Slashdot Mirror
Why Letting Your Insurance Company Monitor How You Drive Can Be a Good Thing
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Kim Gittleson reports at BBC that car insurance firms like Progressive are trying to convince consumers that letting them monitor their driving behavior is actually a good thing. They say that the future of car insurance is not just being able to monitor individual drivers to give them lower prices, but also to make them better drivers. 'Now that we can observe directly how people drive, we think this will change the way insurance works,' says Dave Pratt, who says that Progressive has more than a trillion seconds of driving data from 1.6 million customers. '18-year-old guys pay a lot for insurance, but some 18-year-olds are really safe drivers and they deserve a better deal.' Better big data technologies, like the telematic driving data collected by car companies (PDF) or even information gathered from social media profiles, can help augment that risk profile. 'If I'm a driver that doesn't drive that frequently, and I have a pattern that would indicate that I drive more carefully than an average person with my profile, then I may be able to save 30-40% on my car insurance, and that's pretty significant,' says Joe Reifel. For now, using big data analytics for insurers is still in the early stages. Only 2% of the U.S. car insurance market offers an insurance product based on monitoring driving, but that proportion is projected to grow to around 10-15% of the market by 2017. And other countries, like Italy and the U.K., are already using the data to analyze not just risk profiles but also to determine who is at fault in car accidents. The future, most analysts agree is create a continuous feedback loop between insurers and consumers, so that consumers will react to the big data analyses that insurers perform and change their behavior accordingly. 'Bad drivers will at some point need to improve their driving or accept [having] to pay for the real risk they represent,' says Jacques Amselem."
> They say that the future of car insurance is not just being able to monitor individual drivers to give them lower prices
So look, I've got this bridge I've been trying to sell...
...is who decides what is safe driving?
Requiem for the American Dream
Never mind they'll see you regularly drive 10-15 over the limit and think you're a risk. How about those clowns who sit in the left lane, going up hill and don't maintain speed, so everyone jockeys to get around them in the right lane(s)? You don't see that in their data stream.
Lots more examples, which I predict this thread will include.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Progressive has more than a trillion seconds of driving data from 1.6 million customers.
Using a gigantic amount of very small units tends to make the whole thing meaningless. In more meaningful terms, Progressive has about 174 hours of data per customer.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Assuming their telemetry system is limited and that "safe = slow = low prices". That isn't always the case!! Slow may very well = dangerous in many occurrences.
Insurance rates (and prices in general) as set according to market statistics. I don't see how monitoring individual people will help those people.
Too much potential for individual people to get screwed, with no real benefit to the public as a whole. Forget it.
then you have nothing to fear, Citizen.
While I agree you're within your rights to let them track you for the associated discount, the premise behind this and the assumed acceptance by the privacy-less Generation is disturbing.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Without analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay a lot of money to cover high-risk 18 year olds. With analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay less (though not nearly as low as they should be paying) and high-risk 18 year olds are uninsurable. Why? Because you're going to have to substantially raise the price on those high-risk 18 year olds now that low-risk ones aren't covering the bill.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
What are the parameters that define a "good" driver. Going below the speed limit on a highway in the left lane. Being lucky when you don't look right or left making a turn onto a street? Taking way to long to brake?
I've been driving for decades, I've put over 300,000 miles under me, but I bet those damn things would label me a bad driver for I accelerate firmly coming onto a highway, I don't brake forever coming off a highway, I tend to exceed the posted speed limit by a few miles when in the left lane and certainly when passing and i do my best to maintain situational awareness when behind the wheel.
These devices will do nothing to bring about "safe" driving because that term is still relative to skill, conditions, and environment. Flo can take her device and shove it somewhere dark, just not in my car.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
I live 2 miles up an unmaintained private logging road. An accelerometer would go nuts on all the bumps and make it look like I'm driving terribly, when in reality I'm creeping over holes, ruts and rocks at 5mph, in middle of nowhere, with nothing to hit except a moose.
Yeah... NFW am I getting this.
I don;t care what you heard. I don;t care what your independent-insurance-agent-father told you. I don;t care what any insurance industry flak says. I don;t care what the industry advertisements and propaganda say.
Insurance companies are NOT interested in reducing premiums. EVER!
