect the actual numbers.
Insurance is about getting you to pay for something that won't ever likely happen... want me to prove it? Keep having stupid accidents, and see if they don't drop you.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
At least not the ones who will be able to afford the extra $1,000 or so every six months that will be eventually charged to drivers who don't get the "discount" for turning over the data.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
As explained, this was covered, and by a better article within the past 30 days. This isn't the similar story that was reported in the story, this is yet another dupe. Do I read /. more than the editors? Scary!
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
Company spokesman William Perry says use of the auto data recorder will not be mandatory for Progressive customers.
"The key thing for us regarding the privacy aspect is the program is completely voluntary. It's not imposed on anybody," he said.
Ha... How much longer will it take before it becomes compulsory?
Regardless, this is still not as bad as Intelligent Speed Adaptation (ISA), where we could one day see full control of speed on our vehicles:
ISA info
As a 21 year old male who loves cars and driving, the future looks bleak.
Bored? Visit my exciting counter page!
I, for one, welcome our new black box overlords.
I wonder, who's gonna be in charge of data extraction / interpretation? The insurance company? Right... The car company? Police? Monkeys?
Also... will it record EVERYTHING? Mister.. we can't assure you, you were driving 120mph... But my I had no brakes! Ugh...
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
it can also make better drivers out of everyone if insurance rates are adjustable based on the way everyone drives.
Is that a troll?
Also, if there was a microchip in my tongue that raised our medical insurance rates when ate a burrito, we'd also be healthier. Or perhaps some sort of camera system in the kitchen that the insurance companies could randomly monitor to verify our mandatory meal plans.
Now whoa, i'm not saying that you HAVE to put the microchip in your tongue, i'm just saying that you don't qualify for the $4000/year TongueChip(tm) discount unless you do it. Also, in completely unrelated news, trial lawyers have forced us to raise your insurance rates by exactly $4000\year.
It sound like the box just plugs in to the stardart OBD-II port found on all new (1996+) cars. If these things take off, I wonder how long until someone makes a box to spoof the signals? Though I am pretty sure that would count as insurance fraud.
sure the rates are adjustable. but they only go up. reverse liability insurance is one of the biggest scams out there. considering statistics that as mucha s 25 % of drivers dont have insurance, means that people jsut dont want it, or need it.
in a free country, insurance should be optional. you would have the option of insuring yourself, your family or whoever else you wanted. this would prevent people who earn minimum wage form having to subsidize the insurance of doctors, laywers etc.
this black box is a servere invasion of privacy, bordering on facsism, and ill bet you dollars to doughnuts it will be implemented in california first...
Okay, lets install cameras in your house just to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal in there. If you aren't, we'll lower your property taxes. If you are we can arrest you or ticket you. Couldn't happen to a nice bunch of asshats.
It's about a reasonable level of privacy. These black boxes don't give it, and I'm sure then can/will be abused.
If you're doing 65 in a 35 without some sort of GPS unit and a GIS system where it knows the roads and the speed limits? Yea sure, I went 65mph on this day and time, but if you dont know whether I was on a highway or a residential street, piss off! How does it know when you run a red light (if you dont speed up for the little bit)? It cant. Unless it has some GPS system incorporated. And at that rate, they'll know where I was going, where I parked my car, for how long - in other words, big brother will be a corporation and not the government.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
It's how you drive your Camaro that matters here. Right now they assume that since you're in your 20's and drive a Camaro you suck as a driver (generally, that's not nearly as bad an assumption as you might think).
Prove them wrong. Get your insurance cheap by driving right. Sounds good to me and it's not something I had a chance to do at 18 when I drove a Firebird.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
From TFA: " Progressive says it will use the data only for potential discounts and not to penalize customers whose devices reveal risky driving habits."
Of course, when they do their modelling for the next year, they'll take into account the predicted number of "safe" drivers and "risky" drivers. Given their desired profit levels and the discounts for safe drivers, they'll just adjust rates accordingly for everyone else. Guess which way rates will go to compensate for the discounts?
I'm not saying this is a bad thing (hey, it's capitalism), but to phrase it as "no penalty" for bad drivers (and good drivers who refuse to enter the program) is a bit of a misnomer.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
My friend's parents put a black box into his car to monitor his driving. Good thing they did, if it wasn't there he wouldn't think twice about going 80mph down a 30mph road.
It also gets annoying though, he can't accelerate too quickly otherwise the box makes this clicking noise warning you that you are going too fast. If he goes over 65mph, or breaks too hard, it will beep and record it; his parents can take the box out and see how he drives. We've looked all over the car and we still can't find that damn box though.
..since I tend to drive sanely.
...if they put one on my motorcycle, on the other hand, I'm screwed.
-Matt
Problem is, the most annoying driving habits wouldn't be detected by this device. Backing up traffic by driving 25 in a 35 MPH zone, for example, will only look like someone driving an acceptable speed, despite the fact that such situations are just as likely to cause an accident as driving too fast. Not using a turn-signal probably won't be detected by the device either. Nor would people who pull into the right hand turn only lane even when they intend to go straight, preventing you from making a legal right-on-red turn. As well, the device wouldn't watch for knuckle-heads who never turn on their lights after dark, or when it's raining severely.
its not fraud if you put a "privacy cap" on what the box is allowed to see. giving it a false signal is not necessarily fraud, but the courts are owned by the insurance companies so thats how it will go down.
but if you limit what the box can see, it is an issue of your own privacy, and you are not fooling anyone. no crooked court in the usa could say otherwise, no matter how much they were paid. besides putting a blinder on it, who is to say the data cant get erased by, oh, cosmic rays? and who will pay to build/maintain these boxes? yup you guessed it.
I've posted this to a forum I run for actuaries - the mathematical types who price insurance. I won't post a link as I'd rather not have the fame. But it will be interesting to see what they have to say
However, in the article, Charles Samuelson makes a point that is well known when it comes to pricing insurance. Progressive is basically selecting the cream of the crop for their clients. That means more money for them (less claims probably), and less for other insurance companies. So the other insurance companies are forced to start underwriting for this as well. Pretty soon, you're screwed because all the insurance companies have to take it into account to remain competitive.
Think that's only a vague thing? At one point nobody priced life insurance by whether or not you smoked. In fact, it was probably only about 30 years ago they started doing that. Now of course, they have two sets of prices - those that smoke and those that don't.
In short, you'd better get used to the idea of having black boxes installed in your car, and having it taken into account on your insurance. It's profitable for the insurance companies, so it's coming to a policy near you.
Life Insurance in Canada
Most new cars already already have a black box. It records things like acceleration level, braking inputs and vehicle speed.
So far as I know, it only holds data for a short time, but if you are involved in an accident, the data can (and has been) accessed by law enforcement.
something to think about?
http://request-header.info
"This is a different story. The "original" says they're thinking of using the boxes. This one says they're starting trials."
Upcoming "dupe".
"Trials are complete. All your cars belong to us!"
You're wrong. It's not about a reasonable level of privacy. It's about how you and I and everyone else out there operates a motor vehicle. I'm generally wary of things along these lines but the one area I welcome it just happens to be on the road.
There is a percentage of the population in the United States that seems to think there are no laws at all relating to how you drive a car. They're driving around paying almost no attention at all to what they're doing and they're wrong. The people who can't obey simple traffic laws are responsible for an enormous cost that every one of us paying for insurance has to share in. Fuck them.
You can bitch about it being a violation of your rights but you don't have a right to drive a car. It's a privelage and it can be taken away if it's abused. Your comparison to putting a camera in my house is just stupid. That would be a violation of my rights. Putting a black box in my car that rats on me when I drive like an asshole (and ensures I get charged for my insurance like one as well) is nothing more than placing a sharper focus on those who need to be paying more for their insurance because they cause more of the problems. The only people who need be worried about something like this are the ones who have it coming. The asshats.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
it's not like they protect the "concealed" Onstar phones from being tapped RIGHT NOW...let's give them MORE ammo!!!
Hmm, black boxes in cars? Reminds me of this joke:
Manufacturers of automoibiles have secretly been putting black boxes in cars for some time to get an idea of what happened leading up to accidents. And they have tried this in three different countries: The U.S., Canada, and Australia.
In the U.S., what was said most often before an accident was "Ah! We're gonna die!"
In Canada, what was said most often before an accident was "Ah! We're gonna die, eh?"
In Australia, what was said most often before an accident was "Hey mate, hold my beer and watch me do this!"
So what happens to me and many other people who enjoy going to driving events with clubs like the SCCA, NASA, BMW CCA, Porsche club, LOG, etc? If we unplug the device for the driving event, one weekend will probably add up to more than 5% of the total time, so no discount. Leave it on, and it'll show a lot of full-throttle acceleration, hard braking and cornering.
So how soon is it going to be before I can have my car decked out in verizon signs for an insurance discount? After all, they'll be able to track my via my cell phone.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
Well, off the top of my head it sounds to me like you're looking at a future where you're going to be driving one car on the highway and if you choose to participate in these kinds of events you'll need another car for that. One that's insured for just such a purpose. That's where this is headed I believe.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Backing up traffic by driving 25 in a 35 MPH zone, for example, will only look like someone driving an acceptable speed, despite the fact that such situations are just as likely to cause an accident as driving too fast
I don't see how you assume that driving well below posted speed limits and impeeding the flow of traffic would not be detected by this device (plus it is illegal to do so in most places.)
Also, accidents involving cars going 25 mph usually result in a lot less damage to property and people than ones involving cars going 55 mph.
What?
So now the cops will have another set of records to subpoena to check your alibi / place you at the scene.
And if someone manages to hack the device and replay another car trip at a specific time?
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
" 2005 "I'm sorry, the black box says you were doing 60 in a 55 zone"
2006 I'm sorry, the black box says you violated the TandC that said you would not drive for more than 2.5 hours without a 30 minute rest break"
2007 "I'm sorry, the black-box says you were doing 55.0001 in a 55 zone. Haha!"
Viz, "acceptable" behaviour would be socially engineered.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
That means the little old lady driving 35 in the left lane on the highway will save a ton of money as she nearly (or really) kills dozens of people a day.
The black box will think she's the perfect driver.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
This is about being in a public place, in control of something that can (and certainly does) have an effect on those around them and requires a licence to operate. Surely it is legitimate to ensure people are driving under the terms & conditions their licence and insurance was issued.
Certainly you bring up some good points. Driving much slower than the speed limit and backing up traffic because of it isn't going to be picked up. Unless of course you do cause an accident. Then your driving behaviour just prior to the accident would be looked at in relation to where you were driving. I don't doubt that it would be noted that you were going 10 or so miles below the posted speed limit and if you were involved in an accident with another person I'm sure they'd bring that up as well. It might turn out that you're looked at a little closer after that to see if it's something you do all of the time. I can't see how these things aren't eventually going to be tied into some sort of GIS system eventually so the posted speed limits where you were crawling along would be easy enough to find.
Not using a turn signal when the vehicle turns might not be something this version can do (I confess, I no RTFA yet) but it shouldn't be that hard to do but yeah, it's not going to be perfect. It's going to miss things but it can't help but be a better system then "No sir, I never drive too fast, really."
And headlights not being turned on at night has always seemed like something that just shouldn't be able to happen. The last couple of cars I've owned popped the lights on automatically when it got dark. That shit should be mandatory standard equipment.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
I disagree with you. The major cause of accidents is people passing only on the left. Here in the US, everyone rigidly stays in the right hand lane, except to pass. And after they have passed, the move over to the right again.
It's a hazard, because to get around a car, you have to always switch a lane. If I'm in the right hand lane, and I'm going 30 MPH faster than another car, it's dangerous to have to change lanes to get around him. If drivers here in the states would just ignore the rules about staying in the right hand lane except to pass, then when I overtake a slow driver on the right, 50% of the time I wouldn't have to change a lane at all.
