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 wouldn't mind if my driving safety was monitored for lower rates but I wouldn't want my speed watched ;)
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."
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.
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!
Yeah, people bitch about high insurance rates, but when an acceptable(?) solution comes around they seem to balk at it. After all, if you want a low rate, why not prove it? Is Big Brother/privacy concerns worth the $?
--
Play the free Gmail game. 35 invites availiable. Best odds on the net.
It could be great news for you though. Right now, the insurance companies assume you drive a certain way just because of your age and what kind of car you drive. If you don't fit the typical pattern, i.e. if you drive the speed limit, don't run red lights, etc., your insurance rates will go down, possibly way down, because now the insurance company has a way of knowing the truth about how you drive.
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
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.
perhaps that's how they got old?
cheers,
Erick
www.brainglass.com
feed your brain!
http://www.busyweather.com/
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.
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.
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
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.
The car insurance industry needs some serious tweaking. There is absolutely no justification for an insurance company to sit on 8 billion dollars while at the same time raising the rates on their customers. What we really need is cooperative insurance where everyone adds to the pool and the unused pool money gets returned to the contributors.
-----
One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
I had a psyc prof point out one time that if the various motor vehicle admins out there sent out a notice to everyone each year who did not get any points, the recognition alone was likely to cause some good. But, as a society, we are far more focused on pathology than what is good.
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.brainglass.com
http://www.busyweather.com/
" 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/
Cheers,
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
It may not have anything to do with driving. But you're making a common statistical mistake - confusing causation and correlation. Causation is just like it sounds, A causes B. Correlation means when you find B, you find A - even if A doesn't cause B.
A perfect example of this is credit rating. Doesn't effect your driving does it? Well, apparenlty people with poor credit ratings tend to have poorer driving records. So insurance companies would love to be able to price your auto insurance by looking at your credit rating. Might even be being done where you are. But does bad credit have anything to do with insurance claims? Actually it does. And I suspect the insurance companies have every reason to expect that the presence of black boxes will be correlated with claims.
Life Insurance in Canada
Actually, I think that you are right on target. A larger target that is of much greater concern than this specific target. One that we all should start paying more attention to .... before it's too late, as you indicate.
The second two I can understand. But why the fuck would anyone in their right mind ever tailgate? It's a) dangerous, b) annoying, and c) doesn't get you there any faster. So what's the point?
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
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.
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.
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.
And no, big brother isn't worth the dollars. Besides which, I don't understand how people can even imagine bitching about auto insurance rates. I pay 1200 bucks a year for car insurance, it's nothing. Decent health insurance costs me over 5000 a year by comparison, and I'm a healthy, single 25 year old male. At least that's the ratio in Massachusetts if you want a decent PPO plan (and I refuse to deal with freaking HMO plans, almost as bad as having no coverage).
In any case, I'm not going to complain about the fact that I pay for more than I use of either - that's the whole point of pooled risk.
No, what we need to do to get insurance costs under control is regulate the lawsuit business. The problem is all the lawsuits in the world haven't improved the quality of health care one bit - just increased the cost of malpractice insurance immensely, which gets passed onto us as health insurance premiums, uncovered procedures, and high copayment percentages. I'm all for the fact that if a doctor screws something up seriously, there should be consequences, but I think the dollar amounts need to be limited for the greater good of society, to make health care affordable again.
What makes you think this kind of thing will lower insurance rates? The cost of producing DVDs is down to practically nothing, but are they any cheaper (for the consumer) than when they first came out? Only if you count used DVDs! I wouldn't be surprised if in the long run rates went up to "cover cost of equipment".
But there has to be some value to the consumer to counter the privacy concerns, right? (so the insurance mega-corporations will have time to get this implemented to such a wide degree that it becomes a moot point) Well, it's all about the blame game. It will settle disputes. But that's not all. What's to stop an insurance company from saying "yeah, you got t-boned at an intersection by a car that had a red light, but you were going 36.2 mph in a 35 mph zone, so we can't handle your claim"
I had a friend who got hit by another car that swerved across four lanes of interstate and slammed side-to-side into my friend's car. There was a cop right behind him, saw the whole thing. My friend had done nothing wrong, except his drivers license had expired the day before. He spent a weekend in jail, as it was now 'his fault,' because he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. (he had just moved and the DMV notifications hadn't caught up with him -- he knew nothing about it until this happened)
Now if a state trooper can turn something like that into 'your fault' because you were also doing something wrong, I'm willing to bet that if an insurance company can get out of paying for damages because you were going 1 mph over the speed limit, they will.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
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 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.
How's this for an argument... I live in Chicago and take two interstates on my daily commute to and from work. The speed limit is 55 mph. If I go any slower than 60, I'll get run over by every truck in the "slow" lane. Anything below 60 is as dangerous as someone driving 100! The average speed is 75-80. I'm not saying this is right or wrong, it's just how it is. In the eyes of the insurance companies, I would be a HORRIBLE driver because 90% of my driving is on these interstates. So because I'm trying my best to keep from getting run over, I would pay out the arse for insurance rates.