If you hear it, it's a lie. Lowered car insurance premiums is a lie.Lowered health insurance premiums(ACA) is a lie.
If you don't know this, you are a fool!
1 trillion seconds over 1.6 million drivers is 7.2 days per driver. ( 1000000000000 / 60 / 60 / 24 / 1600000 = 7.2 )
Thank-you Captain Obfuscation.
Sent from my ENIAC
I'm a dreadful driver. I have a too powerful car (3.2ltr E class Mercedes). I accelerate too hard, brake late.
However I've not had a crash in 16 years and have never made an insurance claim. I've also have a clean uk license.
Put me onto a monitored system my insurance will shoot up. Why would I bother?
How can cutting the premiums of safe drivers work in practice? Isn't the idea of insurance that the premiums of those who don't file claims is what pays for the claims of others? If they cut all the premiums of the safe drivers, where is the money for the claims of the unsafe going to come from? My guesses: they are not paying out many claims since they just drop unsafe drivers, or perhaps they will simply recoup the money by raising the premiums of any driver who files a claim. In the latter case at least, your 'insurance' is perhaps no more useful than a credit card.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
we think this will change the way insurance works,
So if they find I'm a good driver, never getting in any accidents, maintain a good distance between myself and other vehicles, don't get any tickets, they'll give me a huge discount, at least 50%, from what I'm paying now, right?
*crickets*
Insurance company: We're sorry, we don't operate that way.
Me: Yeah, thought so. Just another scam to hand over my money to a private company.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
The health insurance industry did this about twenty years ago (ish. I don't remember exactly). Instead of binning people by risk and associated cost, they starting looking at people on an individual level and simply denying those who might not be profitable. It sounds good when you're angry at irresponsible drivers, and it certainly makes money for the insurance companies, but it doesn't work when you're dependent on cars on driving to make your infrastructure work and when insurance is an integral part of that (required in many states).
But what makes me a "safer driver" I've been in two accidents in my 26 years of driving. Rear ended once at a traffic light, and the other one the guy spun out across four lanes of traffic to slam into my truck, after I'd had time to come to a complete stop. And I haven't had a speeding ticket in over a decade. But I still have a lead foot, and tend to drive above the speed limit. Would I qualify as a "Safe Driver"? I have a car chip and monitor my vehicle for performance and maintenance issues, it lets me see the kind of data they would collect: average speed, highest speeds, acceleration profiles (rabbit starts, something I try to resist for fuel efficiency reasons but often realize I've done after the fact) hard breaking events etc. . .
Okay maybe for an 18 year old male to maybe get a lower rate. But otherwise, hell no.
My safe driving status should be based on what really makes for safe driving, and they haven't yet made the ODBII compliant device that monitors how alert and aware I am of the traffic around me. Of how often I check my mirrors and blind spots, of how I look ahead to anticipate problematic intersections or road conditions. Until they can monitor those, they can't really monitor safety. Speed is not a safety factor. Hard breaking may be, but it's still missing a ton of variables that explain the cause. Any insurance co that asks for this is losing a customer. I have a monitor on my vehicle already, but for my personal use and only my use.
I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
Oh sure, its great to let your insurance company track and monitor your driving habits. Safer drivers MAY pay less but i'll bet that less safe drivers simply wind up paying EVEN MORE than they do now.
These are businesses. They exist to generate a profit. Which is more profitable? Charging safe drivers less or bad drivers more? It doesn't matter if you are a safe driver, your rates eventually will go up. It makes far more sense to charge bad drivers more immediately rather than to reduce the cost to safe drivers, after all everyone is used to the current rates and like every other industry the insurance companies collude to keep prices high.
Now, that's all fine and dandy. But adding more surveillance in your everyday lives is ridiculous. All it takes is the LEO's knowing this data exists before they start pushing for warrants and access (or worse warrantless access) to it to make their jobs easier. Get a listing of all vehicles in X area at Y time on Z date, and start from there hunting for someone to force into a plea bargain. Job done, citizens safe, and did you see the hooters on that chick?
When ever someone offers you the opportunity for lower rates by providing more information, what they are really offering is the opportunity to either eliminate you from their liability pool or raise your rates. Insurance is, in an efficient market like auto insurance, a zero sum game. Those whose rates get lowered must be offset by those with higher rates unless the overall claims volume is reduced.