Our highways would be much safer with less lane changing, and we can only accomplish that by making drivers in the US comfortable with driving continuously in the left hand lane. God knows they never do that now.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Hell I drive a jacked up jeep with 35's on it.. MAX speed is 75 (80 if the wind is pushing me) I'd be GLAD to have one of these in my jeep.
This is a disgusting further development in the money=merit category. The first thing I will do is hack the sensors to present the driving profile of a wise, risk-averse octogenerian to my insurance company. Well, officer, yeah, your radar shows my Testarossa at 245 kph, but my black box shows 60kph. Can't argue with the computer, can we? Fucking insurance companies, their business model sucks. Break the bastards.
Ok, here is the problem I see with this. Our society is based on a system of dominance and control. If you're in control, you can do what you want. If not, you're trusting various aspects of your life to whoever is in control. As government-corporate entities continually erode our personal freedoms, and weasle their way into our lives, they gain more and more control. Now, the purpose of a government-corporation is to make money. This means selling a good or service for less than the cost of providing said good or service. Capitalism by it's very nature is a scam. By sitting idly by as things like this take place, we are slowly giving more and more control to govornment-corporate entities.
Without laws, actions, or boycotts to keep them in check, our economy will slowly degrade untill we end up in the same situation as so many other failed states; a 2 class system that tramples the rights of the masses. Maybe I'm a little off topic here, but I think these little "your rights" deals all kind of tie together to paint a bigger picture. Dont be a suka.
Somebody give this guy a +1 Funny. Really.
Left lane speed limit vigilantes are worth it.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Polly want a cracker.
the 'black box' presumably assumes all people have equal driving ablity and drive cars of equal capability , therefore more acceleration/speed/braking = more accidents. The current tables prove what we all know, some folks screw up more than others no matter how or what they drive and (hopefully) punishes those drivers who do a bad job for whatever reason because they cost more over time. This is just a feel good, like lowering the BAC to .08 because that will surely stop the 5 times over revoked .2+ drunk driver. Another excuse for some lazy greedy f* to collect the same money and avoid their legal obligations.
...yet. Most of the media has stated they will be voluntary. Those who use them will receive a deduction.
That will always remain that way - a cut in the price. Except the cut price will be the current price. The price for not accepting one will be a higher value.
There's another way to deal with some of this. Seatbelts. Instead of "Click it or ticket", simply encourage the insurance companies to add a clause: "anyone not wearing a seatbelt in an accident will not be covered" (nor will they be eligible for anything from the public dole). Those who claim the gov't is interfering with their rights with the current legislatioan will have their freedom restored. Natural selection will take care of everything else.
If I drive the speed limit and don't act like a jackass, then OTHER people who don't follow the same rules get to pay more for that? SIGN ME UP!
I'm sure this is going to be a popular opinion here. :-)
The idea is to please the voters. The best way to
do this is to set a low speed limit and then not
bother enforcing it much. This way, the slow old
people are happy knowing that the elected officials
have done something about those awful fast drivers,
while the rest of us can go about our business as
fast as needed.
So it is assumed that we break the law.
The one problem is that, in some states, small
towns along a highway will decide that the
highway is going to be a revenue source. Better
states will only allow enforcement by state
police or a highway patrol, mostly eliminating
the incentive to rigorously enforce low limits.
Putting a camera in your house is not a violation of your rights if you agree to it. And it's not a violation of your rights for any insurance company refuse to cover you if you don't have one. Considering how crappy it would be not to have home insurance, such a refusal would almost make it a requirement to have a camera in your house, recording all your actions without any explicit violation of your rights.
All that would be necessary to make this situation just like the car insurance/black box case is to have the government mandate that you must have house insurance. Then, without any violation of your rights (because you're voluntarily waiving them, after all), no more privacy for you. And there's nothing wrong with this; after all, owning a house is a privilege, not a right.
What about those of us who accelerate like we're in a drag race, speed, aggresively brake, and corner very fast...all on a daily basis...but haven't been involved in an accident or given a ticket in 15 years? On what basis are they charging me more?
And don't say I'm "lucky". 15 years of not a single ticket or accident is NOT luck.
I think I speak for everyone that does not work for an insurance company when I say... FUCK insurance companies. This is not a troll. The insurance companies will milk you for everything they can, then tell you that you're not covered for x. Die you bastards, die!
And, I doubt he ever said private individuals in general could be trusted.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
The probability for necessarily breaking the traffic laws to avoid an accident. When the 5 ton dump truck is making a turn into your lane without looking, a sudden acceleration above the speed limit to avoid being crammed between the aforementioned truck and cement divider would be necessary. But, in this case, would be noticable on your black box. "Nope, we're not paying, you were speeding."
He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
Will require GPS to be effective, and that means they know where you're driving. If your work happens to be near a "bad" intersection for accidents, your rate goes up, even if you have a perfect record.
Now, that's good for the insurance company, as they charge more for higher risk areas (or drivers). But it's bad for the pool, i.e. us.
It will be encouraged, it will be used, it will create profit and reduce "losses" (i.e. compensation), and it will spread like wildfire until it is effectively or actually mandatory.
In addition, how many minutes do you figure it will be before "recorded speed and GPS data" becomes "remotely reported speed and GPS data" becomes "transmitted directly to the nearest CHP car," without, of course, the context that a police officer observing the scene would see. Just numbers.
You know, swerving and accelerating to avoid an accident becomes a speeding ticket. Running a red light to avoid an accident could cost you your license. Running a broken red light at 4am with no traffic could do the same. No one will care about your story, the computer shows just what you did. Heck, it probably won't even require (allow) a court appearance.
I'm getting tired of even debating these points, which is why the bad guys always seem to win. They have an inexhaustible drive to control everyone else all the time that keeps them awake at night. They never seem to run out of energy and they never seem to run out of recruits.
And its always the same argument, over and over, every time. You can win the argument ("know your customer" banking laws) and while you're sleeping off the effort they pass the same damned thing again.
The utility argument is a loss, you can justify ANY incursion for that one. Mandatory diet and exercise, 24-hour monitoring, there can be no dividing line from the POV of utility.
The "license" argument isn't an argument for monitoring, it's an argument against public roads.
Just remember, those of you who think it can't hurt you, when it's your turn, the rest of us sure as heck aren't going to speak up for you.
It's interesting to me how people react to the idea of a city putting up cameras to catch people speeding (which could easily be done in such a way that there is no loss of privacy over the amount of privacy we now have on the road) versus the reaction that people have to the idea of car insurance companies putting black boxes in their cars. There is *far* more privacy loss involved in the black boxes than there would be with traffic cameras, and the traffic cameras would probably actually do more to "encourage" safe driving.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
You left out 1) people that are bad drivers and weave in their lanes and 2) ones that don't watch the traffic patterns in front of them. I can't see how any blackbox will be able to detect this kind of lossage.
I would not be surprised to learn that many aggressive drivers have less accidents simply because they do pay attention to the flow of traffic and anticipate
who is intending to change lanes before they turn on their blinkers.
On the road I'm much more afraid of the granny that changes lanes without looking than the jerk that passes me at speed_limit+30MPH.
It certainly beats just giving high rates to 20 year old men because statistically they are more likely to get in an accident.
Will the mods get mad at me if I mention that there is a gmail invite available for a limited time on my blog (same URL as listed as my website)? The rest of my post was relevant, and I love exploiting the popularity of gmail invites.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Deposit the liability limit (generally around $30,000) at your local driving authority. Get a recipt. You no longer need insurance, however, should you have an accident, you will need to make another deposit.
Don't have $30,000? THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE INSURANCE.
You can get illegal cable hookups in your car now? Wow, the marvels of modern technology.
OK, I thought of a similar system a while ago (damnit, should have patented it then) and I really do think it's a good idea.
This would be great if it was only capable of recording the last 60 seconds before a 'fatal' stop. An impact could cause the system to write a log of the last 60 seconds of car actions which in turn would make insurance and police reporting so much easier.
Unfortunately this sounds like a much more "big brother" system than just a nice secure safety net to keep your ass covered in case of an accident.
I'll never have one of these systems fitted because of this implementation, and the day they become mandatory I'll go out and buy a bicycle again.
yea, sure, but first lets make some reasonable speed limits and traffic laws first, theres a reason why so many people always go faster then the posted limit.
how fast someone drives is NO indication of how safe a driver they are. Whats so bad about driveing on a 3 lane highway at 3AM at 160km/h with maybe 2 cars in sight also doing 130+???
why is doing a rolling stop so bad when you can clearly see theres no cars comming or they arn't close to the stopsign yet so you don't have to stop?
Yet you can have someone doing exactly the speed limit (50) when EVERYONE else, even the cops, are doing 70 and causeing many poeple to get frustrated, mad and pass them, and this is very likly to cause an accident or road rage. Thats a dangerous driver yet in the eyes of the law they are in the right.
going the speed limit can cause traffic to backup... the posted speed limit is rarely the speed most drivers go.
useing that logic we should never go above 10km/h bceause it could result in higher damage to property and people. Let us close down all the highways! Hell airtravel MUST be stopped! a jet goes to fast to be safe!!
that kind of logic is flawed in discussions like this, speed by itself is irelevent. Its the situation one is in that should determin the speed limit. but unfortunaly most people are to stupid to have laws like that.
how about left lane is the fast lane and the right lane is the slower lane!!
there for slow traffic that isn't passing anyone stays in the right while faster stays in the left.
in fact thats what the law is here i belive. but the problem is the ppl who are sloooooowly passing, as in they take 5 min to pass 1 car because they are going almost the exact same speed:(
The probelm is this will never cause insurance rates to actually stay down for a long period of time. Sure, when the program first begins they will lower rates on good drivers to say "See? Just like we promised!" but eventally they will raise the "discount" rates until they are pretty close to what the average is today. The insurance market knows what the threshold is where consumers will grumble but still pay. That will become the new "low, safe driver" rate, eventually. The same rate you were paying five, ten years ago without big brother under the dash. Simply because they know they can charge a rate of $X and people will pay it.
This is much like the "discount" cards grocery stores handed out starting five years ago or so. At first people got them to save a dime or two on some of the itmes in their carts, they were like coupons off regular price. But the stores began to raise rates until getting what was the "normal" rate now REQUIRES using a card, and not becomes an invitation to get bent over at the checkout.
How will this idiot box help me get my poor little zoom zoom car back or keep others like me from losing their little car in the future?
I had a 1996 Mazda Protege with under 80k miles. I drove that car for a six years until someone recently ran a stop sign and slammed into me. I had a great driving record. The insurance company investigated, determined it wasn't my fault (which is what the police report stated), totalled the car, and then wrote me a check for $880. Granted, the car wasn't that great; I'm sure there were a few petrified Wendy's french fries scattered on the floor board and some dumb Renaissance Art book from a boring ass class that was completely impossible to stay awake in lay in the back seat. However as boring as that class was, the value of the car to me was worth way more than $800.
Now I have no car, and I ride the bus like Rosa Parks and bum rides from my friends. So my question is, will this stupid ass black box fix it so that when idiots run into you and wreck your car, you get your car repaired or another car in return? Oh, I doubt it will: insurance companies are only about saving money for them or if you're lucky, helping you out if it costs them less than what you or the shit you own is worth.
I know if they have one of those boxes in the back of my car, I'll put a post-it on it that says: Fuck you and fuck this box.
porp
well i kinda is, i had 4 accidents in 2 years, none of them my fault, 2 ppl backed into me in parking lots, 2 people rear ended me because they were plain bad drivers (what can i do when i'm stopped at a red light?)
then i had 1 accident that was my fault because of they way the insurance companies do things, person infront of me stopped suddenly and before i could stop i rear ended them going 15km/h.... if you rearend someone your always at fault.
