Slashdot Mirror
Trust an Insurance Company's "Drive-Cam?"
ramen99 writes "Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam' that records driving habits and wirelessly transmits video footage to a 'neutral driving coach' for evaluation and comment. While this might be great to monitor a new teen driver, it will also monitor other adult drivers. The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable. Would you give up your privacy to save some dough? Installation is free, and the camera mounts just under the rear-view mirror. Something seems fishy about this..." Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash (sent in by antdude).
I will never put a camera in my car that wirelessly transmits to anyone. I think a lot of people would have problems with this...
... correlation does not imply causation
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"
From TFA: Computer engineers have the worst road accident records while farmers are the safest drivers, it has been disclosed.
Computer engineers are likely to be gamers (the article didn't mention whether or not gamer was considered a profession) and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast.
Not if you put a PostIt note over it while you're driving.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
All they need are "black boxes", some cars have them already, it shows all the mechanics of the car prior to a crash, like were you accellerating up until the crash and stuff like that. It records the information they need without violating privacy (in the form of, well, we caught you fucking someone underage lol).
If a participant is involved in an accident, will anyone besides parents and their teens have access to the audio and video?
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
Which in reality means the very people you wouldn't want to show the video to will be able to see it.
Sometimes the media rewords things for a story, and the original meaning is inadvertently lost in the translation.
The actual statistic is that Microsoft engineers are responsible for most crashes.
The next step is to put equipment on your body that continuously monitors your activities where each Jaywalk and other minor infringements are added to your tax. The government will also add penalty fees for each offending word that comes out of your mouth, pretty much like Demolition Man.
Privacy issues and other consideration does not matter, it boils down to one simple rule, never trust a insurance company!
If you feel like it would be an unacceptable invasion of your privacy, it's an invasion of a teenager's privacy too. Seems like every time I turn on the radio I hear ads pushing ATTs ability to GPS track your teenager's cellphone or a banks advertising their service to e-mail you with the details of every purchase your teen makes using their debt card in real time. I'm adding this car camera to the same category.
I wouldn't want it in my car so don't put it in a teenager's either.
but here in The Netherlands, many "computer engineers" (I don't know how broad they take that term) working for a *contractor* drive a lease-car. When "we" have an accident, it is common practice to file the complete claim, because "we" don't have to pay a dime.
I can imagine that *most* people with their own cars will scratch their heads once or twice before filing the claim, as doing so could deprive them from no-claim bonus of said insurance company.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
While I wouldn't be willing to sell out anyway, it's worth noting that no discount is offered. The program amounts to "let us spy on you in your car and in return we'll...um, spy on you in your car, but won't charge you anything for the privilege."
Actually, I'd be perfectly happy to have one of these in my car...when I take it to the track. It sounds like it would be a really great way to capture all the good bits of a track day, for free, no cheap video camera and duct tape required. Plus, the drive would be scored and assessed by professionals so presumably they'd give me useful hints, like turning late in to corner 3 so I can get back on the power early for the deceptively fast sweeper of corner 4, and to stay flat out over the rise before corner 12. Thank you American Family Insurance!
The cheque is in the mail I won't cum in your mouth The insurance company would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
The problem is that these 'discounts' match a price increase of the same amount when the technology is ready for the general population. One year, your health insurance provider will give you a $10/month break on your premiums if you sign a 'I do not smoke' form. The next year, the rates will go up by $10/month, or more.
The year after that, the rates go up yet again. They then tell your employer that if any employees are seen smoking on company grounds, they'll double their premiums. Suddenly, you can't smoke within view distance of your work building.
A few months later, they start blood pressure/cholesterol/insulin/weight monitoring. With a discount, of course, if you choose to opt-in.
Insurance is a gambling game. The company is the dealer, and we, the consumers, are the players. We belly up to the table, place our bets, and the dealer gives us our cards. Of course, they've been allowed to stack the deck with their own cards and change the rules around a little bit, because let's face it, you're playing in their casino, under their rules.
This is why people have such a problem with insurance companies. You know, you pay your premiums for five years, make one or two claims, and both of them are auto-rejected, making you call and beg for them to cover it, so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for a procedure that took five minutes.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Unfortunately in a world where most people are strapped for cash at the end of the month or way before, there's *nothing* we won't be giving up to save some dough. Those who run our economy and politics have learned well: never take everything from your minions or they may revolt, leave them with barely enough to survive while threatening to take it little by little and they'll happily shackle themselves just to keep going.