Bad drivers already are in a feedback loop from their insurers. Anyone who has received a moving violation or been in an accident feels the pressure of insurance premiums. It's the only reason I get concerned about a speeding ticket - $150 for getting caught doing 12-15mph over on the freeway is annoying; having my premiums go up $400/year for 2 or more years is far more punishment than the courts are doling out.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I assume what will happen is the insurance companies will find that 75% to 90% of their insureds are worse drivers in some way than average, and need to be charged more.
To establish a mean, around where they will reduce premiums (or not raise them) someone must fall outside that range - no matter how skilled they are.
I feel the only thing this information will do is justify hitting some drivers up for an increased premium. 60+ years of driving statistics, with accidents, etc, should already be providing them with the sort of benchmarks they need.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
So basically, even though many studies have shown speeding alone is mostly not a cause of car accidents, as long I stick below the speed limit, the insurance companies will reward me for being a good driver, regardless of how many people I cut off, how many lanes I swerve between lanes, how little I use my turn signals, or how much I update my facebook status and generally piss off other people while driving, not to mention how drunk or high I am while doing so.
Great idea there guys.
and the devices are temporary.
The wife and I currently use Progressive and we did their little driver-monitoring program a year or so ago. Our vehicles were only monitored for a couple months.
We ended up saving some money (Progressive was already lower than all the competition we had scoped out, but the program made it even a little lower).
Of note were the reasons given:
1. The devices were able to confirm our relatively low miles-driven.
2. The devices found that we drove during "safe" times of day (if I remember right, it's the wee hours of the morning that are the "unsafe" times, probably due to increased rates of drunk driving).
3. My wife saved a little more than me, due to my slightly higher incidences of "rapid stops." Apparently I should've punched through those yellow lights to save time AND money.
Insurance isn't supposed to be about profit, it's supposed to be about cost-management. Say that for every 1,500 people, one of them will be in a car accident each year. The average cost of a car accident in terms of legal costs, replacement, etc., we'll say is $50,000 -- or about $136.98 per day. Let's add a 15% administrative cost -- that is, the cost to hire people and collect the funds. That's $157.53 -- Now divide that by 1500 and multiply it by 30.5 (the average length of a month) you get $3.20 per month per person.
And that's how insurance is supposed to work: Distribute the costs so that the one poor bastard that would otherwise be broke, bankrupt, and his life ruined, avoids that fate because the risk is distributed over a large number of people. The administrators take home a reasonable profit -- that is their salaries plus maybe 5%, which is about average profit for a successful business, and you call it a day. Then you only need to manage the edge cases -- that 1% that gets in lots of accidents for no apparent reason. And those should be pretty easy to detect... since, you know, they're getting in accidents a lot. Set a threshold beyond which it's statistically improbable it could be random chance just kicking one guy's ass, and you're all set.
There is no need for any of the rest of this. The reason they put it in, is the same reason our health care went to absolute and total shit: They're determining risk based on the individual, not the group, and maximizing profit. That is, insurance today has become about avoiding risk, not absorbing it.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
You're carrying around a persistent GPS/location device, in a vehicle marked with a uniquely identifiable number. They're not really gaining anything through this if you're paranoid enough.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
If you're a sheep.
If you like being a Serf.
In that case, it's great!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Sure they are, if the decrease is offset by the revenue from additional customers. Same as any business.
We already have that data. All the traffic light license plate cameras feed into a tracking program already.
We're just not admitting we have it.
See the difference?
If we admit we already know it, you'll get upset that you live in East Germany, not America ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I took issue with Progressive when they suggested I place their device on my car. I switched to Gieco as a direct result. Who wrote this anyway, that Flo lady? Hope others also object and change insurance providers. This is too invasive as far as I am concerned.
Test their theory - get all your young, healthy friends to start engaging in risky behaviors to increase your use of the health system and prove to them that this was a bad idea.