9,000 $$ in damages to my car, other car 0$, SUV vs sports, sports car loses, carinsurance company covered all but 300, air bags didn't go off, and i drove the car home, i'm actualy proud of that one lol
and you know something, SUV owners should pay alot more bceause SUVs are dangerous cars and usualy driven by dangerous ppl!!!
After all, if you want a low rate, why not prove it?
Imagine a world where a corporate CEO is required to wear a black box-like device. One that records their movements. Add mandatory tapping capabilities for their auditory system, vocal system, visual system, etc. The potential for a reduction of commonly unprosecuted crime and fraud is very attractive!
Rates would go down for more than simple insurance, 99% of the planet would enjoy a greatly improved life.
The incredible unlikelyhood of such a world is truly sad.
A very good point. The blackbox assumes bad behavior from the very start. After all, they're not going to give you the good rates unless you can prove you've been good. So if you can't prove you've been good-- the lack of a speeding ticket or screwed up fender will should tell you that. Isn't that why your damn rates go up? --then your aren't entitled to the "special" rate. I tend to agree with the parent here... This is either a very flawed study in human psychology or nothing more than a sad profit tool, probably a bit of both.
I mean one person is monitored being good, the other one is not monitored being good, but penalized. Kinda ironic in a society of presumed innocense. Frankly, I'll drop any insurance company that pulls this crap.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I thought safe drivers were defined by lack of accidents. This is pure and simple another way to wring money from consumers by "saving the children". Anyone who trusts the executives who manage insurance companies to administrate this fairly truly lives in a fantasy world.
So you would rather leave it in the hands of a police officer and a jury to decide if your speed was appropriate given your situation? Yay for overburdening the courts even more!
What?
Whoever modded parent "funny" needs to have their head examined and their mod privilages revoked...
Other "black boxes" gave us the location? Well, pardon me for being a smartass, but can't we assume the crash happened where the black box and all the wreckage is?
--Joey
Don't minor updates to recent stories go in Slashback?
And headlights not being turned on at night has always seemed like something that just shouldn't be able to happen. The last couple of cars I've owned popped the lights on automatically when it got dark. That shit should be mandatory standard equipment.
Headlights should turn on the moment you turn on the ignition and turn off when you take the key out. With all the grey and silver colours that are all the rage at present, it would make these cars easier to see at dusk and dawn.
And while we are at it, Hyundai rear fog lights should turn themselves off automatically when the ignition is turned off. When the car is restarted the light has to be reactivated.
If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
I would have no problem with this - if insurance wasn't government mandated. The problem is that insurance companies could now refuse to insure people who don't put the black box in their car, preventing them from driving and in effect assuming government powers. If insurance wasn't mandatory, we would see insurance rates plummet. As for the argument about people who are too irresponsible to pay up after an accident, those same people are driving around illegally uninsured anyway.
I would not be surprised to learn that many aggressive drivers have less accidents simply because they do pay attention to the flow of traffic and anticipate who is intending to change lanes before they turn on their blinkers.
This is true for me. When I drive 5-10 over the limit passing traffic, I know where everyone is. When I go with the traffic and relax? That's when all my almost-screwups occur -- because I haven't been paying attention to every car in every direction.
Most posters seem to have missed this fact: "If your work happens to be near a "bad" intersection for accidents, your rate goes up, even if you have a perfect record." Many factors other than driving skill determine accidents and therefore insurance rates. This includes how much you drive, as well as where you drive, and not so much how closely you obey traffic laws. On the other hand, something needs to be done about bad senior drivers, and if the boxes keep granny off the road, that would be a good thing.
Driving is a privilege not a right.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
It won't make better drivers out of everyone once they start jacking up EVERYBODIES rates.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
I'll support you on this point, if you include additional driver training to make them more safe and aware. Here, I have started a list....
Driving Rules:
* Always look ahead, beyond the car ahead of you if possible, and anticipate
* Play a game with yourself, bet yourself what that driver up ahead is going to do, then see if you are right.
* Never runn up on a slow car, brake, then change lanes, anticipate!
* Always be aware of the situation around you
* Be aware of what the drive behind and to the sides are doing and behaving
* Avoid drivers with poor habits / behaviors
* "Rechts Fahren!"
* Always steady and centered in your lane, unless you mean not to be
* Never drive two-footed
* double pedal in emergency situations
* needless brake wear
* needless fuel consumption
* needless communication confusion (your brake lights are blinking on and off all the time)
* Keep your car properly maintained
* For your safety and other (what if your car fails)
* All lights and blinkers
* Tires and suspension
* Timely repair of any body damage
* Communicate effectively - more, or less, than just signals
* Crowding a side of the lane for lane change
* Expressway lane change w/o signals
* If you are steady in your lane, crowding one side is communicating
* You lane change should not crowd any other drivers, so should be lots of room
* Lane changes with blinker draws undue attention to yourself by the cop
* Crowd a side of the lane for curves - allowable
* More room, should a slide occur (water etc.)
* quite natural driving (nip the apex)
Make a decision, and stick to it, don't be indecisive
* Make it in a timely fashion, early
* Commit to the decision, don't try and back out 1/2 way through the move
* Plan for the abort if you have to use it
* If you have to abort, do it early, do it smoothly
Avoiding the Accidents
* Being aware of your surroundings the first and most important
* Never be the first through the light on a green (compensate for others bad driving)
* Notice and avoid drivers with poor habits / behaviors - be aware of them
* Stay out of other drivers blind spots
* Never pass and pull in, only to slow down
Mirrors
* Can and should be set to minimize blind spot.
* Left mirror looks down the lane to the left, right mirror down the lane on the right, rear-view mirror directly and squarely behind.
Parking
* Should be an easy, simple, single manuver
* Center of parking space, square with the lines
* Take pride in demonstration of driving skill and care
Coming to a stop
* Measure the distance and apply consistent, steady, easy brake pressure - no more or no less over the course of braking
* The lower the bake pressure, the longer the braking distance, the better the anticipation and judgement (and the lower the wear on your brakes and the greatest gas milage)
* The limo-stop - good for brakes - Pride in demonstration of driving skill and care (tail end let up)
* Once completely stopped, roll 1/4 wheel and stop, wait 10 seconds, do it again - reduce rotor heat localization
* Leave 1/2 to 1/4 car legnth space in front, may need it should someone behind you missjudge the needed braking distance (roll forward and avoid collision)
Changing Lanes
* The diagonal of the triangle is longer than either of the legs. Accellerate
* Do not jerk it between the lanes - make it smooth, stretch it out - but not too far
* Locate and choose your traffic hole, and hit it - time to change should take all of the hole (corner to corner)
Merging onto Freeway
* Accellerate down the on ramp
* Watch traffic in the lane
* Look for your hole and time your accelleration into it.
* Time it so that you are at the front part of the hole, not the back part, as that is cutting off the person behind you.
Turning (mainstree into side stree)
* Blink first, th
Want to see The Future? Go to the UK, where radar cameras are just about EVERYWHERE.
Top Gear, a BBC motoring show(I highly recommend watching it, it's great fun even for non-motorheads) has been having a field day with them.
They pointed out that:
Further, despite speed cameras increasing SIGNIFICANTLY and revenues increasing significantly as well- guess what? Traffic deaths remained exactly the same over the last 2-3 years. In other words- speeding has exactly bullshit to do with accident rates.
But wait- it gets even better. The UK government responded to criticism that it was using the cameras for revenue collection by changing the fines. Used to be a flat fine. Now, it's a lower fine if you're going only about 2mph over the limit. But if you're doing anything more than 2-3mph over the limit, the fine's much more. Wait wait, it gets better- you get FEWER points taken off your license, and more points before your license is revoked! THEY'RE MAKING MORE MONEY!
Cops and speed-limit nazis love to point to statistics showing "speeding is a factor in X percentage of crashes" and it's something well over 50%. Now listen to the news. "So and so was cited for drunk driving, resisting arrest, illegal weapon possession and speeding. He was caught when he hit a tree." Gee- couldn't have been because he was DRUNK, could it have? Two teenagers smack into a barrier at twice the speed limit and police say "speed was the cause of this accident". NO, it was inexperience and/or impaired judgment! Doing 50 on the highway is safe- doing 50 around that hairpin bend was not. Duh.
There is a HUGE difference between "speeding" and "reckless driving". I can drive recklessly at 55mph on the highway- in fact, these days, going the speed limit is more dangerous than moving with traffic- but I can also do 120mph down the road perfectly safely, if a)my vehicle is well maintained and properly equipped (good tires, brakes, etc) b)I am capable of controlling the vehicle c)conditions (road surface, traffic density, weather) are appropriate.
Furthermore, cops aren't doing jack shit about the newest cause of most accidents- road rage. And guess what the #1 cause of road rage accidents is? Fucking morons who sit in the left lane doing 65mph, dead even with the guy next to them.
Want to know the best part? Next time you get pulled over by a cop using a laser gun, thank Geico- they buy them by the dozens for state and municipal police departments. Result? Their customers get written up for speeding, Geico makes a shitload of money off the rate increase, and most of the time they win big time because SPEEDING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACCIDENT RATES!
The whole speed camera mess is best exemplified by a story I saw from another commenter a couple months ago. He/she said that a legislator suggested amending the state's proposed speed camera law to include one warning. The response from the state and speed camera company(!) was "oh, that'd cost us too much in ticket fees!" To which he coolly replied, "well, is the purpose to promote safe driving, or make money?" After that- the law died a quick death.
Please help metamoderate.
Pilots go to school to be trained to fly a plane. In oregon where I live, such "training" to drive is voluntary, and it's obvious anytime you get on the freeway.
Also, pilots lose more than just their license when they send 200 people to their potential deaths - they can lose their job before they even make it off the runway.
All sorts of instrumentation is required to run an airplane. This, and the chassis and other portions of the airplane that control the flight must be diagnosed and maintained/repaired on a frequent basis. There is no equivalent law for motorists, unless you count the DEQ as somehow affecting the "safety" of your vehicle. Sure, there are street legal rules, but any off the lot car is pretty much guaranteed legal (without aftermarket mods) these days.
Long flights require that multiple pilots be at the helm. How many times have we seen accidents because people were too tired to drive and continued anyways? Even with "break" regulations (for truckers and bus drivers, for instance), time constraints and pressure from passengers or authority can waive these rules with little resistance.
Really, this argument is a joke. If it didn't have to do with the fact that when the pilot eventually does fuck up that my chances are living were slim to none, I would never drive.
Seriously - if the corporate nanny state insists on penalising me for driving then they can just as well DRIVE THE DAMN CAR FOR ME.
In which case, it might as well be a bus, because that's as fast as I'll be getting across town.
I drive like a complete nutcase, but I NEVER have had an accident, nor have I ever caused an accident. I get speeding tickets about once every three - four years. The difference is: I get there fast, if not first.
I pay VERY close attention when I am driving. I don't zone out listening to Rush Fartbag. I don't twitch myself into a state of road rage - I just look ahead, find the empty lanes, and go for it.
My nemeses are middle aged asian women who invariably drive a big Lexus. It's not racist or sexist - it's just that they weren't raised in a car culture - they were raised in a bicycle culture and slapped into submission. Consequently, they're petrified behind the wheel. Perfectly nice decent people, but TOTALLY in the way on the road. The black box will, of course, give them good ratings while they clog up the highways.
I wonder how these black boxes will go over in Italy...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
The problem is, eventually, everyone will have one, and then the insurance companies won't have any reason to give ANYONE a discount anymore, and people will still have accidents, and insurance rates will go back up to where they were before.