This trend won't reverse, so get used to it.
Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
I think you answered your own question. If you're 25 and getting your ass kicked by insurance rates. A 'neutral driving coach' can watch me drive to work and back all they want..if it means i have to spend less $$ and if I find the need to secure my privacy.. I could get rid of the camera!
Follow Googles Gmail model, Instead of giving a discount they should give people free petrol. People prefer tot receive than to save. As Gmail has proven will sell our their privacy for receiving something.
Bound to work.
Are you stupid? NEVER!
God stop being naive.
You are already bound to handing out your privacy with many sites online. So what is the difference?
All that they ave to do is make you feel they are your friend, like give you free petrol or some gimmick you perceive has value, which you will preferably not use.
Our new electronics company offered us discounts on our computer if we agree to install a 'surf-cam' that records computer usage habits and wirelessly transmits the data to a 'neutral computer coach' for evaluation and comment, to prevent falling victim to fraud or downloading viruses ...
No. Next question.
If you're happy to have your teen's driving monitored, why would you not be happy to have your own monitored in the same way? Don't be a hypocrite and treat people with the same level of respect (and privacy) that you expect yourself. I'm sure your parents didn't baulk at the extra insurance premiums when you started to drive their car.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays in hotels unless the job has been scheduled to be completed over more than a day which has only happened once in 4 years.
This means I have to get up at 5am to drive 300 miles from one end of the country to another over motorways usually on the damn M6 then over twisty country roads for 4 to 5 hrs arrive at one of the many generic industrial parks to do a days work and then drive back usually arriving after 10pm all without going over the legal speed limits.
There is no food allowance so its sandwiches or get fleeced at the service station but then the foods is so bad I usually skip eatng.
We are also expected to work usual office hours during the days before and after customer visits no exceptions. Despite this I am often so exhausted sometimes I cannot even make it to work on time.
After making an insurance claim due to damage caused by an unknown driver find that I have to pay an enormous excess, which the company refuse to pay, this is leaving me frustrated and angry.
Why? It saves the company money, they can charge customers less and be more competative which leads to a bigger a profit.
Really what they are doing is shifting the cost of doing business on to their employees but they lose out on none financial assets like loyalty, customer satisfaction and the rest.
I really enjoy my work and would rather stay than more on else where but polices like these seem mean and dangerous.
A safe driver has nothing to fear, takes the camera, and pays less.
This is a fallacy in line with "innocent people having nothing to fear from the government" that we hear as justification for illegal wiretaps, which is patent bullshit. If I get in a wreck and it's my fault, my policy (typically) gets reviewed, maybe canceled and my premiums go up. Insurance companies serve me, not the other way around. I've had one ticket in my last 20 years of driving in a large, congested metro area and I sure as hell don't want my insurance company watching me drive.
If all drivers had to have that, we would have very precise rates for each driver. No new driver would have to cash out astronomical sums of money for insurance. Crazy idiots with bad driving habits, that have "officially" 10 years at the "wheel", will get the punch. The best point out of it will be, that we will finally close the argument who are better drivers men or women, with empirical evidence.
The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable.
Consider the question at a basic level. Is your insurance company altruistic, or are they profit seeking? For many corporations the answer is the latter. In fact it may be their fiduciary duty, unless their mission statement says they will be altruistic.
Assuming the corporation is profit seeking, you can assume that your relationship is adversarial. They may consider good treatment of the customer to be a profitable thing, but the principal motivation is still profit.
Can you tell if they treat their customers well? What evidence do you have? If you have no evidence of how they treat their customers, it may indicate that such information is not generally available. If that is the case, it is safe to assume that the company is not overly concerned with customer satisfaction.
That leaves you with legal obligation. What legal binding have they entered into? Did they put the commitment not to use the information to adjust rates in writing? Are they advertising that commitment broadly?
Assuming one of those is true, also consider whether you can prove that they used the information to adjust your rate. If they adjust the rate, and you suspect it was a result of the camera, how will you demonstrate that in a court of law?
Some corporations are altruistic (a typical example being a Mom & Pop in a small community that relies upon good neighbor status). Many other corporations are amoral. Some believe that amorality is, in fact, the right objective of all corporations. If that is the case with your insurance company, you are in an adversarial relationship and should make your decision as such.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Privacy, like freedom, is a right you should not give up so easily. At present there is really a war against privacy rather than terrorists. It's not fought with bullets, but by bit-by-bit corruption of principles. Just say no.