OTOH, I'm in favor of letting young, healthy people opt out. You get to choose at 18 (26 if your parents have you on their insurance) if you want "in" on the system. If you opt in you're guaranteed the system access and benefits for as long as you remain in the system. If you opt out, you never have to buy insurance. BUT, you're not guaranteed coverage later (i.e. pre-existing conditions may be excluded and/or you may be denied or dropped - just like it is today), and hospitals are no longer required to care for you if you don't provide advanced payment - even in emergency situations.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The car insurance folks are just trying to improve the granularity of their risk calculations. The eventual will be marginally lower rates for low risk drivers, and denied coverage for the worst. Soon as that happens, some "progressive" politician would start screaming about driving being a fundamental "right", and risk based insurance rates as an infringement on that "right". I see an "O`bama-care" version of car insurance coming within 5 years.
If you reguarly drive 10-15 over the limit, you ARE a risk.
That would possibly have some truth to it if the speed limits were set with safety in mind.
If they're really looking to see who is likely to be involved in an accident they should let customers opt-in to a smartphone app that detects when the phone is traveling in a car and report whenever the phone's cell (without bluetooth or headset) or data services are being used.
"You now have one point remaining on your license."
Someone I know has a Progressive monitor plugged into her ODB-II port. It beeps to "berate" her when she is driving "badly".
Apparently slowing down to stop at a red light is driving badly.
Also, slowing down quickly to avoid an accident is also driving badly.
She wants to throw it out the window, because the only time it ever "complains" is when she either stopped at a red light, or avoided crashing into someone who cut her off.
If insurance companies want drivers to use these things, they really have to come up with a better definition for "bad driving" than "slowing down quickly".
OK. Enough of the FUD; I use Progressive and I got the 30% discount.
I drive, on average, 10-15 MPH above the posted speed limit. But I leave - minimally - 2 seconds of stopping time in front of me. I'm more likely to merge going 65mph in a 60mph than 55mph, unlike many other drivers - it vastly helps traffic flow when you merge going at the same ambient speed as other drivers. Definitely not a leadfoot. Just observant.
They track when you drive, and number of "hard" stops. I had the beeper go off ONCE - when I was cut off by a driver. People will have sudden stops - deer crossings, other drivers. One or two isn't an automatic penalty. I was with another driver, and he had THREE "beeps" while stopping. Reason is he tailgates during normal driving. If the car in front slams on the brakes, he does too. It just measures the delta D over delta T, and if the ratio is too large, it determines it was a "hard stop". Like I said - you are allotted a certain number of these based on normal driving procedures.
The other part of the discount comes from when you drive - I had a second job during second shift, and drove back during the "cautionary" zone more nearly 3 times a week. I still got full discount.
Before everybody goes SCREAMING about how they're getting reamed a new asshole because Insurance Company X will know if they've gone 1.5 mph over the posted limit, settle the fuck down.
How about this? What about a sensor in front of the car, measuring current speed and distance to car in front? If you spend 0-5% of the time within 2 second stopping distance, you get 0 discount; all the way up to 90-100% of the time getting a (max) discount. That's about what the Snapshot was measuring. Jesus Christ the sky is falling!!!
Relevant link from Progressive
So, how long till someone comes out with a device that sits between these things and the car, and makes everyone a perfect driver?
That really depends on what road you're driving on.
10km/h over the limit when the limit is 40km/h is a pretty significant difference. The places where the limit is 40 are usually that way for a reason, which makes it even more dangerous. 10km/h over the limit when the limit is 120km/h, however, is not nearly as bad.
Or if you prefer mph... 35 in a 25 zone versus 85 in a 75 zone. Argument's the same, even though the numbers may be different.
this has never been about offering discounts. The monitoring technology is used as a statistical predictor of quarterly profits vs loss and helps drive the overall cost of insurance, not your discounts. the 15% discount, a maximum you can earn with the progressive program, is a $150 discount on a thousand dollar per year policy that still puts full-coverage insurance far outside the realm of the average 18 year old. many 18 year olds pay significantly more than this.
As a gay man having recently moved to the midwest from a major metropolitan area, I can attest that no such monitoring system will ever help me. because its illegal for me to get married, I pay more insurance despite having a 10 year clean record of driving. In my larger city I used zipcars for longer trips, purchasing their insurance when required. This constitutes, in every insurance provider ive checked, a policy increase for not having maintained insurance. thats right, i get a penalty for not consuming a product consistently enough. all this for the privilege of any event of an accident, in which ill pay the deductible out of pocket and wait for reimbursement because thats how insurance works if youd like your personal transportation out of the shop. Subrogation, the humiliating process of waiting for your expenses to be reimbursed, can take years.
do yourself a favour, if you want lower insurance drive a smaller or older automobile. something within the past 10 years isnt likely to break down with regular maintenance. It also allows you to come to grips with reality. Regardless of make model or features, driving in a car in the 21st century sucks. traffic is dismal, road etiquitte is nonexistent, your operating costs are also proportional to the vehicles pedigree, and you open the door for a world of new expenses like parking tickets, towing fees, and hungry meters. Stop waiting for some mega corporation to offer a discount for loyalty or a pittance for the invasion of your privacy.
