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."
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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!"
" 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/
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
I hate to burst your bubble, but this black box has been in the cars since they've have engine management computers (the computer needs all that data to achieve the best tune for reduction in NOX).
I gues you'd better start riding your bike tomorrow morning.
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!!!
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've had a lot of fun with tailgaiters when I drive. I refuse to speed up when being tailgaited. In fact, I generally slow down until the guy behind me gets really pissed. I'll resume my normal speed when he moves back or I'll go even faster if he tries to pass. Though don't do that if you live in an area where road rage shootings are common.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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!
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?
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.
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 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