The only acceptable way this could work is if the device records in such a way they can detect alterations, and they can look at a span of time (say 15 mins) before and after an incident that generated an insurance claim - the rest of their life is of no interest. And that view only after you, as parent, can review before giving permission (apart from your human right to privacy you are also entitled to refrain from self incrimination - it appears you have to give up that right too).
Otherwise your child could (worst case) actually become part of a national covert surveillance system. It would be better if people coming up with such ideas thought about maybe giving some extra training, or limit the power of the car kids may have for the first year - something that doesn't involve even MORE spying on people but brings some knowledge.
In the UK they had a series where frequent joyriders had to go through a programme. Nothing worked, until they were ordered to help at an accident scene - having to help to cut kids their own age out of the wreckage.
Insert
Ride a bicycle and you can extend 90% to all drivers. They speed, pass too close and are very impatient.
They claim they pay for the roads when in fact in the UK the roads are paid for by a combination of council tax and income tax.
Fit speed limiters and black box recorders on all cars. Drivers just can't be trusted to obey the law.
I'd have to smile and look presentable while driving, making my overall life experience substantially more gainful. I'd have to get comfortabl in front of a camera, the way I'd always want to be, and i'd feel like if I did the right thing and thought about driving enough i'd make a get impression and get an insurance break. I'd be seen smoking a mysteriousley large number of hand rolled cigaretts. A phase soon to end.
...“You have the right to remain quiet. Anything that you say or do will be used against you.”.
It’s like with disease-insurance: The point of such a company is to make money. And if in any way physically possible, to sell your grandmother to do so.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
It is supposedly "activated by an erratic vehicle movement - extreme braking, cornering, and acceleration or if there is a collision". Detected by accelerometer, I guess. And then transmits -10/+10 secs of video for analysis by an "expert coach", resulting in a weekly "report" for parents.
I suppose the hourly rate for "expert coaches" are not far from what computer professionals are paid, and the time spent viewing, "analyzing" and commenting on countless clips would be prohibitive. Which leads me to believe that random footage would be captured, parents would be able to log in and see their loved ones brake and accelerate ad nauseam, which would be boring at best - and the program would mostly be used in processing (avoiding?) claims, as well as maybe play a slightly disciplinary role. For a while, at least.
"Think of the children" as an argument is a red flag--usually means there's something wrong with what you're saying and you don't want people to think rationally about it.
Usually, Mom and Dad fund teen's car (that's the car which belongs to the teen, for all you BTAF fans).
If the gadget saves m&D money, teen gets a take it or leave it option (well, teenage was a few decades ago; maybe it's changed since then...).
If the surveillance was actually something people wanted, it would be offered to everyone as the latest perk on the insurance plan.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
I was at a track day last week where my 19yr old drove my Evo for approx 20 laps at speeds well in excess of the legal speed limit. How would the insurance company view speed in excess of 120mph.
He normally drives an 8yr old fiesta but is insured for the Evo
I would guess that the daya world say that he was driving dangerously and (as I'm guessing how this would work in the future) load my policy by an enormous amount.
I guess the sme argument would apply if he drove on parts of the German Autobahn.
the drivecam monitors the driver, and no one else. So basically, this camera can only be used to incriminate the driver. it's like this:
does the camera show whether the driver is to blame?
- YES : the driver has to pay higher insurance rates since he is a lousy drier
- NO: who's to blame is unsure, and we need alternative input to find out who to blame
does the alternative method show the driver is to blame?
- YES: the driver has to pay higher insurance rates since he's a lousy driver
- NO: the other party has to cough up the dough
so basically, in the new set up the cards are stacked 3 to 1 against the driver with the camera and the 'cheaper' rates. I'd say, go for it!
90% of the computer engineer crashes were due to the operator using emacs. When you need both hands and one foot just to save your file it doesn't leave a whole lot of resources dedicated to driving.
Monstar L
I may be bound to be honest, but then who knows if I really am? No, I don't give away personal information on the web, not even anecdotes about my life. Do you?!?
I went through the AmFam TeenDriver http://www.teensafedriver.com/ website on this and found myself actually more than fleetingly interested in the capability (I have a 13yr old son who, being in the US, will be eligible to drive in 3 years). AmFam did a good job in posting a number of videos that hit the emotional part of a parent - wanting to protect while educating their children.
