Slashdot Mirror
Cheaper Car Insurance For Gamers
I know your first reaction is that this story is gonna be an ad, but
SpuriousLogic's story is actually about insurers considering giving a discount to elderly gamers. The question is: does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver? And if so, I'll have to add gaming to mowing the lawn for my weekly chores.
...as elderly gamers probably spend very little time in their cars.
All my years of FreeCell and Minesweeper will not have been in vain.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
The question is, does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver.
That's the wrong question. A more correct question would be "Is there a correlation between gaming and driving ability?"
It could very well be the there is no causal relationship between the two, but rather they share a common cause. Perhaps those without sufficient mental acuity/coordination to drive also lack the "mad skillz" needed for gaming, and thus they don't find games to be enjoyable and therefore don't play.
My brother was in an accident maybe 5 years ago or so. He was in his jeep on a 2 way road. A car was coming towards him and the driver was drunk. Right at the last moment the car swerved into my brothers lane. My brother was able to react and turn hard enough to allow the car to hit the back side of his jeep instead of the drivers side.
He said his reaction time from playing video games was what helped him, and he really does believe that. I don't blame him nor do I doubt him. I always thought I had a higher reaction time as a result of video games, and I'm sure a study on this has been done to prove it.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
I know it goes against the norm, but I actually read the article. It clearly states that the drivers in this program must play a very specific game designed to improve visual alertness. So if you thought that Allstate (the "insurers" in this article) was going to give discounts to WOW players, think again.
I've been playing WipEout HD a lot this week - I'm in the top 40 in the global rankings for some of the events, surely that entitles me to some kind of insurance discount!?
And as for GTA, I don't aim for the pedestrians like some people do, so that has to count for something :)
Avoiding accidents is rarely about reaction time. If you have to react to something in front of you, then you've already been making some bad decisions in the previous moments. Real life driving is not like a racing game (says the guy who was banned from driving for 3 months when he got caught at 114mph in March this year).
which is totally what she said
You probably don't have a life, so you can drive less? World or Warcraft should give you an 80% discount on your car insurance, heck it could cover the monthly fee. I see synergy.
Shouldn't they know WHICH game is being played?
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
With apologies to Ron White:
"Real life driving is not like a racing game, and I'm quoting a judge on this one"
I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously? Except driving on the public roads in the first place, that is.
Likewise, I react to someone cutting into my lane too close by backing off a bit. What did I do wrong in this instance?
Just hypothetical questions :)
Tom...
Considering the article talks about a game where fish hide stuff and you have to find the matching items, they are talking about memory and not reaction times.
So if get your older friends one of those mind/memory games for their next birthday.
While I agree that gaming may help reflexes I disagree that it has an inherent benefit on driving. Driving demands good decision-making and experience. What does it help to have quick reactions if you make poor decisions or over-react?
I've known guys who played games extensively and were crap drivers. All that gaming didn't keep them from getting into accidents anyway. I doubt statistics would support the notion that the rise of gaming has had an positive impact on reducing accidents.
Then there's the video online where some dumb kid and his friends play Initial D in the arcade and then decide to go out for a spin in their car. It doesn't take to long before this kid wrecks his car. Young people are already delusional enough about their driving abilities they don't need anyone making it worse.
Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.
I'm not sure I'd be giving insurance breaks to someone who excels in a game about carjacking and that gives bonus points for spectacular wrecks.
=)
Seriously? Bonus points? In GTA? Are you with the media?
Maybe you were thinking of Burnout?
Does Carmageddon count?
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
No, pretty sure he meant ad as in advertisement...
I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously?
Well, for starters, unless there's reason to be driving under the speed limit (snow? rain?), I find it is generally dangerous in the U.S. to drive slower than the posted speed limit. Of course, this will vary by state (some states, few speed... others, you have to "keep up with traffic").
But generally, I've found that driving under the posted speed limit is more dangerous because people will come up on you from behind not expecting you to be a rolling roadblock.
Of course, as your reaction time slows (as one gets older) those drivers tend to slow down to allow themselves more time to react (as in the scenario you've described). But I think on the whole, driving this way creates more opportunities for accidents then it prevents. Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off, and they'll tend to want to get around you. The more maneuvers going on around YOUR car (ie, people cutting you off because they are impatient with your speed), the more you'll likely get into accidents.
Ask yourself this: which happens more frequently? A driver pulls out into your lane and you t-bone him because you can't stop in time OR someone cuts you off because they're in a hurry (whether you're driving slowly or not).
I believe the latter happens more frequently and leads to more accidents... so any behavior that "encourages" it will naturally lead to more accidents.
Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
I'm 25, and that's old in the gaming world
I recently read that the average age of a gamer is 35 years old. You've got a ways to go yet!
There is a correlation between performance in visual tasks and the amount of time people have been playing action video games. The initial study has shown that action-video-game (AVG, e.g. Unreal Tournament, other ego-shooters) players perform significantly better in a range of visual attention tasks than non-AVG players. In later studies it has been shown that this increased performance is not observed for people who do play games that are not of the AVG-genre (e.g. The Sims), and also that 50h of game playing of AVG games is sufficient to observe a significant performance increase in visual tasks. Currently, the same lab is investigating whether this effect is also observed in the elderly, with positive initial results. For more information, just have a look at the lab's list of publications (disclaimer: I'm in the same department as that lab, though not member of that lab).
In relation to the article, they seem to recommend the people to play games of the non-AVG type. For this reason I have my doubts that these games will significantly improve performance in visual tasks. On the other hand, it might support other tasks that are required while driving, but that remains to be shown.
I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).
Take your reason, someone might be driving the speed limit and not notice "a rolling roadblock". What are they? Blind? When driving, you should always be aware of what cars are near by. And if you are driving along, and you are approaching a car, it is pretty damn obvious that you are going faster then them...
You therefore, take your foot of the accelerator and access the situation, and then decide whether it is safe to pass, or whatever.
Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to.
It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.
OK, that's one reason why someone might be driving slower, what if they don't know the area? What if they are looking for a house number? What if there are children around? Maybe their breaks don't work so well and they are going to the mechanic? Maybe they just think, "well it's a nice day, no rush to go to work/home, I'll take my time"?
And if some idiot is driving along and cuts that slower driver off, who is at fault? The idiot driving fast and cutting off the slower driver.
Actually, while on the topic of cars, I've often see idiots talking about how they tailgate other drivers because the other drivers drive too slow. Yeah, and you know who is rightfully to blame in the event of a rear ending? The idiot doing the tailgating.
You should always leave enough space between yourself and the car in front to stop safely. If you can't, you aren't driving safely.
Basically, you should be driving safely, and if that means slowing down, then yeah, there isn't a problem with that. (The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)
I wank in the shower.
bad Japanese monster movies.
I read the headline as "Cheaper Car Insurance For Gamera ".
I guess Godzilla and Mothra have to pay more.
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
*ring ring* Hey Dan?
Its Joe. I got some good news and bad news.
The bad news is i just smoked a pedestrian with your car, cuz i had a GTA flashback.
But the good news is a just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance by switching to Geico.
Go go Gadget Nailgun!
I was thinking of this guy actually:
http://hamptonroads.com/2008/09/johnson-wins-edwards-hits-wall-purpose
Quote:
"I planned on hitting the wall, but I didn't plan on the wall slowing me down that much," Edwards said. "In video games, you can just run into the wall and run it wide open. That's what I did, but it didn't quite work out the same as the video game."
So the are saying gamers don't drive as much, since they stay home playing games all the time, and therefore their insurance rates are cheaper?
"Right or wrong, driving more slowly is going to piss people off".
Ahh, this line betrays your true sentiment. If people can't avoid hitting you from behind when you are going 10 mph less than the speed limit, they don't belong on the road. It's not inherently dangerous to drive 30 in a 40 zone. The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.
I'm 65, and have spinal arthritis. There are mornings when I get up, and everything is normal, and mornings when I'm not functional. The problem sometimes is making sure how functional I am before I try to do anything, especially operating machinery or driving. I've found that playing a computer game before I do much else is a really good indicator of how well I am functioning. I also get the impression that playing the game for a while seems to improve my functionality. I don't consider this hard proof of anything. I do think it may be an indicator that there is something to this idea. It may merit serious research.
Generally, the safest speed to be going is more closely related to what other drivers are doing and what they expect you to be doing than it is to the number on the sign. In most of the US, the norm is to go at or slightly over the speed limit. Whether this is silly or not (I think it is) is entirely beside the point -- if everyone expects you to be going 60 in a 55 zone, and they're all going 60, it's probably safest to be going at about 60. Obviously things like curves, weather, traffic, etc can be more important concerns when deciding what the safest speed to drive is.
Video games on the market today certainly don't help with driving, but it's not hard to imagine a game that would. Suppose you had a driving simulator that was realistic, but malicious: every 10-15 minutes, it modifies the world or the behavior of the other drivers to put you in an emergency situation. Pedestrians walk in front your car, drivers cross into opposing traffic, brakes fail, and so on. Your score is how long you can survive. *That* would make people better drivers, but I've never heard of such a game on the market.