/. is worth a subscription either. Why would I pay money to see favoritism, sloppy handling, and repetition when I can see it for free?
In any event, I submitted this info about a working trial in Minnesota a long, long time ago, and it was ignored until now. Minnesota has had a working trial for quite some time. It was recently expanded.
To re-hash what someone else mentioned... I don't think
-- No sig for you!
he uses linux!
Here's a great example of why that's bad.
One night I was with my wife, driver her mother's car, and it was foggy in the willamette valley, which is a very long stretch of road not unlike I-5 in the central valley area of California. I was pretty much all by myself.
Anyways, my eyes were glued to the road and not to the speedometer, the fog was so dense. Little did I know I went from my trusty 65-70 MPH to to around 110 MPH because I had trouble seeing things pass me, and the car was pretty silent.
My guess is that the fog helped cause the accident, but there was a car broken down right in the middle of my 2 lanes of the 4 lane highway. I got lucky and didn't kill myself, my sleeping wife, or anyone involved in that accident.
Reaction time is more of a concern with speeding than any car safety issue if you get in a wreck. We have a 55 MPH zone near my place on the freeway and it's a noticable step down - I feel like I'm driving in a residential area relatively, and that's a 10 MPH decrease in speed. And you're talking about nearly double the speed limit?
You are a fool, and the reason that if my rates aren't high enough now, an accident with some jerk like you will make them higher.
i was pointing out how stupid you logic of 25mph is better then 35mph because it'll cause less damage...
When police first got radar to track speed, someone came out with a radar detector. Then, they got laser and there were detectors for those. Now insurance companies want to monitor driving habits through a black box in the car you drive that you control. What if the inputs to that black box were modified? There will be some serious money to be made by a those brave entrepreneurs who develop their own "pre-black-boxes". You could actually drive like a maniac and get lower rates just because your black box is there to tell your insurance company what you want them to hear.
Browse the Information Directory
i wish people wre more properly trained to drive cars... getting better here with a graduated system, much harder tests, but theres all the 20+ year olds who never went through that.
"Never drive two-footed" auto is for wimps:P stick all the way!
that was a joke you know...
This will in no way measure how skilled or safe a driver is. This can not measure if a driver cuts other drivers off, or doesn't use turn signals, or does any of the dozens of astonishingly and increasingly stupid things I've seen most driving degrade to in the 25 years I've been driving.
If all cars had a monitor which monitored all speed, direction, brakes, turn signals, etc., AND GPS, then you could compile ALL drivers and situations and then you could measure people's skill.
Or, test everyone in a simulator (my actual preference!!)
Here are you from? Graduated system? Could you please elaborate? I'm interested. Wish we could get +5 and +10 MPH license plates :P Though it'll never happen.
YOUR the fool driveing that fast in thick fog, if you couldn't see theings pass you on the side of the road, you shouldn't have even been doing 70mph...
i assumed proper driveing cond in my post, a dry road, clear night, 3AM with very few people on the road, being able to see infront of you forever with plenty of stopping space.
i would never fucking go that fast in the fog, and i always check my speed, you call me a fool and a jerk when if i was in that situation i wouldn't have been going as fast, or not bothered to check my speed. fog is fucking dangerous, i'd never go more then ~80km in think fog like you describe, and never in my life go 110.
also the fool who borke down in the middle 2 lanes is at fault, theres a shoulder for a reason... why the fuck didn't he pull over??? after you breakdown or get into an accident is you do not block traffic for ANY reason.
What I'M saying is you drive to the situation, if its raining and wet if course you dont' go that fast, but if its clear and dry? feel free. See an onramp, with cars on it? slow down or move to the left lane, Have a crappy car with bad braks? don't drive so fast. Have one with great breaks and handleing? go faster. a sports car with good disc brakes can stop fucking fast or if it has good tires and handleing steer around things. But some crappy 1980 camaro will stop like shit.
DRIVE SMART. speed isn't stupid, speeding at the wrong times is, and its because most ppl are STUPID AND FOOLISH we have the low speed limits we have now, and "slow zones" on the highways
Here's my immediate reaction: if it can say how fast I was going, and how I was using the controls, and where I am, it can know if I'm speeding or working the controls in a piss-poor fashion.
However, how can it identify the person who is speeding through traffic, whipping in and out of different lanes and driving right up on other cars (very dangerous on a crowded freeway, and very common here in LA) versus the person who is speeding along in a single lane of a winding road with no other traffic within sight?
In other words, without proximity data (as is, your proximity to other cars) -- and let's be honest, even with that data -- it's always going to come down to a judgement call based on less than perfect knowledge of the circumstances.
Or maybe I'm full of crap. It's hard to tell some days.
I mean, it requires you to connect it to your computer and upload to their website. Hell, if that isn't the fox guarding the hen house. I mean, we'll be the first to know about the shift key exploit ;-) And naturally any code will be GPL so everyone can share in low rates! Just send one to DVD Jon. He'll have that puppy cracked in no time :-D
"Kinda ironic in a society of presumed innocense."
Nitpicking time. That's the government that's suppose to persume you innocent. There's little that says that private companies or individuals for that matter have to persume you any particular way.
BC canada,
it goes L N full
you have to be 16 to get you L, to get it you need to passs a written test. many restrictions, adult in car at all times, 1 passenger at most, can't drive alte at night, 0 tolerance for booze, and more now probaly (its been 4 years, and i've had my full for 2)
6 months later youc an get you N, 30 min roadtest that tests alo, pretty easy to pass but also easy to fail. they check for all sorts of thigns like shoudler checking, stop pos, and rules of the road. less restrctions but still a few, limit on non family members in car with out aldut, still 0 toler for drinking, and i think thats it
18 months later (i think they changed the regs rescently) you can get your full. 45 min roadtest.
and yea, +5/+10 plates would be sooo awsome! i'd take any course reqed to get em lol
see www.icbc.com the only car insurance corp in BC for the most part, so they force things like this on drivers, and they also use their accident data to get the goverment to improve roads, change laws, and many other things, and the rates aren't all that bad, in you have few/no accidents you can get upto a 40% discount:)
Because eventually there will be no discount and this intrusion will become mandatory.
Years ago when they first started putting these things in the trucks I was driving I came up with
a very effective solution to the problem. It us just amazing just how useless that black box is when you ground the spedo input. I used a wire, gator clip and a very fine needle to penetrate the spedo signal input wire. The guys at the shop always got damn mad at me because they knew I was screwing with the computer because it always came back blank but they could never prove it.
Got Code?
"Please give us all of your personal information or you will pay up to a 60% penalty on your food purchase. Have a nice day."
"Please hand over all information about your driving habits or you will pay an ___% penalty on your car insurance. Have a nice day."
This really is no different than the grocery store discount card.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
Hmmm, sounds like inflation. Houses don't cost 15 grand anymore either!
Anything to help track potential bomb vehicles for terrorists is a good idea.
The only people who need be worried about something like this are the ones who have it coming. The asshats.
Sure thing, Chief. Tell you what: When the asshat police repeal the Bill of Rights, could you please remember to bring the flag? Thanks.
Insurance company statistics are there for a reason. They know that 95% of 20-something Camaro drivers are aggressive drivers and cause more accidents. This isn't going to change because someone put a black box in their car. If anything, this is a ploy to charge higher rates for aggressive drivers. Why would insurance companies try to spread something like this if it wasn't to increase profits? The 95% of Camaro drivers will get their rates jacked up, while the 5% that are in a mid-life crisis will get a slightly lower rate.
<Amanda`> I just went out to the parking lot in my bathrobe to exchange warez CDs.
Kinda ironic in a society of presumed innocense.
Innocense and Peppermints - the crypt of mankind, etc., etc.
...it can also make better drivers out of everyone if insurance rates are adjustable based on the way everyone drives.
Boy are the insurance companies in for a shock.
He didn't say 25mph was 'better' than 35mph. He said it causes less property damage, which means that the insurance company is correct to charge lower rates to someone who drives 25mph.
Reminds me of this one from the '80s:
,,,,,chameleon!
Soylent Green is peoplicious!
Cooperative? Non-profit!!? Say, are you some sort of communist!!? ;-)
Shouldn't this be your rights offline?
Yellow Line maybe?
Red Line even?
Patent: from Latin patere, to be open
Every time I go to work, once I settle into the flight deck, there's one black box recording every movement of the controls, and another recording every scrap of conversation. In the event of incidents, this data is available to investigators for analysis. That's the way it is in aviation, and now techology has made it economical to apply this principle to cars on the road. It's long overdue. btw, the 'black boxes' are actually flourescent orange, makes it a lot easier to find them in a wrecked vehicle.
If you want privacy, go take your vehicle and drive it on private roads. The history in aviation shows, data recorders are a GOOD THING. When there are incidents, the recorders have records of what happened. People learn from that data, it reduces accident rates, and helps designers make safer vehicles. Sometimes it can be used to identify liability and responsibility. Race cars are the same, much knowledge has been gained from post race data analysis, especially with regards to incidents.
If your data recorder shows you are not safe on the public roads, and that results in loss of insurance, hence ability to use the public road system, couldn't happen to a more appropriate person. This would take less than 1% of drivers off the road, but would increase road safety by orders of magnitude. Most people are responsible drivers on the road, but there's a very small number that seem to think the 'rules of the road' are there to be broken. They account for many thousands of fatalities yearly.
There is a time and a place to 'pick the fight' on privacy, this is not one of them. The public road system is a public resource, with zero expectation of privacy, and a very large expectation of responsibility. Data recorders are a good way to enforce that responsibility, because one look at accident statistics will confirm, there are way to many drivers on the road that just dont understand the concept of responsibility.
You can always wipe the OBDII module for the freeze frame data. You just need 12vdc and a laptop.
I do have a computer installed in my car and I successfully wipe the freeze data at will.
Here is a site with a great OBDII modules for the serial port and or USB serial adaptors.
http://www.obddiagnostics.com/
Your being 20 and driving a Camero is already figured in the rates. Now, if you were 20 and drove your Camero like a wuss...well, then the box is for you.
The one really big benefit of a box is that it might make it possible to charge insurance by the mile or hours driven...giving people an extra incentive to hoof it.
Myself, I have no illusions: this scheme is just a device that insurance companies will use to drop your claim (and maybe you too) on a technicality.
This must not be allowed. If anyone has anything against your driving, let it be settled between people, not between a man and a stupid machine. How would a machine know that you don't drive the speed limit on a highway on-ramp? How would it know that you couldn't brake hard on that patch of ice on a downhill road and thus exceeded the posted speed by 3 mph for a few seconds? How would you know that the reason you floored it that night was that when passing someone you suddenly saw an oncoming vehicle way too close for comfort?
The whole idea of insurance is to spread risk around. We can look at the likelihood of certain events occurring in a group and divvy up the cost among all members of the group. They do it with cars this year and people think it's good and will lower their rates. Next year maybe the insurers will want to look at your dna to decide what your rate will be. Some people will be uninsurable because of their genetic heritage. That's not what insurance is for. If you don't want to share the costs and benefits of being part of the group, then self-insure.
Imagine, a section of a road is being repaired. The posted speed applies to the whole road, but there is a temporary sign leaned against a pole, and a worker directing the traffic through a maze of cones. How would the black box know about the sign, about the worker, about the cones?
No police officer would accuse you of driving too slow in such conditions. But the black box will, and it will be used against you as evidence of your bad driving habits. Good luck proving yourself right; you have no evidence, but the box does.
In Australia, our biggest selling car, the Holden Commodore (General Motors) is already fitted with a simple form of black box that is able to tell accident investigators the speed travelled and throttle/brake use for the past few seconds before impact. The information has been used in at least 1 court case I know of since it has been around.