Then I followed the link to DriveCam.com. Now is when concern start rising. Yes - I did see an Insurance company monitoring a teenage driver and maintaining extremely personal data forever and may have been okay with that. But now the data goes to yet another service provider. In looking there, it is not clear to me that the videos or data does not go to any other company.
So my interest in helping educate and protect my son is obliterated with so many others having access to this information. I question their inability to do geo-location - it is merely one more chip and a few more bits of data to be passed! Add the name, vehicle info, date/time, location and events (yes - there will be many "events" as someone learns to drive) with audio & video.... sorry The Minority Report comes immediately to mind!!
A far more appealing device would be one that does the recording but retains the data longer. I would buy a device that informs me of "events" as they happen. Give me some information such as sudden swerving, acceleration, braking or jostling of the vehicle. Let me, the responsible parent, be able to choose if I should or should not contact my child and make a parental decision. I would love to be able to review the events at home afterwards. I am not willing to wirelessly transmit this stuff anywhere. Yes, it is after the fact and bad stuff can happen. But it is far better than not being informed like today and would give me the chance to sit down with my child and review his (her) actions as an upcoming adult.
Succinctly - I don't want 3rd parties involved. I'd pay a reasonable amount of money for the device (upto $150 or so) for us to use.
Way too slow. And it does not account for those most prominent jaywalkers - children.
Instead - put sensors in the middle of the road - except in the areas designated for crossing.
Walk over a sensor - get a fine charged instantly to your mobile phone.
- It would also charge drivers? Not if they turn their phones off - they shouldn't be talking/texting and driving anyway.
- It wouldn't charge people with their phones off or with a protective layer around the phone? Well... If they are really willing to take that much preparation just to cross the street in a non-designated spot... they will probably pay enough attention so as not to be run over by an incoming truck. Which is what jaywalking fine is there to prevent anyway, right?
- It would only charge people with mobile phones? Sure... it might not work great in Myanmar but considering that there are about 3.5 billion users now, with predictions of about 4.5 billion by 2012...
- It would take years to implement? Exactly! By then EVERYONE will have a mobile phone. Or two. Or three.
What other minor infringements did you have in mind? Spit it out. Lets get a brainstorming session going.
This IS Slashdot after all. If anyone can cook-up a way to use technology in new and oppressive ways - it's us.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
The point of insurance is to guard against the unexpected. If the companies start monitoring your every move to the point where they can predict the number and severity of claims you'll submit, then it's no longer insurance at all. They should just tell you how much money you'll need over your lifetime and you can sock away that much in a bank account yourself.
Hmmm
Regardless of how much money this deal would save you, I would say no. I am cynical about the motives of the insurance company. I am from the UK, I have seen such assurances about potentially intrusive systems given many times, in the end the assurances all turned out to be worthless. Any system that can be abused will be abused.
If you have an accident and it's your fault, then you aren't a safe driver.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
The only issue i would have with this is the sending the information back to the insurance company; i saw something similar ages ago that did the same but recorded the information onto an SD card instead; much better idea, not only for your insurance premiums but for your privacy as well.
In Google we trust.
I just found the cost for the device and a year subscription!!! $899 US!!!!! Waaaaayyyyy too expensive. http://ecommerce.drivecam.com/IW_Products.m4p.pvx?;ITEM?ItemCode=7000-DFFMS-1YR&Company=DRV and BestBuy knows you have the device .... yet another witting party.
...and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast...
You're from the city, ye?
Do you know what that whooshing sound is? That is you missing the joke. Farmers often drive tractors, which are big and slow. Maybe it wasn't that funny, but it wasn't exactly subtle either.
If it didn't record video and just information like speed, it would be great. We don't need this to help parent our kids, parents need to just give teens rules and tell them speeding is a bad idea, and going into areas you don't know is a bad idea.
There is a product that doesn't record video but only GPS tracks locations and alerts when a teen leaves restricted areas that parents allow/disallow, it texts or e-mails the parents/gaurdians if this happens. It costs about $199.99. The name escapes me but it is on the market and way better than giving insurance companies unrestricted access to recorded video, no matter if it's an accident or not and they keep the information. We don't need Big Brother creeping in any further than it has. Tin foil hats please!
This is just another way to indoctrinate kids into a world where they have no privacy and accept constant surveillance by corporate America ( and the goverment ) as the 'norm'. This is rather offensive and i hope people boycott the companies that are offering this.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Always seems to get people to toss out common sense and allow things that are just ludicrously invasive.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
After they stuff it up their tail pipe they can drop dead. In fact, we'll just photograph piles of money that we'll save by not ever letting it go to the insurance industry. The best insurance is not to do business with lying scumbag pimps and identity thieves who sit around all day thinking of all the ways to suck the life out of everything like parasitical voyeur vampires with hearts of stone.