And actually wanting to get somewhere isn't a valid reason to drive? I thought the entire purpose of cars and roads were to get people quickly from point A to point B. I think if most people wanted to sit in the car and not get anywhere, they'd not bother even starting the engine.
If you want to drive below the speed limit then that's fine, but you're just being an inconsiderate ass if you let traffic pile up behind you. Pull over and let the people behind you go at the pace they wish to drive.
There are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to drive below the speed limit, and there are also perfectly valid reasons not to. But you're either lying or stupid if you think you're some kind of saint for driving slower than everyone else and being the "victim" of people who just want to get where they're going as soon as they can. Either pull over or move to Vermont (where at least you'll fit right in), but stop bitching about people who don't want to cater to your fear of actually going.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
When you're in college, you learn how to pinch pennies. I live about 90 miles from my university, the whole trip going along a northish-southish interstate. About 4 years ago, the state raised the posted speed limit to 70 mph. I used to drive about 75, 80 on this stretch, until it rained heavily one night and I did 60 the whole way. I went up from about 28 miles to the gallon to around 32. When I started going 10 miles under the limit in favorable conditions, I got about 36-37. There is absolutely nothing illegal about going 60 on a 70. I've been doing this in a Honda Del Sol, one of the most diminutive cars on the road. So far I haven't been rear ended. Most drivers, especially truckers, see my rate and react accordingly. As long as I stay in the right lane, I'm not holding anyone up or harming traffic flow. And frankly, if you get pissed off for having to react to my slow moving vehicle, I'll get a rise out of your irritation and keep on doing what I'm doing. Especially if you're driving a huge SUV or a BMW.
When I lived in the Florida panhandle, the speed limit on the main highway (I-10 - 2 lanes of traffic each way, very large median between*) was 70, with a posted minimum speed of 40. That's barely more than half the speed limit, and there's still a fairly significant number of people who go below it. Even with on-ramps sometimes being a mile long, with plenty of chance to accelerate up to the speed of traffic, people would STOP at the end of the on-ramp. Seeing behavior like this finally helped me understand how I was hearing about multiple car accidents blocking the highway on the radio every other week.
After moving to the DC area, I was shocked the first time I went on the Beltway (4+ lanes of traffic each way) where the speed limit is 55, yet the flow of traffic (outside of rush hour, when there is no flow) is closer to 70.
*I mention the median because sometimes I would hear about a single incident closing down the highway in both directions.
End of line..
Pricing insurance does not, in itself, require a complete (or even partial) understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between a rating variable and exposure to loss. The insurer (i.e., actuary) need only demonstrate that [1] inclusion of the variable in the rating plan results in a model more predictive of loss than without it; [2] it is verifiable; and [3] the variable is not "unfairly discriminatory"--that is, its use in risk classification is allowed by regulators. In truth, many other issues do come into play but these are the primary factors that the actuary considers when researching a new rating variable.
To the extent that a correlation or causation is hypothesized or believed known, the actuary seeks to confirm it with historical data.
The personal insurance market is very competitive. Insurers will try to develop the most accurate rating plan possible because they want to avoid adverse selection. Thus pricing actuaries do keep on the lookout (especially in bad underwriting cycles such as the one we're in right now) for more sophisticated ways to classify risks in their book, and if it is determined that elderly drivers who play games are a better risk than elderly drivers who do not play games, then a discount is actuarially justified and its use may provide a competitive advantage.
Of course, that doesn't mean an insurer would actually use that variable, as one has to consider whether it can even be reliably known whether an individual is a gamer. What does that mean? You play more than N hours a day? You own a game console? How do you confirm this during the underwriting process? Does it drop off if the insured stops playing? Do they qualify if the grandson is the actual gamer in the household but the insured only plays very occasionally?
To give you an example of how important verifiability is, note that in personal auto, the generally accepted exposure base is car-years, although mileage would be more predictive (think of it: two cars bought on 1/1/2000, one driver drives 40,000 miles/year, the other drives only 1,000 miles/year--which one has more exposure to loss?). The problem with using mileage as the exposure base is that it varies from year to year for a given insured, and is hard to confirm. Your agents aren't going to ask every last one of their policyholders to check their odometer, and even if they did, what is the chance they'll be honest if they know their premiums are directly tied to the result?
That's why I don't put too much stock in this proposed classification--it doesn't seem that it would be sufficiently predictive of loss to justify using it, and moreover, it would be a pain to verify, for the reasons stated above.