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).

18 of 480 comments (clear)

  1. Private Car Cameras by slifox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    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" ... correlation does not imply causation

    1. Re:Private Car Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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)...

      I'm guessing it'll go like this:

      1. teens
      2. public employees
      3. private employees
      4. you

      (note, for many #1-3 will already be you.)

    2. Re:Private Car Cameras by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except one of their partners is Drivecam.com

      Drivecam advertises a behavior-based risk mitigation program for fleet drivers.

      And their site lists a bunch of private companies that utilize their technology.

      I think the idea is right, but the order should be:

      1. private employees
      2. teens
      3. public employees
      4. private citizens who have received traffic citations; as a probation technique
      5. private citizens; get a discount from certain insurance companies
      6. private citizens; required to have by some insurance companies
      7. all private citizens; required by law in all vehicles
    3. Re:Private Car Cameras by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?

      Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?

    4. Re:Private Car Cameras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.

      I guess you've never worked for an insurance company, this would not seem unreasonable at all to many of the actuaries I know.

    5. Re:Private Car Cameras by xelah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ditto. And if you discover the insurance company raised your rates after you install the camera, then just switch companies. That's one of the advantages of not having a monopoly-based system.

      Ultimately you'll run in to adverse selection if this becomes widespread. Here's the simplistic version: Drivers start off all paying x, but some are safer than others and the camera picks this up. The safest drivers install the camera and save money. The average safety of those without a camera falls, so the non-camera premium rises. The safest without one install the camera and save money. The average safety of the remainder falls again. And so on.

      You have to expect that someday saying no to a camera implies you are almost certainly a high accident risk, so all of the insurance companies will charge you very considerably more.

    6. Re:Private Car Cameras by Rallion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To an insurance company, if a correlation exists, it is relatively unimportant to know WHY it exists. In fact, the only reason I can think of that they would be interested in the WHY is to use that information to find other correlations.

      This isn't because insurance companies are stupid, it's because they aren't. People have this silly idea that correlation is meaningless, and only causation ever matters. However, when evaluating probabilities, causation is utterly useless.

  2. Re:Engineers play video games by dov_0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast...

    You're from the city, ye? Perhaps the fact that farmers generally live in rural areas with less congested roads could have something to do with it?

    --
    sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
  3. Subpoena by SJ2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    http://www.teensafedriver.com/faqs.htm#13

    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.

  4. Will be added to you tax ... by g00ey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. It's simple by Klivian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Privacy issues and other consideration does not matter, it boils down to one simple rule, never trust a insurance company!

  6. One simple rule by MaizeMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:One simple rule by Hazelfield · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please, mod parent up! This is spot on.

      People who think it's acceptable to monitor their teens' driving habits, cellphone position or bank transactions have an awful basic view of their children. I could understand such measures for small children up to 12 years of age or so, but after that they should be taught trust and responsibility. How are you supposed to grow up as a responsible adult if you have your parents watching and commenting your every move?

      The trouble with granting your children privacy is that you also run the risk of them doing things you don't like. They might lie to you. They might go to a parties and drink alcohol. They might even have sex (oh noes!). But this is something that is bound to happen sooner or later anyway, and it's impossible to stop teens from being teens. The solution is not to monitor your children 24/7, but to give them the knowledge and ability to handle those situations. Teach them the risks of alcohol in itself and drunk driving in particular. Tell them about STDs, birth control and safe sex. Let them know when you find out they've lied about their whereabouts and give them a reasonable punishment (e.g. not borrowing the car again for month or so). Better yet, take the opportunity to talk about said things.

      As it happens, I don't doubt that Teen Safe Driver works when it comes to reducing accidents. I just think it's an awful way of raising your children.

  7. Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy by Renraku · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  8. Easy by Huntr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. Next question.

  9. Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy by bromodrosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays. by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry, but you're an idiot.

    You're being forced to work under unreasonable and dangerous conditions.
    You are risking your life and others on the road (no sleep, exhaustion, skip eating = eventually you will fall asleep and/or pass out on a major motorway).
    Your employers have absolutely zero care for you at all - to the point where what you have said suggest they are actually, knowingly, breaking several employment laws. That's how much respect they have for you.

    What they are doing is *not* shifting the cost - it's called finding some idiot to work his arse off and pay you for doing one page of tax paperwork and not caring about *anything* else that happens to them, including if they kill themselves or others.

    Get a brain. Get the hell out. If I knew you, I'd report you AND your employer for a) dangerous driving, b) employment-related offences. That's *not* a job. It's slave labour. Screw the "credit crunch", there are millions of jobs out there that pay the same and don't involve that crap. Where the hell are your brains?

  11. You lose control when 3rd parties are involved by Dr_Paranoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.