You don't give data away, it is mostly taken away from you. Your email, your browsing all profiled.
It is highly profitable to abuse privacy or in some cases you can convince them with something of perceeived value.
Just look at the Gmail model, it is one of the strongest business models out there, it is the future.
To prohibit people from putting network linked cams in their cars... ?
Exception Duck - may or may not contain chicken.
Consider privacy as a property of an individual, just like a house, car.
In fact, there should be a price tag assigned to it: which is in the category of priceless items: I would put it for 1 billion dollar per person.
I am actually serious of the number of this valuation: privacy encapsulates the entire framework of human existence for each individual.
Now look at the proposed deal from your car insurance company: what do they offer in return of controlling substantial portion of your 1 billion dollar asset?
Their proposal suddenly looks like a joke even to consider.
Random Nick
I work for a company that is marketing this to insurance companies now. It uses GPS to track where you drive, how fast, how aggressively you accelerate or break, how far you drive, when you drive, etc. etc. etc. And it will shortly hook into the ODB2 to record all the data your car's computer records as well. And to top it off, it routinely uploads the data to a central server that the insurance companies can access, allowing them crunch all the data to their hearts content. The hook is that they will lower your rates if they can watch you. My imagination pictures other billing practices once everyone has one in their car(s). :/
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
On board diagnostics.
:) .
Figured I better add this since I myself don't appreciate undefined TLAs. Three letter acronyms
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Except that in case of all other gambling games you decide if you gamble or not. In case of a car insurance you must participate - therefore car insurance should not be run on the principles of gambling games.
Well, I would disagree on the basis that if you have an accident every 4 - 10 years and no more, then your ration of accidents to days without are still such where any reasonable person would call you safe.
You can monitor people, you can teach them to drive, you can raise the driving age to 40 however, none of that will stop the newest drivers from being the most accident prone. So yes there probably is another motivation for these devices. Humans tend to learn things from experience. When was the last time a new programmer generated completely bug free code on the first try, or the las time that a new engineer did not make a mistake in the calculations? Mistakes happen and mistakes most frequently happen with in hte group that is the least experienced.
insert inflammatory comment here!
You're stupid, and don't understand statistics or human nature. One ticket in 20 years, assuming that correlates with at-fault accidents, is an extremely safe record.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Place I used to work had cameras installed in some of the cement mixing trucks. Sounds like the same sort of camera, however I don't know if ours transmitted info back wirelessly. Talking to one of the people responsible for making the call to install them, our main motivation was to save money. Our insurance company gave us a break, and if the driver was at fault it gave us and the insurance company tremendous leverage against the driver. It was also pointed out that "they (the drivers) would probably pay more attention to what the hell they are doing if they knew they were being watched" The official explanation by our company though was "so that we can back you up if there is an accident" I am pretty conflicted over the whole matter though, cause while I chafe at the idea of big brother and cameras. We did have a marked drop off in accidents. The cameras were initially installed in a couple of trucks whose drivers seemed to have alot of "bad luck" The bad luck seemed to go away soon after the cameras were installed.
Yes, we should actually be DEMANDING that all politicians, police, etc. be monitored, have their datastreams open to the public, etc. After all, if they aren't doing anything wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? There should be public webcams in all police stations, cars, police cell phones/radios, etc. Politicians even more so. Complete video streams of their activities at all times. After all, they would never do anything wrong, would they? Heck, through in complete webcams of all CEOs, especially the Madoff types, etc. After all, they wouldn't do anything wrong, right?
Here is the tragic path from freedom to prison-in-your-own-car:
Step 1 = an insurance company promotes a free wireless video camera to help your child
Step 2 = it factually reduces risks, so this option becomes rewarded by a cut on insurance primes
Step 3 = this option extends to adults and all insurance companies
Step 4 = so many people use this option that it is socially considered as the norm ; those who refuse are the exception now
Step 5 = new insurance contracts describe the wireless video camera as a normal item, and excluding this camera is now described as a paying option, which by the way is so expensive that it has become a luxury
Step 6 = law forbids the option that excludes the camera, because it is efficient, because we want to protect the children and the people, because a lot of people use it, because those who refuse must have something illegal to hide or are just crazy.