But it will detect the guy passing doing 45 MPH.
"Not using a turn-signal probably won't be detected by the device either."
Why not? Sounds pretty easy to detect this.
"As well, the device wouldn't watch for knuckle-heads who never turn on their lights after dark, or when it's raining severely."
This also sounds like it could be detected by a black box.
So what your saying is you think the box should log more facts about peoples driving? I aggree.
Sindri Traustason.
Don't tell me you never ever went out to an empty lot or parking place in winter to twist and turn and slide and slip and slither on the icy snow. Come on, you really never ever ? :)
With this box this ends. But not just this. Imagine a late night drive when as far as you can see 1 or two cars on the road. Now tell me you've never been in a situation like this and never pushed harder. Now you'll have your little black tamagochi who won't let you.
Then tell me you've never been in a really crowded traffic when changing lines is a matter of seconds really and sometimes quick turns sudden breaking etc may happen. Well, not from now on.
Hey people, get a bike or better, a horse. Box that.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
would be really profitable. I'm sure some enterprising sole will hack the thing in no time. The first few will get caught, but I look forward to the survivors :). Not that I'm planing on cheating (no morals, I'm just afraid I'd get caught. You don't fuck with companies that big). Still, anything that screws over the bloated bastards who run insurance companies is cool by me.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
good luck getting that insurance company to pay. I'm pretty poor, and so are my friends. I've been lucky, but they've all had accidents. Everyone of them has paid out of pocket. Luckly nobody was killed and the damage was mimimal. Otherwise they'd have been destroyed. Insurance that pays, like most things in society, is for the rich.
So, for the people who end up having expenses far exceeding their premiums, and can back up their insurance claim with legal action, yeah, it's worth it. For everyone else, it's a sham crammed down our throats by lobbiests who dragged out a few sob stories to get people to agree. Funny thing is, those people who had their lives destroyed by a hit and run w/o insurance probably still today would see their lives destroyed. Heck it'd be worse, cause they'd have a protracted legal fight they can't win on top of everything else.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I agree that safe drivers should be rewarded but what is their definition of idiot? Someone who goes
5 or 10 miles over the speed limit, even if it is resonable and safe in those conditions? Speed limits
don't reduce accidents. Large variances in speed relitive to he flow of traffic and drivers not paying attention cause the majority of accidents. They cant monitor what your thinking about or where your focus is and these are one of the major, if not most important factors in driving safety.
Will they compare speeding incidents to weather conditions and traffic flow at the time? They probably wont be able to monitor if people are talking on a cell phone or applying makup etc... They will take one dimensional data out of context to raise rates.
Time Index 00:00.00 You are driving down the freeway
Time Index 00:01.37 You ram into a power pole while talking on your N-Gage
Time Index 00:01.38 Your insurance company computer discovers your collison via the blackbox
Time Index 00:01.39 Your insurance company flags your account
Time Index 00:01.77 Your insurance company cancels your account
Time Index 27:45.61 You phone your insurance company to tell them you had an accident a few minutes ago, and they give you some bad news...
How would the box detect not using a turn signal? without GPS it won't know the road layout and it won't know if a turn signal is needed or not.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
That cars that drive themselves are made legal. I predict that within 30 years of that happening, you will not be allowed to drive your own car. There are two types of drivers. Those you enjoy driving, and those who don't, and until recently, I thought those that don't were in a minority. I'm shocked to realise now that this is not the case, and it is this large group of people that will buy these robo-cars when they inevitably appear. In addition, governments will push for them to become more common in order to be seen to be doing something about the road toll, the enviromentalists will push for them becuase these cars will be more enviromentally friendly (less agressive driving = less polution), and of course the insurance companies will push for them, even though they shouldn't be needed any more (cars that drive themselves should never be involved in a crash if that's all that's on the road), and belive it or not, the car companies will push for it (read on). This is one step on this path. By constantly monitering us, the insurance companies will turn driving into a chore for EVERYONE, not just the people who don't like driving. This will send demand for robo-cars sky high, because no one wants to drive when big brother is watching, so they'll be lazy and have big brother do it for them. Also, by this stage, young drivers won't be able to afford inssurance on non-robo-cars, so they'll buy only robo-cars and not even bothering to learn how to drive, killing the ability for people to drive as well, and hence completely killing any demand at all for normal cars within 40 years. Not only that, but I also predict that in order to prevent cars being modified so that you can control them yourself, laws will be passed making it so that you can only work on a car if you are a government registerd mechanic, and they'll even go to the extent of making it so that those poeple who are registered mechanics are not allowed to work on their own cars. You'll only be able to open the bonet (hood for you Americans) of a car if your have the key code for that car, and the only people who'll have these will be the manufactuers. So, this will mean a nice profit boost for the car manufactuers, because they will be the only people able to fix their cars. Of course the sports car market is dead, but so is the used car market, becuase the car companies will simply not service cars beyond a certain age, and since only they can do it, your car will be useless. When I talk to normal people about open source software, they can see what I'm saying but they fail to see how it can effect them, or why it is important at all. But when I talk about the issue of monitering technology in cars, and the potential results of it, they sit up an listen. These both go right to the heart of the same issue, and that is corperate and government control over technology. People are all too willing to sell out their right for a discount. Get a moniterted alarm system in your home and you'll reduce your home insurance premium, but how many years will it be before you have a CCTV system attatched to your monitered alarm system, so they can see the criminals and catch them easier? And how long will it be before the CCTV images are sent to the monitering company via your broadband? And how long then before the government passes laws so they can view the video? All coming with the phrase "nothing to hide, nothing to fear", until you get some extreme religous nut in power, who decides they are moraly superior to everyone else. OK, I'm getting off topic here, but you see how the corperate-government combination has massive potential to ruin our lives. Technology: Don't trust it if you an't take it apart; Don't trust it if you don't have full control over it; Don't trust it if it tells someone else what you are doning; NEVER trust it if you can't turn it off (unless it's your pacemaker). In short, if you are not it's one and only master, don't trust it. (I would go as far as to say if you don't know how it works don't trust it, but then there would be some people able
I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
Hell... i'd be interested in trying this if I was guaranteed a discount of at least 5%... they make no mention of rates going *up*. The way I drive at times (er... most of the time that is) would definitely warrant a rate hike... I see no mention of this ... um... 'situation'.
Where are the numbers for the other end of the spectrum? Hell... where are the numbers in general??
Not everyone can afford two cars, or even have a place to store them. Racing your street car on a racetrack is a completely legal hobby. The last thing we need is a more elitist world, where our policies dictate that only the most wealthy can participate in an activity that would otherwise be accessible to a wider crossection of the population.
Unfortunately, the black box will not detect some of the more dangerous forms of driving, such as weaving and my biggest peeve, tail gating. (People just don't seem to clue in, that if you don't leave enough space between you and the car in front of you, any accident with them is going to be your fault.)
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
Nor would people who pull into the right hand turn only lane even when they intend to go straight, preventing you from making a legal right-on-red turn.
wow this one line shows how insanely STUPID you are.
you want to know something I have a RIGHT to use that lane that allows me to go straight in that roadway, it's even a LAW that say's I can.
I suggest you go through driving school again because you are incredibly stupid and should not be driving with your lack of knowlege.
So when some jerk cuts in front of me or I brake hard to miss a deer, or the kid who runs into the street to get the errant ball my insurance rates go up? What's the sense of that?
Well, I see it all the time. Through Syracuse, NY Route 81 is a 3 lane highway. I constantly see people driving in the left hand lane then at the last second flying across all three lanes to get off the exit. That's definately not safe.
Then there are the assholes who change lanes abruptly without using their blinkers, or that guy from out of state driving 10 miles under the speed limit in the left hand lane. Where do these people learn to drive?
I see so much stupid driving daily its just plain scary...and my insurance payment is the same as my car payment. I'm 24, have had my license since I was 17, and have a clean record.
Make America grate again!
Hypothetical situation.
I have no insurance, you have no insurance.
You are a good driver, I decide to drive into you, causing significant damage. You will get nothing because I have no assets.
With mandatory insurance it might work out different.
1. You would probaly pay the relatively small premium to cover if an uninsured driver hit you.
2. I'd be driving illegally, maybe I'd go to jail, and you'd feel better.
This is total horseshit. It would take much more invasive measures to really see(using this sort of "Big Brother"-esque survailance) who good and bad drivers are.
A real solution is to have cops spend more time ticketing(should probably have 500% more unmarked cars) people for reckless driving(tailgating, weaving, excessive speeding, not paying attention to the road, etc.), instead of doing nothing but nearly worthless speed traps, and then insurance companies would have more tickets they could justify rate hikes with.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
That is what the book value of the car means. A car fitting the description of yours can be bought or sold for $800.
So ideally you could buy or sell a car like yours for that value, so they replaced your loss.
If it is cheaper to repair they would have done that. Also you did get 6 years driving out of it.
This **IS** a problem, that is why some new car policies have depreciation waivers for the first 2 years or so.
The idea being once you buy a new car, it drops in value by 30%. Well if I drive off the lot and it gets totaled I lost what I actually paid, I didn't even get close to 30% of its cost in usage.
What really sucks is my car is 3years old but with the mileage worth about 20% the purchase price. If I total it, I get almost nothing, however it is ONLY 3 years old, so I pay the premium like it didn't have insane mileage on it.
This from a guy who drives in fog doing 110MPH?
This is slashdot, alright.
(Who me? Zero accidents, zero tickets, thank you very much. Although I'm a constant speeder, as in 'doing 70Km/h in 50Km/h' like everybody else.)
But such measures will not stop all those people out there who are driving without insurance and don't give a flying f about it either.
In the UK alone, it is reckoned that there are at least 1.5 million cars on the road with no insurance. I am sure, the figure is appropriately higher in the USA.
Until there is an effective crackdown on people who deliberately and wilfully drive without any form of insurance, everyone else will pay the costs.
Confiscating uninsured cars won't work - the people involved would just supply a fake name/address and then go buy another cheap burnt-out car and drive that (without insurance).
Back on to topic... I personally would have no problems having such a device fitted to my car - I rarely break the speed limit. (besides, its too expensive in the UK to drive fast: fuel is expensive here)
-- The universe began. Life started on a billion worlds...
-- Except on one where stupidity was there first.
Normally, this is highly illegal in most states for any form of insurance. There are religious exemptions for those practicing their faith, in this case it's still illegal but not prosecutable.
The hangup is, is you're any of those religions, you can't smoke pot. Eliminates you.
This box can't take into account what kind of traffic is around you, can it? I mean, there's a difference between doing 80 miles an hour down and empty highway and doing 80 miles an hour on an urban freeway at rush hour.
What will it make of me doing donuts in an empty parking lot (if there's snow on it, almost nothing bad can happen)? Is it sophisticated enough to know that's what I'm doing?
Would it be able to tell if I was in the habit of getting a little too close to the edge of the road on a dangerous turn, or if I overreacted to being snow-blinded? (Two possible causes of my brother totalling my mom's Forester.)
Does it go on speed and turns, or does it record G forces as well? (Which would tell you whether the car was likely to roll over)
Depending on the data the system collects, there are plenty of things which are high risk which could be interpereted as low risk and vice versa.
By not having accidents..
This is all they need to know.. They already know where i live, so they have a general idea of what my commute entailes..
Invsding my privacy for 'possibly a lower rate' is unacceptable. Period.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Then Geico started doing business in NJ. I filled a form online, got a computer generated quote automatically, I followed up with a call that was answered immediatelly and in about 30 minutes I had a new policy that was $500/year lower than NJ Cure and approx $1000 lower than my previous insurance. So I guess I really did "save a bunch of money by switching to Geico"
I guess the rest of the country is already used to this, but for us, insurance handicapped NJersians, this kind of service is like the Second Coming...
