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).
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.
Privacy issues and other consideration does not matter, it boils down to one simple rule, never trust a insurance company!
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?
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?
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.
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 ?
I'm with you (and the OP of this thread). I'd love to have a camera in the car that records what's happening in front of me so that when some jackass hits me. Someone backed into my car while it was parked a couple weeks ago and took off. $2000 worth of damage (including some used parts rather than new) and $250 out of my pocket for the deductible. You'd better believe I wish I had video of that incident, because not only would they be paying, they'd be getting a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident. In addition, maybe I could find out why they couldn't see a red car parked in a lot in broad daylight.
For a side project, I've sometimes considered creating an "aggressivedrivers.com" website or something that just shows video of some of the stupid shit I see people doing out on the road. But what would be the point? It's not like anything short of dying will stop those drivers.
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 ?
Indeed! I'm one of several driving instructors in my local Audi Club who run several teen driving clinics per year. It's astounding how much they'll learn in a single day of instruction. I certainly feel better about their ability to handle a car when they leave, and (I think) so do they.
We teach basic car control, and give them the opportunity to actually lose control in a safe environment, so they know what it's like, know what their car is capable of (and isn't capable of) and mostly, just instill some confidence in them, so that when something happens on the road, they'll already have been there at least once, and hopefully won't panic.
"Driver education" as taught here in the US doesn't teach them anything about driving a car. It teaches them to obey the law (and not too effectively). If they had a solid sense of the amount of energy involved in even the most basic maneuvers, they'd probably look at speeding etc. in a whole new light. And I hope we help, at least a little, with that.
I'd love to require a course like ours for all new drivers before they get a license, and perhaps an occasional refresher for all drivers, period (even us instructors!)
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.