Here is the joyful path:
Step 1 = the system works badly, many complaints for dysfunctions
Step 2 = a case of spying by an "isolated employee" is publicly revealed
Step 3 = law forbids this activity
OK. Wanna chose ?
There are things I do in my car that people may or may not want to see.
I know this response is "taboo," but why on earth don't we just have government-run accident coverage? That way everyone pays into the pool, everyone gets covered, and no-one gets rejected.
What happens when the insurance companies raise the normal rates to 10x what they are now, and offer a "discounted" rate only to those that have this camera installed? That would effectively force it on everyone without the help of any new laws.
Will it have GPS or can you circumvent the system by attatching a photo of your garage to it?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Trust? No. Install and subsequently hack to send continuous looped footage of someone playing Grand Theft Auto IV? Maaaaaaaybe....
I worked for an insurance company once. I have never met a more disgusting and dishonest group of people in my life.
Believe me when I say this if they can find a way to charge you more they will. That camera will be used for just that.
Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash
I don't buy that - how many computer engineers are women?
/ducks
My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
I saw an AP video on YouTube were a large Amtrak train was cruising along, and about halfway into the video you hear this "thud" and see a little shower of shattered class in the lower-right corner. The train had hit a car with five teens in it, and all of them died. I don't think it takes any special training to realize that racing trains to a railroad crossing is not a particularly bright idea. That said, the issue may be one of training, but there is also the issue of judgment. A driver can be technically savvy, but still do stupid things because they don't have the experience or foresight to do otherwise.
I worked for an insurance company, and they are out to make money. Where I worked, the rates were regulated by the state, and the company wasn't allowed to discriminate in pricing due to numerous things, such as credit scores (a lower credit score was highly correlated with more accidents). They got around this by advertising in areas with better credit scores, and direct mailing only to those with high credit scores.
My point is that insurance companies will do what they can to save money. Even if you're a safe driver, if there is something else they believe has a high correlation with accidents, such as where you park your car or the areas in which you drive, they may come up with an excuse to cancel (or not renew) your policy.
In addition, they will most likely be reviewing the video of people who do have accidents but got through their net the first time to find other indicators of people likely to get in an accident, and they would (in my opinion) be willing to jump at any correlation if it had a chance to cut their costs - please don't give them the ammunition.
Awesome! Now the minimum wage employees who screen thousands of hours of video can sell the best clips to whoever needs them. Say some juicy clips of you stopping at the local massage parlor while you are supposed to be working. Or clips of you parking in no-parking spots.
Actually I am going to start a company to PURCHASE these clips and broker selling them to interested parties. I'm sure each political party would like to know who is driving to rallies and meeting of their adversaries.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
doing this myself with an IP cam but decided against it. Hate to incriminate myself :-)
Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
It's not like they're out to rape us or keep us from accessing needed health care or anything bad. They're our friends, just like the nice fellows in the black helicopters.
"The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates ..."
In insurance speak, the word "never" in this sentence means "always".
Wait... OK, so there's the word trust... and very nearby there is "insurance company". Hmm. It looks like I'm going to have to double up on idiot pills to fit in today.
That the government is still omnipresent in private company dealings. If the companies get out of hand, the government can and will impose restrictions/violations against them. However, were the government to replace the private company, there is nothing to oversee and regulate the government besides the government itself.
There are already enough damned cameras all over the place in public these days, I don't need one in/on my vehicles as well! Where I go and what I do with whom is NOBODY'S BUSINESS. You could offer me FREE insurance and I STILL wouldn't go for it, you could offer to PAY me to have it there on top of free insurance, and I'd STILL say NO!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Sounds like they needed to take another Math class:
"A 6000 ton train is traveling at 65mph toward an intersection 1 mile away and a 2000 pound car full of teenagers is traveling at 65 mile per hour toward the same intersection that is 1 mile away. If the driver decides they can beat the train, how many emergency workers will it take to pry the dead teenagers from the car?"
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
It should probably go.
1. Not me
2. Not you
3. Not the guy down the street
4. No one at all
5. Nobody
6. Never in a million years to anyone.
7. Who the fuck comes up with this shit?
Teen Safe Driver providing the discount is different from the insurance company providing the discount. Especially if they are the same thing.
In this case, the insurance company is probably trying to field test the program and encourage people to sign up, so you tell select people at random they get a discount. So not everyone gets a discount you see. So on the FAQ page they say no, you don't get a discount. But if we select you to participate in a field test to calibrate and work out the bugs and get processes in place, we will give you a discount to help us.