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
If it can be used to truly identify the idiots.
I disagree with you. The major cause of accidents is people passing only on the left.
Working already, I'd say.
So how soon can we expect black box marketing...
'seems he goes to Starbucks and Taco Bell alot, send him antacid coupons...'
A Marketing persons dream:
Know where they go, and you'll understand where they spend their time and money!!!!
1. Black Boxes track traffic
2. Uploads data to Insurance Company
3. Insurance Company sells your private data to Marketing firms.
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!!
Precisely. There will be a general rate increase, but then some drivers will be given "discounts" back to what they were paying previously, or just a little more.
I had an interesting experience with AAA. They suddenly raised my rate by 40%, and when I inquired about it my agent said that I was no longer getting a "discount" for having an excellent credit rating (which all of the companies now take into account). That was my first clue that my otherwise excellent credit rating was blemished by a reporting error. The error was quickly resolved and my rating restored, but AAA refused to adjust my insurance premium accordingly, saying that they only grab credit reports once a year.
Needless to say, I switched companies and saved a bundle on my auto insurance...
Presently, insurance is gambling. It's as simple as that. They run some numbers, some statistics, some risk factors, crank them through a magic formula, and guess at how likely you are to have an accident. This program would take the guessing out of it.
Look at it this way: Right now, if you're a good driver, you're paying for all the bad drivers out there. The bad drivers are able to get away with it, because the insurance companies have no way of actually knowing who's a good driver and who's a bad one, other than a few very generic indicators (age, sex, type of car you drive). What we have now amounts to little more than discrimination.
A program like this would force those who are actually causing the accidents to be the ones to pick up the tab for them, instead of spreading the cost out over all us good drivers.
A similar situation exists with health insurance. If my family has a history of prostate cancer and yours doesn't, why should we pay the same rate? I'm likely going to cost them more, so shouldn't I pay more? Shouldn't our insurance companies be privy to our genetic profiles, so you can get the discount you deserve?
OK, the health insurance is a bad example, even I'll admit it, because you can't control your genes. However, you can control your driving, and thus, those who drive dangerously should be made to pay more, because they're a higher risk. Those who drive sensibly should get the discounts they deserve, and shouldn't have to pay for all the reckless, "invincibility-complex" teenagers out there.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
I'm actually all for this. With the caveat that some day very soon we'll all have air-powered hovercars, that drive us to our destinations for us, following all the rules, with notifications that beep us at the last possible minute to leave and get there on time, with areas where we are allowed to drive manually if we so desire (just for fun). It's a lot to ask, but otherwise there isn't an insurance company on earth that will continue to insure me after watching me drive for 5 minutes in a car equipped with one of those things.
Let's face it; our insurance company's bottom line affects our bottom line. If its costs are lowered than our premiums will be lowered.
And the worst that could happen is that bad drivers will be weeded out and made to pay more. Which is only fair. Bad drivers should not be allowed to increase premiums of safe drivers.
And I'm certain insurance companies would never use the information they obtain against us or sell it to any third party. If we can't trust our insurance companies, who can we trust?
"Now THAT'S sarcasm!" - Homer Simpson
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...it's useless. Almost EVERYONE on the highway drives slower than I do. At least here in Florida, I'm one of the only people who knows what that stick coming out of the left side of the steering column is for.
And unless the black box can tell how often the rear view mirror is aimed at the driver instead of out the rear window, I don't want to hear crap about how fast I drive.
By the way, If you drive an automatic and you must talk on your handheld cell phone, use your freaking right hand to hold it so you can use your freaking turn signal, mmmm k?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
Well considering I just arrived here through heavy traffic (it's the start of a long weekend in Canada), I can't agree with this auto black box thing. I saw 2 slow drivers in front of me almost both cause accidents, and yet they were both traveling at significant slower speeds (closer to speed limit) and breaking far earlier then myself. I'm 22 years old, and I have plenty of driving experience (living in the country driving since 16). Frankly, I don't see how 'slow driver' = a good driver.... I have been in one accident... and you'd guess it, some 40year old drunk smoked me, and I tried to avoid, but having a 91' sundance just didn't even me quick traction and speed I needed to avoid a drunk who turned infront of me 10feet before I was about to go through the lights. I cannot see how anyone would justify that a slow driver is a safe one. My mother for example drivers dead on the speed limit, she has never caused an accident... but she's been hit 4 times, 3 from behind, and 1 from the side... she's a good driver.. but very timid on the road, and if she was a little more aggressive she may have avoided one or two of those unfortunate accidents. Someone earlier stated that this device is what all safe drivers should want, and personally I consider myself a safe driver, and I want a device that records when people cut other drivers off, turn without turning signals, break and swirve into traffic for little squirrels, etc.. I do not however want a device that says "SPEED LIMIT 50" actual speed "67" = BAD DRIVER. Often times, and I was even told this in drivers ED that going with the FLOW of traffic is more safe then sticking to the speed limit, especially if the speed change is reasonable. Just my $0.02 from north of the border.
No, this is
you can make a case for statistics that people can live with. in the most simple case it's: the slower you go the safer you are. we have in general made a tradeoff of reasonable speeds and reasonable safety. and it's understood that people who use excessive speed tends to have more accidents. and continous measurement of speed (i believe) will help lower rates for people who don't speed and raise rates for those that do. why do i beleive this? because there is still competition in the auto insurance industry. they need people to insure.
the problem that i see is location. most insurers base the premium on 'garage location' and use that to calculate risks (theft, accident). i've never been asked where i work or where i go. as near as i can tell this is an open opportunity for rates to be (ahem) adjusted according to what kind of neighborhoods you drive in. if you regularly visit someone where there is a higher theft rate or visit locations that have higher accident rats *or* spend time in jursictions that are insurance company unfriendly (eastern kentucky), boom there goes your insurance premium.
i've also pointed out to people that location tracking has other problems also. if the wrong people know where you're gonna be or *not* gonna be, it could be a problem. do you trust all the people that will handle the black box data?
eric
Take off your tinfoil hat. How do you suppose a machine will judge you on the spot? There are processes in place that allow for human oversight. Pilots aren't judged on the spot by a machine, so why would you?
If this system makes the rates go up for people that don't use turn signals, I'm all for it.
There's a problem with this. It sounds as though everyone gets the same benefits/discouts and suffers the same penalties based on the metrics of their driving but regardless of their skill level. I don't want an almost-blind grandmother getting the same insurance discounts as Michael Schumacher just because they both stayed under the speed limit. The professional driver is very safe at almost any speed, while some other people shouldn't even be on the road.
Also, no one should buy insurance anyway, for the following reason:
- The insurance companies are businesses.
- The goal of any business is to make money.
- To make money, their average client needs to lose money.
- The only way you, as a client, can actually get any money back is to file a claim.
- The only way you can file a claim is to get in an accident.
- Even if you do get in an accident and file a claim, you'll still come out behind you've already paid the premiums on the insurance policy, and now you need the claim money to repair your wrecked car.
Note that, without fraud, you can't actually make money by having an insurance policy. In fact, the only way you can break even is to file a claim before you've even made any payments -- and that might raise suspicion.
"Insurance" is a bet against yourself.
--Colin
Unfortunately, your definition of "Safe Driver" is lacking (you don't have one) and furthermore, the insurance company's definition doesn't exist. Therefore even your "oh-so-wonderful" driving will potentially be at risk of looking "unsafe." I've found that even good drivers get lucky sometimes.
From the description:
"it can also make better drivers out of everyone if insurance rates are adjustable based on the way everyone drives"
For me, the motivation to be a better driver has been the possibility of serious DEATH, not $50 bucks off my insurance. Besides, I can be the safest driver in the world and still get caught under a jacknifed semi no problem.
Skippy
toc wikat jexa
tag mob jak xu runax za
hofeg yeroy xo
Where is this mythical place where people only pass on the left? I wish that were true here on the West Coast.
What's wrong with passing on the right? Here in Ontario, passing on the right is explicitly legal, as it should be. What's the big deal? If the lane's there, and it's empty, and you're going faster than the person in the left lane, pull into the right lane and go on by. How is that dangerous?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Okay, lets install cameras in your house just to make sure that you aren't doing anything illegal in there.
Bzzzt! Strawman. Privacy in the home is a right. Driving is a privelege.
Play Again? Y/N
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
"While this may be a privacy issue, it can also make better drivers out of everyone if insurance rates are adjustable based on the way everyone drives" When pigs fly out of my butt! You think for one minute the insurance company is going to do anything to benefit rate payers, then you have got another thing coming. Considering the lobbying effort of trial lawyers and insurance companies, what this will eventually do is cause ALL vehicles to have black boxes that the rate payers will be FORCED to have, and FORCED to send the data to the insurance company. Once the data is received and they see a "pattern" they will "adjust" your rates. I'll wager a years salary that the "adjusted" rate will be always higher. The ONLY thing I would be in favor of, is the black boxes which would DISABLE a vehicle if the owner did: 1. Not pay his insurance, 2. Has a suspended drivers license, 3. Failed to register his vehicle. If they would do that, then I might be inclined to go along with them, but to use them to "adjust" the insurance rates is a cheap ploy to dig into the rate payers pockets more.
The idea is these insurance companies give low rates to safe drivers and high rates to unsafe drivers. The tacit assumption is that the unsafe drivers will clean up their act or stop driving. This will not happen. They will drop their insurance and move. Many of the working poor already do this. That's why people with assets must purchase uninsured motorist coverage. The large influx of poor immigrants into many areas has worsened this situation. Some don't have licenses or have lost licenses due to DWI. That doesn't stop them from driving. If the sheriff comes for their tags, they'll take the tags off another car at the mall and continue driving. They have nothing to lose.
This black box stuff will only penalize the shrinking middle class.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
These black boxes will be used as a tool by insurance companies to raise rates for all. I'm sure insurance companies KNOW most people speed. Sure, only a small percentage get caught (via speeding tickets or accidents), but this new influx of data will trigger rate hikes for most.
I know many people that drive aggresively, yet have zero accidents or tickets on their driving records. I also know many "soccer-moms" that drive slowly, but are so busy changing DVDs, yelling at the kids, and eating lunch in the mini-van, that they hit everything on the road. The black boxes, since they can not measure in car distraction, might actually portray these individuals as "low-risk".
Big-brother on the highways is there for one reason: profit.
-ted
Ford tried out an automobile black box in their F150 pickup trucks a few years ago. They played back the recordings in order to find out the most common phrase uttered by the driver before a fatal accident.
In 39 states, the most common phrase was "oh, shit". But in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, the Carolinas, and Virginia, the most common phrase was "Hey man, hold my beer and watch this."
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
It will eventually come the point where the insurance companies will require you to undergo genetic profiling. Not just some, but ALL of them. It will be a marketing arrangement, and they'd all have to do it at the exact same time. And then you'll have people being tracked with GPS, to lower their insurance rates. The companies will increase the "normal" rates, first, then offer a "discount" if you stuff a GPS up your ass, and wear a transceiver on your wrist anytime you leave home.
The black box is just a start. If they can't make people suck down the black box, they'll know they can't do any of the other stuff they want to do. I'm talking about Allstate and State Farm, as much as CIGNA and Kaiser. They all work the exact same, just on different property. Marketing is marketing.
It will eventually come to that, and when you're poor, you don't give a shit. You will learn to accept whatever's out there, because you don't have another choice.
Advocating the giving up of a right such as privacy to save a few dollars is a slippery slope that I am sure many big businesses are prepared to exploit to their advantage and definitely NOT yours. Who do you think is going to be shelling out the dollars for the box in the first place. You are going to be giving up rights for nothing in return, and once you advocate giving up one or some of your rights, you should lose your right to complain about their loss.