I honestly don't care about the privacy issue. For the most part, if someone wants to see how or where you drive, they can follow you and find out. You're in PUBLIC - Get over it. I would however, have a problem if that data were publicly available though. If someone wants to go to the trouble of following me around the suburbs or to the bars, they can help themselves. If all they have to do is make a phone call or check a website, that would simply suck. I want my stalkers to WORK for a living, damnit!
"The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his." - Patton
IMHO it's taking the assessment of the police officer out of the decision making loop. Granted his decision of pulling you over is arbitrary, but I'm sure that if he say you brake hard and swerve out of the way of an accident that he'd not pull you over.
The black box does not have such judgment capabilities. It's a default non-compromising digital algorithm. That's where I have less trust of an arbitrary decision.
Don't cruise at 65 mph in the left lane when traffic is flowing at 75+ and I won't tailgate you.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
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!!)
Ridiculous. IAAIA, but you don't need to be to understand that what you've said totally misinterprets the economics of an insurance company.
What you've said would be like telling a 45-year old man, living a comfortable middle-class lifestyle with $1 million in an IRA or 401k that he should cash it out and blow it on a big house, car, and vacation because he obviously doesn't need the money - he's living well now. Fact is, he IS going to need that money someday when he retires. And that money in the bank for the insurance company is what is used to pay claims and achieve gains from investments to keep prices at the level they are.
If you're bored sometime, check out the financial data for your insurance company. You'll be surprised to find out that, almost guaranteed, they pay more in claims than they take in premiums. The difference, hopefully, is made up by investment gains. When it's not, that's when you see an insurance company having losses. Considering that insurance fraud is a multi-billion dollar per year industry, that must mean the legitimate claims paid are a lot higher than that, right? So a rough guess would be that $8 billion in the bank is enough to pay for a year's worth of claims (both legit and otherwise) if they stopped taking payments today. I don't feel a year's cushion is unreasonable, especially when they have consider catastrophes (like for instance, two hurricanes in one year).
Plus, if the insurance rates really were too high, the states would crack down on the companies - property/casualty insurance is HIGHLY regulated by each individual state (especially a certain few like OH, MA, and NJ), and in most states any sort of price change or contract change has to be submitted for approval to the State Insurance Commissioner before the change can be implemented. The commissioner reviews the change, market conditions, and the financial health of the company and can veto it on the basis of "no, this is an unreasonably high price" or "no, this price is too low and raises the risk that you could become insolvent".
I'm not saying that the insurance industry is perfect - not by any means. However, don't judge a book solely by the amount of cash it has in the bank.
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.
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.
Yeah, people bitch about high insurance rates, but when an acceptable(?) solution comes around they seem to balk at it. After all, if you want a low rate, why not prove it? Is Big Brother/privacy concerns worth the $?
Have you no experience in the real world?
The most likely outcome is that the rates will stay the same and the payouts will be reduced as they find you don't "deserve" a payout becuase when you were hit by a drunk driver you were going two miles over the speed limit.
"Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
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.
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.
SH*T, should have previewed that first. It was meant to have paragraphs (I cut-and-pasted from notepad, and forgot to set it to plain text).
Here it is WITH the paragraphs
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 tur
I have a solution but you're not going to like it. (Something I say far too forten to my boss)
But in the US certain drivers also pay a lot more than others for being male. How is that a good system? How isn't that illegal discrimination?
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
I'm in Alberta, I payed $3200 a year. He's in Sask, he payed $800 or so.
The simple explanation here is that the Saskatchewan taxpayers are picking up the difference. Sheeple are actually pretty dumb. Ontario has been grappling with this issue for a little over a year. We've got drivers crying for lower rates, and pointing to New Brunswick and Saskatchewan as examples. However, they ignore the benefit caps that have been instituted in those provinces. If you have a car accident that paralyzes you for life, the insurance providers in those provinces only have to pay out a certain, capped amount. The government can't require them to lower rates while keeping the same high payouts. However, in Ontario, if you were to require such a catastrophic claim, the payout would be much higher.
But people don't see that. They only see the short-term benefits. "Yes, your rates would drop $800/year, but if you were to be seriously injured, the insurance company would only have to pay for the first $100,000 of health care. After that, you'd be on your own." Most people tune out after, "drop $800/year."
Since then though, my insurance has gone as high as $4200, and is just now (that i'm 21!) dropping back down to around $2800,
Didn't it occur to you to perhaps consider trading in your pocket rocket for a less conspicuous, more practical car?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
If you are, then let me ask you a question. I recently hear of people's rates being raised...or even having coveraged DROPPED due to results of a credit check?!?!?
If someone has a good driving record, what the hell does their credit rating have to do with their rates or insurability??
This seems like something that needs to be illegal or discriminatory in some fashion...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
My Valentine One has paid for itself many, many, many times over....both in tickets and potential insurance rate raises...
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I don't understand. You complain that "if those things really meant I was no longer insurable by them, I should have been cancelled right away." But they continued to do business with you for four years.
Now which is more expensive--finding new insurance right after an accident, or finding new insurance four years after an accident? It sounds like State Farm saved you a lot of money by continuing you insure you.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!