"American Family does not have enough information at this point to provide an insurance discount to participants" means they are probably gathering information, by the above process.
if you don't have a wife and kids. In this world it's not so easy to get a job. India & China treat their people like disposable commodities, and the rest of the world is starting to follow suite.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Not only is it a flagrant violation of my privacy, but it's a serious security hole that a geeky stalker would love to exploit.
Not to mention it's just one more thing that uncle sam can subpoena.
I've been slowly reading Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us). Tom Vanderbilt has some interesting things to say about car cameras, driving habits, and what can be learned by reviewing them.
I think it might be instructive to see what happens when your family is driving. And not just for the teenager.
That's a trick question--you never stated what size spatulas and ShamWows the emergency workers are using.
(There is supposed to be a Sarcmark® here, but my $1.99 check hasn't cleared, yet...)
If a large number of drivers put in these cameras, where is the wireless bandwidth to support all of them?
In fact, how are you paying for this bandwidth now? Monthly fees?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I think that if insurance companies go this route, to make it more acceptable to the public at large, it should be more along the lines of a Black box for that of a Jet. with all the sensors cheaply available it could be easily done. The video would be from a wide angle camera front and rear, it would capture either a 5min or 10min of video that loops, it would show the speed and direction I was heading. And all data would be stored in the trunk in a crash proof box. It helps out the insurance agency and police to determine the cause of the crash/incident and protects my privacy. Only time the information would be accessed is in the event of the crash/incident/break-in. And the only way to access the information would be a data port that is only accessible after breaking a tamper proof seal. Simple and acceptable to me. As for the Coaching from a insurance company, Piss Off!!! Next thing you'll know they'll want camera's in your kitchen to make sure your eating healthy to keep your health insurance premiums low. Before you know it your being coached by Jenny Craig on better eating habits at the behest of your insurance company...that's just FUBAR .
The begining of the end...
âsIf the driver decides they can beat the train, how many emergency workers will it take to pry the dead teenagers from the car?"
One guy with a shopvac?
Reboot macht Frei.
If the insurance companies want to make it mandatory for their customers' cars to have these cameras, they should be required to go through it first. Require ALL vehicles (their personal cars, rental vehicles, etc.) driven by insurance company employees (from the guy down in the mail room to the CEO) to have these cameras. After all, they shouldn't ask others to do something they're unwilling to do themselves, should they?
computer engineers are most likely to crash
Ah, I finally understand why I occasionally need to hard reset just about every computer powered device I own.
So where do I go to find software coded by abulance drivers in their spare time?
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
We do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_Compensation_Corporation
It's shit, but it still better than the alternatives.
Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
"Insurance companies serve me"
Actually they don't have to. Policy cut. Next deadbeat please. Feeling a little entitled?
What I notice is not so much what they're promising, but what you're not saying they're promising.
They're (apparently) *not* promising not to use the footage to discriminate against the kid in regard to rates after the kid becomes an adult and wants his/her own policy. I also don't see you saying that the footage won't be shared with other insurance companies or placed in some sort of centralized database. So, you could be saving yourself a few bucks now, in exchange for screwing over your kid for the rest of their life.
And I think it's vitally important to consider that the footage could be subpoenaed by practically anyone, and could be used against your kid even if the kid didn't really do anything wrong - if the kid is in an accident, you can bet the other party's lawyer will demand the footage and try to construe it to make it seem like it shows your kid doing something wrong.
I would *never* allow such a camera in my own car - even if I own it myself - and I would *never* allow it to be installed in my kid's car, if I had a kid.
I find this idea repulsive. Just like I find social security numbers, drivers licenses, license plates, and government installed cameras in public places. Whatever happened to the constitution?
All you need to think about is the topic sentence "Trust an Insurance Company's 'Drive-Cam?'" and the bold part is all that matters. The answer is no.
But it says:
It captures the view out the front, and into the interior, of the vehicle but never saves any data UNLESS activated by an erratic vehicle movement--extreme braking, cornering, and acceleration or if there is a collision. When the device is activated, it saves an EVENT comprised of the previous ten seconds and the following ten seconds showing not only WHAT happened but WHY it happened.
So how the hell are you going to be PRAISED FOR GOOD DRIVING? "I like the way you got up on 2 wheels there junior. Nice job!"
So not only will they use this information against you for the rest of your life and beyond, it will record ONLY THE BAD STUFF and none of the good.
Duct Tape...