How about getting rid of cash? that would cut down on Illegal transactions like drug dealing.
How about national ID cards? Internal passports? That would cut down on terrorist movements.
Why not put radio chips in our arms (asses) to track everyone, or GPS locaters in our cars That definitely would cut down on illegal activities.
How far is too far to save a buck? Once you have given away a right, it is LOST FOREVER perhaps the only right the government has ever returned after removing it was the right to drink alcohol.
I drive a pre-1965 car without seatbelts, ride my motorcycle without a helmet and when I was 18 I could drink. I for one wish to retain my right to tell the government to F***-Off every once in a while.
Reality is all that stuff that doesn't care if you believe in it or not.--Solomon Short
If someone driving 25 in a 35 is what really riles you up...then you are probably the ashat we are talking about.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
I assume that all of the above is intended as a humorous illustration of a serious point. And because the first time I read the parent I mistook the intent, I'm going to un-humorously belabor what I think is the intended point for others who might not get it. (And I'm going to post as the anon coward that I am. :)
Being able to reside in a house may not be explicitly called out in the bill of rights, but to insinuate that the state should therefor have discrection over who gets to be in one would be the statement of a beauracrat, not a stateman of the people. Living in a house may be rare in various other countries, but we oughtn't let the "we're all so spoiled here" line of thought blind us to the reality that once being in a house is the *norm* (as in this particular society), then not living in one relegates a person to a life of ostracization, with an accompanying sharp decline in their quality of life and... their ability to pursue happiness, which is in fact enshrined somewhere in some document. Perhaps people could be taught over time to do without houses and cars, but the inconvenience and disruption of having become reliant on these things and losing them is as subjectively genuine as the disruption of having become reliant on living in a hut and then losing the hut.
or that guy from out of state driving 10 miles under the speed limit in the left hand lane. Where do these people learn to drive?
Out of state?
What makes a good or bad driver is pretty subjective. Obviously, the insurance company places a lot of importance on speed, I don't.
There hasn't been a single day since I started driving that I haven't broken the speed limit by 15-25mph, sometimes doubling it and I weave through traffic often. I've never had an accident.
On the other hand, a good friend of mine adheres to speed limits strictly, rarely changes lanes and brakes soft and smoothly. He considers my driving style to be "crazy". He has had 5 accidents in the past 4 years, 3 of which were major collisions.
I chalk this up to the difference in our ability to "drive", a combination of comfort behind the wheel, attention to the road in all directions, elimination of distractions and an understanding of the limitations of your vehicle.
My car doesn't have cupholders. If you call me when I'm driving, feel free to leave a message. You'll never catch me making a turn or changing lanes without a signal. I feel that driving a stick gives me a feel for the road that is impossible with a slushbox.
I'd hate to end up paying for the accident that ensues when Jenny makes a blind lane change while searching for her Hilary Duff CD because the black box indictates that I was doing 60 in a 55.
Yeah, you're a prick, and you're the sort that cause accidents and road rage.
Don't come looking for sympathy when you fuck around with your 2,500 lb killing machine and someone calls you on it and beats your brains out on the side of the road.
Stop toying with people. You're not the cops. Yeah, they get it, you're being "cute". How original. Instead, why not get the fuck out of the lane and let them speed on to their anger management class?
Any sufficiently well-organized Government is indistinguishable from bullshit.
They already base your insurance premiums and deductibles, etc.. based on how good of a driver you are.
The current metric they use for determining "goodness" is "number of accidents you've been in", which is a MUCH better metric than "how much you speed".
Because honestly, I'd MUCH rather share the road with Mario Andretti (or some other pro racer) than a grandparent on their way to "the farmer's market".
I'm not saying that speeders, statistically, aren't a worse group of drivers. They are. They get in more accidents. But we ALREADY know about who gets in accidents. The speeders are already penalized! This will just cause a lot more false positives (and a lot more true positives, of course), making the road simultaneously safer, slower, and more boring.
Austin is more fun than Dallas.
Think about this: most people in the US have NO idea how to be safe (driving). 80MPH in a 55MPH zone does not necessarily mean it is unsafe. However, doing it while 3 inches from the car in front of you is. Most people here don't realize a couple of things:
People just dont think
What about people that cut you off?
What about people not paying attention?
What about people that drive impaired?
What about people that drive shitty cars likely to explode?
What about people that pull out or cross lanes at dangerous times?
Clearly speed is to blame for all of these people, and driving slower will eliminate the most dangerous problems associated with driving.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Congratulations, everyone but you took me seriously. Astonishing, really.
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
...drive. Apparently, you don't. It's no different than glancing right before making a lane change or routinely checking you mirrors.
There are some pundits who would have you believe that speeding, etc, are indicative of the risk you pose as a driver.
Problem is, no study has directly correlated increased speed with propensity for accidents. In fact, the exact opposite is true: the majority of accidents take place because of errors in driver judgement, not speed. For example, a driver runs a red light, or the traffic comes to a sudden stop on the expressway. Or someone turns left in front of an oncoming car.
Regardless of how safely you drive, there's always someone else who is an idiot - I've been hit while sitting in a parked car.
Thus, the likelihood of an accident is more a factor of a person's past performance and the number of miles driven than of their particular driving misdemeanors. People who speed are often the lowest risk drivers on the road, simply because speeders usually pay more attention to traffic and road conditions than the ephemeral "sunday driver" types who approach driving as if it was a passive activity, like watching t.v.
The only thing black boxes will show is that far more Americans speed than otherwise thought, and that speed is a very poor indicator of actual risk.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
But anyway, if the current devices record when disconnected if a driver feels like hitting 100mph, who wants to be the first to come up with a software patch for this issue? hehe.
[Please sign here]
,I>In his race for the presidency, Senator Kirk dropped six figures in the polls after it was revealed that he spent three years on the reckless drivers list of insurance companies from 2006-2009."
[Please sign here]
I don't usually comment on /., so pardon my AC status, but I just had to ask - How do they know if you're speeding if they are supposedly not tracking your location? If I'm going 55 mph, how do they know I'm on an interstate and not in a 25 mph zone?
Well I have the opposite opinion.
People seem to discount car accidents as little oopses. "Oh I wasn't paying attention"
Cars are VERY VERY dangerous, thousands of pounds moving at VERY high speed. It is trivial to kill and injure many people.
As long as people don't respect the danger cars present, we'll continue to have problems.
I know many people who have been hit by people talking on cell phones, or drunk, or otherwise being irresponsible.
FWIW I'm not an anti car zealot, I actually like cars, and I work in the auto industry. I just think people should understand the serious responsibilty driving a car is.
The Web is like Usenet, but
the elephants are untrained.
Can't that be extrapolated from location data?
I know that some insurance companies recover the Air Bag Control Unit if your car has been totaled and if a high payout/death occurs. The information that can be had from one: 1: Impact sensor that set of the air bag (point of impact?) 2: Speed. 3: Seat belts worn. 4: Break time applied. 5: Signal engaged. This is continuius information that is stored while your driving (looped for apx 10 seconds) and saved after air bag deployment. Some of this information is on ALL air bag control units. These are usually located on the inside of the firewall passenger side compartment. So I did a small search and there really wasn't much published on this topic. Urm, a hidden tool that insurance use to disqualify your coverage post accident. http://www.claimsmag.com/Issues/Aug02/technology_t ools.asp
X
Same as it's always been. If you have the money you can live however you want. Otherwise you're just a serf.
If someone has a good driving record, what the hell does their credit rating have to do with their rates or insurability??
Why do robbers rob banks?
Consider if the insurance industry could rationalize a rule that people less than 5'6" tall were a higher risk (since they are less likely to see over the dashboard), and alas, must charge them more money. They know immediately that a percentage of their population is going to meet that criteria, and suddenly they have more money.
And what about people with glasses? If they fell off while you were having an accident, aha! Danger! High risk! Hike those people too (now another 35% is paying more).
Did I mention medical conditions? Blue eyes (more likely to sneeze at sun and crash)? Cell phones (don't get me started at the dangers there - you're a mobile time bomb!)?
Do you live in a city? There's SO MANY MORE PEOPLE THAT YOU CAN RUN INTO/WILL RUN INTO YOU. Horrors! Hike that rate.
Then again, you'd better watch out for those country people. You know, they drive in the middle of the road going over hills on gravel. Certain death. Hike their rates too.
Hmm... I think that about covers it for this month's rate hikes. Remember, we're just being cautious and scientific here...
Well, see here's an asshat replying in exactly the manner you would expect him or her to. Someone wants to use a device to make the riskier drivers pay more for insurance than the safe ones and he's got his right to drive a car on a public road firmly stuffed up into the Bill of Rights.
Ok, so he doesn't have it actually listed in there but he seems pretty sure that a change in the way he is held accountable while enjoying a privilege is going to lead to the loss of all of his rights. I think maybe "rights" doesn't mean what you think it means.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
No you will not be "judged" by a machine on the spot. Your actions will be recorded by a machine in a completely unbiased and impartial manner. Later a human being will be involved as they attempt to fit your story to those facts.
If you're telling the truth then your story should easily match what the machine recorded. If you're a fucking liar who needs to have his ass taken out from behind the wheel because he's a menace to everyone else on the road then you're going to get called on it and your lies won't help you.
Look, the early versions of this system are going to have shortcomings that will certainly require addressing but eventually you're going to have them in every vehicle. You're going to have them able to communicate their positions to each other. It's going to be a 24/7 kind of thing where any accident will be able to easily be reproduced and when that happens the people who fuck things up for the rest of us will have nowhere left to hide.
We don't get to that day until we go through this. I'm willing to go through this to get to that day. Most people are going to be willing to go through this to get to that day. The minority who will want to turn this into some giant battle over their rights will lose and then the majority of them will be revealed to be the dangerous shitheads who need it most and want it least (And that's not an accusation directed towards you. Not at all).
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Unless, of course, there are people who want to drive faster than me. I'll get over for them. Most of the time.
SBC stands for Stupid Bell Company
AT&T stands for All Telephones Tapped
The insurance companies are already trying out a similar scheme in Ireland, where insurance rates are quite scary: an 18 year old I know with a full license, driving a 9 year old Mini valued at $3000 had to pay $3900 insurance with one of these black boxes! The insurance company monitors his speed and if he exceeds the speed limit too often, he'll either have his insurance quote upped or will not be insured again. Without the black box, his insurance would have been much higher!
And that's why you're going to be paying more money for insurance thanks to your little black box and I won't be subsidizing people like you thanks to my little black box.
The fog was so thick that you didn't notice you were going 110mph? Fucking idiot. Forget about the black box and just stop driving before you kill someone.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
There's something called lane manners that Germans seem to adhere to fairly well, meaning that they stick to the right lanes unless passing.
The Strassenverkehrsordnung (Road Traffic Regulations):
STVO Paragraph 2 Road use by vehicles
(1) Vehicles must use the roadway. In case of more than two lanes the right lane must be used. The breakdown-lane is not a component of the roadway. (2) Not limited to oncoming traffic, travelling through curves or over hill-crests, or vague or not fully discernible driving situations, it is required that vehicles drive as far to the right as possible.
Even Der Fuehrer who himself operated a vehicle on the Roads of the German Reich in the early years before he freed das Volk from the yokes of Versailles, even of HIM it was expected to drive as far as possible on the right side of the road. The law is that old if not even older. (BTW, HE was also busted for operating a vehicle without a driver's license in those early years.).
