California's Revised Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance Draws Continued Objections

The EFF has restated many of their original privacy objections about California's latest revision to the Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance proposal. Admitting that the amended bill is an improvement, privacy advocates are still uneasy about the surveillance implications of this program. "The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the mileage driven, insurance companies can offer discounts to lower-risk infrequent drivers, and put an appropriate cost penalty on heavy drivers. The state estimates that 30% adoption of PAYD insurance nationwide would reduce miles driven by at least 10% among subscribers, and save 55 million tons of CO2 over the next ten years. The benefits of such a system could be quite dramatic, as California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is sure to emphasize. Such insurance plans first became available in 2004, and are now available as a limited option in 30 US states from insurance companies like Progressive and Liberty Mutual."

Comments

Not just privacy concerns

[geekoid]

but it lacks any practicality fo California.

All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute. Meaning more uninsured motorists.

They al ready take it into account some what, and that's enough.

This is just attempt to squeeze another dime out of people who must have this service.

Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.
Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels. If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.

insurance at the gas pump

[hypethetica]

I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump. No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving. obviously LOTS of holes in the plan, but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal.

Re:Privacy?

[Red Flayer]

I get cheap insurance because I only drive on weekends. My insurance company just wants to check the reading on my car's mileage meter every six months or so.

Lucky you. Back when I had a long commute -- despite the fact that I took mass transit to my office (with a two-mile drive to the train station) my insurance company assumed I drove to my office each day. I provided train receipts, pictures of my odometer, etc... I offered to have their agent inspect my odometer in person... but to no avail. They based their rates on a 120-mile round trip despite the fact that I drove four miles daily.

I eventually switched insurance carriers, but I overpaid on my insurance for six months because those douchebags couldn't grok the idea that someone might take mass transit even when they own a car.

Re:Bell curve???

[cduffy]

The car/truck has nothing to do with the moron driver.

But it does have something to do with the accident rate.

Maybe more aggressive people tend to buy a certain kind of vehicle.

Maybe some vehicles are more prone to flipping over in accidents.

Maybe some vehicles have lower accident rates on account of their anti-lock brakes and other safety features.

Insurance companies study these things, and their differences in rates are based on statistics. If they knew the future and could predict with perfect accuracy your future driving record, they could find the right rate for you personally every time -- but since they aren't omniscient, statistics are what we've got.