Ask Me About... The 80's!
I can understand the average consumer considering that way too expensive. Unfortunately, the price tag you're looking at is fair in that it does not leave outrageous margins for the seller. The cost of building the camera, boxing it up, shipping it, and installing it in your car alone exceeds half of that price tag. A year's worth of wireless data transfer and reviewer time to score your events and take appropriate action is another couple hundred, especially for teen drivers who generate a lot of events at first. Then add the fact that teens aren't likely to be customers who renew past the first year (especially if the program works, which it does), so it has to be priced to be profitable in the first year alone. What you're left with, if you look at the cost side of the equation, is that $899 is quite fair.
Look at it this way. AmFam gives it to you for free. Which means they're paying DriveCam roughly $899 per user (OK, they get a decent volume discount, granted) to give away this service. Why? They make that back and more in reduced claims cost when people use the service. It's a win for them. If you want to cut the insurance company out of the equation, I can certainly understand your motivation, and I'll say, "Be my guest". But somebody has to pay the piper. If that's not the insurance company doing so because they'll save even more later, then it's got to be you. And sorry, $150 isn't even close to the actual cost of the service.
I worked for DriveCam, and I worked on the TeenSafeDriver site and system.
DriveCam is the originator of the product, and it was sold up through the insurance companies as a way of reaching the consumers. Originally, the product was built primarily for fleet management, but it had such a positive impact on both driver performance and driver injuries (maintenance costs go down, insurance costs go down, driver accidents go down, driver injuries go down), that some in the company thought that it had to be beneficial to the consumer market.
First, some simple details about the program:
- The system has two cameras: one pointing out the front windshield and one pointing into the cabin of the car. This is so you can see the state of the driver as the issue occurs.
- The cameras are continuously running, but they don't record unless an "event" occurs, based on a 3-dimensional velocity switch in the camera. Once the switch is thrown (say, by hitting the brakes too hard, or getting sideswiped, or rear-ended, etc.), the unit takes the previous 10 seconds of video and the *next* 10 seconds of video and stores it as an event.
- The unit also has a "panic" switch, where the driver can manually capture an event when needed (for example, if you were sitting at a light and witnessed an accident, hitting the manual button might capture critical data for those involved).
- The unit continues to accrue events over time, uploading them to the DriveCam service center for review on a nightly basis (first models of the cameras were wi-fi based, but more recent models have cellular data transfer systems, as DC couldn't count on consumers having wi-fi networks).
- DC reviews all of the videos, scores them based on a number of criteria, and then forwards the scored videos to a portal that the parent and student can see. The insurance company ISN'T INVOLVED AT ALL under normal circumstances. Overwhelmingly, the videos captured are of fast starts, excessive braking, goofy donut stupidity and the like (more on this in a bit).
- RARELY, as in when it is relevant for investigation of an accident, videos are forwarded to the insurance company and/or authorities, but only when absolutely necessary. Generally, this happens at the request of the driver and/or parents, NOT from the insurance company and/or authorities. IN ALL CASES, videos are only released by authorization of the driver and/or parents.
Privacy is a big deal at DC. Only qualified review personnel are allowed to see the videos. Note that there have only been a VERY SMALL number of videos leaked by DC (search "DriveCam" on YouTube, you'll see what I mean), and those that are leaked are available on the DriveCam website.
The TeenSafeDriver (TSD) program is specifically engineered to make it possible for the parent to see how the teen driver is doing, especially in that first critical year of driving.
To say that DC was trying to prevent teen deaths in accidents would be oversimplifying the model. For each teen death in a car accident, there are a dozen serious accidents, over 70 minor accidents, and 300+ near misses. DC is just as interested in reducing the number of minor accidents and near misses, for obvious reasons (if you don't have one of those, you're clearly at a lot less risk for having a serious accident).
There are also other issues of privacy that can come up. I can't tell you the number of times we got video of kids smoking pipes, drinking beer (from bottles) and all kinds of other crazy shit. When we saw video of these kinds of things, our policy was to set the video aside, and look for trends. If the behavior was especially dangerous (like drinking and driving), we would contact the parents DIRECTLY, and counsel them about the video contents privately and discretely.
Again, the insurance company itself was never a part of these conversations. The goal was to identify risky behavior and to help the parents work with their teen drivers to make better decisions and be better, safer drivers.
Answer: One. With a LOT of cotton balls and q-tips. And you'll need DNA evidence to determine which bits belong to which kid.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."