You see, even though staying on the right lane except passing, even having to drive as far right as possible (Das Rechtsfahrgebot!) has been the law for more than a hundred years, and even though this law is so ancient that even Germany's Fuehrer HIMSELF was subject to it, I sincerely WONDER WHY PEOPLE INSIST ON CHANGING OVER TO THE LEFT LANES passing traffic only insignificantly faster than the right LANE and BEST OF ALL not even use their flashers to signal their intent and DON'T GIVE A FUCK WHETHER THEY'RE DOING MAYBE 100 KM/H WHILE I'M COMING AT THEM WITH 240KM/H WITH SCREECHING BRAKES!
See you all on the Autobahn, preferentially in the right lane.
Ok if they want to put black boxes in cars then they will have to offer lower rates to drivers who drive less than 10k a year on thier car.
Actually, YOU are stupid. Notice that he pointed out that it was a "right hadn turn ONLY lane". Do you know what the word "only" means?
The thing I find interesting is that most of us buy car insurance primarily with concerns about them covering damage to the vehicles - yet really, the insurance companies are much more concerned about medical expenses due to injuries in accidents.
As a U.S. citizen myself, I wish my auto insurance would give me the choice to pay a much lower rate in return for more limited medical coverage in case of an accident. When any of us get behind the wheel of a car, we should be well aware that a certain amount of risk is involved, and we should be willing to accept that risk. If something does go horribly wrong, I'd want some basic coverage in place to pay for serious injuries... BUT, I'm not expecting millions in compensation for a lost limb or what-have-you. I just want the immediate medical expenses paid for, and I'll accept the long-term consequences.
The way it is now, I'm sure I'm paying MUCH more than would otherwise be necessary, simply because I'm helping cover the losses from people suing and winning huge settlements over medical problems. Not only that, but it's almost become "standard practice" to go see a chiropractor and run up $1000+ in medical bills after any accident where you sprained or twisted anything. Car insurance seems to gladly pay for that, despite these people not even being REAL DOCTORS!
The way I see it, my odds are much greater that my car will eventually get messed up and need some repair done to it from an accident than *I* will get messed up and need "repair work". I bet I've been in at least 5 or 6 accidents over the years - and so far, only one even required any medical attention. (And that time, all they really did was take a bunch of expensive x-rays and determine nothing was broken after all.)
Actually, Illinois used to have a system where, if you had a "clean" record when you renewed your license, you got a little printed card in recognition of your good driving. Now that they've stopped giving out renewal licenses (and just give you a little sticker for the back of the old one), I don't think they do this any more. I've moved to Indiana, so I really can't say.
Also...putting back boxes in takes away the ONE thing that allowed you to compare rates. Now all the company has to say is "The computer shows us your driving habits have worsened these past months" and there is no way you can challenge that claim.
Put black boxes in, sure. But have a transparent way by which you know what rates to expect with what driving patterns. But will that happen? No way.
Take away transparency and you take away accountability and once that goes, you can forget about actually paying LESS for insurance no matter how you drive.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Houses don't cost 15 grand anymore either!
Yes, but they don't cost what they do today because of inflation.
There's a differnece between natural inflation and being gouged.
What is considered "safe" is often tied to ridiculous notions of "safe" speeds. Safe speed actually depends on road conditions, traffic density, driver reflexes and so on. Remember 55mph speed limits? For most interstate conditions this is a huge blow to our economy and to millions of commuters lives. For that matter on most of our interstates much of the time 65mph is also more waste than gain.
How long do you think it will be before these boxes are mandatory and tied to automatic ticketing systems to bolster falling municipal revenues?
Please, just say "NO".
>*sigh*....hit "submit" instead of "preview".
;~)
Liar! You're cruising for Karma! We can see through your petty scams!
What about when you take the car to a race track for a lapping day? The log will show a couple hours of continues "agressive" driving. Or an autocross, where there is this 15 second spurt of ridiculous sawing at the steering wheel, both the gas and the brakes down, etc.
Also, what if you jack the tires off the ground, and spin the car up to 150 miles an hour?
I am not impressed with this idea in the least.
-- Henry
I don't know what part of the US you drive in, but your statement most definitely does NOT apply in to roads from Maine to Pennsylvania. I've made trips all around the northeast and I can tell you that nobody stays right and passes left. Cars pass all over the place. I've often seen the left lane be the slowest lane. Earlier posts regarding the Autobahn have it right...a strict adherence to the 'left lane for passing only' makes for MUCH more orderly and predictable traffic. Also, your claim that 'the major cause of accidents is people passing only on the left' really needs some kind of proof. On another topic, posters who mention that 'safe' driving doesn't always mean 'slow' driving are correct. It isn't high speed that causes the accidents, it only makes them worse when they do happen. It takes TWO people to have an accident...one to fuck up, and another to NOT NOTICE or react to the fuck up. Also, there are very few 'accidents' on the road. A jackass running a red light is not accidental, its a mistake. An accident is getting a flat due to a nail in the road, a tree branch falling, or perhaps black ice. When somebody fucks up, it is NOT an accident, it is a fuck up.
It sounds like you are operating a plane for a commercial airliner where you have a black box. What do you think of all those small, privately owned planes out there (Cessna's, etc.) that don't have a black box? Should they be required to carry one? Should all private planes have to carry a transponder for that matter? (I know you need a working transponder to fly near any decent sized metro area, but if you stay away from those areas you don't need one.) I realize that someone in a private plane expects they will be tracked via radar, but do they really need a black box reporting everything they do and say in the cockpit? I don't think so, and the same goes for privately owned automobiles.
They should use the black boxes in planes to adjust the pilots salary after each flight.
{
TurnSignalViolation++;
}
Are you _sure_ that you've seen people driving in the left hand lane in the US? I just find that hard to believe, and I've driven in more than 36 states of this Union.
Since we're on the subject, I am really amused that some here are suggesting that speeding is a dangerous activity. I mean, really, has anyone actually _seen_ anyone speeding? I mean in the past 20 years? I know that I sure haven't. If we want to concentrate on making our highways safer, we've got to be sure that we're fixing problems that actually exist. They are out there, and we don't have to go around inventing problems. Next time someone says they saw someone speeding I'm just going to reply "and I just saw a unicorn too."
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
Agreed. And data recorders may in fact be a good way to enforce responsibility. But not *these* recorders. There are any number of issues relating to yielding, right-of-way, and other road responsibilities that are not collected by this recorder.
The point here is that a single class of irresponsibility is being tagged, and improperly at that, since there is little or no context (which I understand airline recorders have much more of) associated with the data. If a recorder can be created which identifies irresponsible drivers of all classes, then by all means, put it in my car. But we'd have to come up with a socially acceptable definition of responsible. Changing the radio station 20 times in a minute? Talking on a cell phone? Hands anywhere but 10 and 2? Turn signals for all lane changes and turns? Left lane for passing? Ignoring the string of cars stacked up behind you? Stereo loud enough to be heard under 30 fathoms of water? What does responsible really mean?
The comparison with airline black boxes is flawed from the stance that (a) there are vastly fewer pilots than drivers, (b) pilots are far more rigorously trained and regularly vetted than drivers are, and (c) the likelyhood that the cause of an airplane crash is a pilot in another airplane is small compared to other factors.
IANA pilot, because I can't be (colorblindness - I think an FAA waiver is required, and not easy to obtain), but I am one hell of a responsible driver. But only for a given value of responsible. I speed. But I don't use my cell, my hands are almost always on the wheel, I play one CD at a reasonable volume, I use my signals religiously, if my wipers are on, my headlights are on, I keep a safe (2-3 second) distance, I am constantly aware of my surroundings, and if I'm behind you in the left lane, it's because I am going faster than you, so please yield.
Do not touch -Willie
I welcome this with arms wide open. They can have all my data, charge me less for driving safe and charge the 100-mph lunatics more. What do I lose? Privacy? Pfft! Like I ever had some after Patriot.
-Andres.
This has already been done, and it's very simple. You obey the rules of the road which are encapsulated in laws. A civilized society is one which is governed by laws, laws that apply equally to all, for the greater good. An uncivilized society is one which has no rule of law, where everybody does what they please.
Data recorders would be a good thing in virtually all accident scenarios. it never ceases to amaze me how many 'law abiding' citizens seem to think simple things like speed limits 'dont apply to me'. Driving at speeds above posted limits is a form of negligence, and an insurance company is assuming liability for that negligence on behalf of the driver doing it. I see nothing wrong with that company having a desire, possibly even a right, to know what the driver is doing for whom they are assuming liability.
You seem to be used to driving on Mars, where the only other thing in sight is a NASA rover. This is Earth. WTF have you been for the last 20 years? Remember when the National Speed Limit was 55mph?
In California, the question should be phrased "When do you NOT see someone speeding?"
As far as cruising in the left lane at SpeedLimit-10, I see it every time I get on the road. It's usually some asshat in a Camry, too. S/he's on the cell phone, half of the time, to boot.
Oh come on. I suppose you are telling me that unicorns exist too. WAIT! I see a unicorn out my window right now! Speeders - actual speeders - you expect me to believe that?
OK, enough fun with you. My original post in this thread was sarchastic/ironic/toungue-in-cheek. I was surprised that people took me seriously, so I posted something even more absurd - that there was no such thing as a speeder.
I am absolutely astonished that people took it seriously. Did you really think I was serious about the no-speeder thing? How could you have possibly thought that? Isn't your bullshit detector working properly?
No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
There is a time and a place to pick the fight on the privacy arguement. Arguing a 'right to privacy' when operating a deadly weapon (a vehicle) on a public hiway is the wrong time/place for that fight. This is not about your rights, but the rights of those around you. If you want privacy, go drive on private roads, but dont expect it on the public road system. There are many more people on that road, and thier expectation of responsibility trumps any right to privacy. You always have the option to not use the public roads if that's a problem for you.
I don't, however, agree that the current rules of the road encapsulate everything required to be a socially responsible user of the road. "Keep right except to pass" seems more of a suggestion. Not all states have a "Only hands-free" clause for cell phone usage while driving, and I don't know of any that restrict careless use of the radio (which is, by far, the #1 cause of driver distraction, which in turn is a major cause of accidents). I think there may be some rules as to how many cars can be piled up behind you before it's illegal to continue to impede traffic (on two-lane highways anyway), but those don't seem to be enforced, and no one seems to care anyway. Beyond that, is it socially responsible to dogmatically maintain the speed limit when everyone around you is doing 5, 10 or 15 over? Not is it legal, which it clearly isn't, but is it socially responsible? I guess I just don't think that legal automatically means socially responsible.
Do not touch -Willie
Hmmm.... I suspect that in the aftermath of the Republican convention, my BS-detector needs some recalibration... there's something here in the manual about "loses accuracy after sustained overload conditions."
But then again, I wonder if some people have their speedometers set so that they think they're traveling at 80mph when they're actually standing still.
Keep 'em behind you, get 'em all wound up, so wound up that - when you do eventually pull in - they're too busy flipping you the bird and accelerating to notice the speed camera.
My little brother is particularly good at this :)
Personally, I'm toying with the idea of moving the rear washer jet of my car to the back bumper, running the pipe to a bottle of brake fluid, and using it to strip the paint from tailgating BMWs. (It's always BMWs.)
Set the cruise control?
Funny you mention NY. I see soooo many of those NY idiots in other states that I frequent, and they ALL fucking drive in the lefthand lane, usually under the speed limit. They WILL NOT move for anything, lights flashing, horn, etc. You eventually have to give up and pass on the right and flip them off.
You must be talking about the New Yorkers who can afford to not work, and travel. They are a pain in the ass too.
Make America grate again!
Yeah. I guess that makes sense. I was ranting, so the question was really rhetorical. Then again this is
Make America grate again!
Pff, there are plenty of times when that happens lefitimately.
Parking? roads that turn sharply but have no fork?
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.