Good people go to bed earlier.
My insurance company offers this, but my broker told me it wouldn't help in my case. I commute 26 miles each way to work, and this "safe driver program" is graduated based on average mileage per month. Because I drive 1000 miles a month (to say nothing of weekend trips) even with perfect driving wouldn't even save a dollar a month. I also live and commute in an area with a large urban deer population. The deer appear out of nowhere and enter the roadway unexpectedly. This leads to many abrupt stops and quick swerves. These monitoring devices just know what the car tells them, not the external circumstances. This is even before I object to it over privacy rights. I don't want a record of everywhere I drive. If the insurance company stores this data, it is likely that law enforcement (including the alphabet soup) will have access to it. Will I be marked a person of interest because I ate at a Pakistani restaurant? Will I be targeted because I frequent the state liquor store (I enjoy cooking with wine, but don't drink)? I have a big yard, so I go to a nursery and buy fertilizer on a regular basis - am I threat? Do I want the government to know that I visit with non-citizens on a daily basis? How long until this voluntary participation becomes mandatory?
In my town they just installed red light cameras, the ones that take your picture if you run a red light. Did this reduce the number of people running red lights?
No.
It increased the number of people slamming on their brakes at a yellow and getting rear ended for fear of getting a ticket.
Insurance companies have a different metric for determining what a good driver is. I seek to minimize my costs of driving which include not only my probability of being in an accident, but the time I spend on the road. Insurance companies don't care about my time costs. Additionally, they are interested in maximizing profit, not just minimizing cost. One way to maximize profit is to expand the market for your product, even in the face of higher costs. This expanded market is made up largely of people who don't place as high a value on their time spent commuting and as a result, drive more slowly. And get in my way.
I'd like to see an emphasis on getting the 'worst' drivers off the road. This would ease congestion, lower transportation costs and push otherwise unwilling riders onto public transportation. But that would cut into the insurance industries bottom line. So they will bias the definitions of good and bad drivers to keep the maximum numbers of drivers buying their product, so long as the accidents they are involved in are of the low expense kind*.
*Grandpa driving up onto the curb or through some flower beds. As long as its done slowly, most kids can run out of the way.
Have gnu, will travel.
It is nice that Fred Phelps Jr. decided to follow a different path than his father by affiliating with a different political party. Fred Phelps ran for office in Kansas several times as a Democrat. From wikipedia "He has occasionally run for political office as a Democrat. In the election for United States Senator for Kansas in 1992, he received 49,416 votes (30.8%) in the Democratic primary, coming in second after Gloria O'Dell (who subsequently lost to later presidential candidate Bob Dole)." It is disingenuous to just assign people who you disapprove of to the other party. Fred Phelps is often referred to as right wing, but his political party choice was the Democrats.
Devil's advocate here.
Maybe your friend doesn't pay enough attention to her surroundings (and stop tailgating and/or riding in blind spots), and that's why she keeps having to slam on her brakes to avoid hitting the cars in front of her at red lights, and it could also explain whey she keeps getting "cut off" by drivers that didn't realize she was riding in their blind spot (I'm not exusing them for cutting her off; I'm saying she can modify her behavior to keep other drivers from cutting her off).
Just make it voluntary and transparent.
What a laugh.
to be clear....
opt-in: your good
opt-out: at some point, you're screwed
Pretty clear message to me. The only bump in the road, that pesky Hippocratic Oath. Some doctors will still try to save an "opt-out" so you may want to add a clause to the hospital one "and any doctor helping an opt-out will assume all their medical bills till patient is fully healed or dies.". That might make people think longer than today.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
Yeah, because there's no competition in the insurance industry.
Oh, wait..
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
One problem: you are required by law to have insurance - except in some states, where you're required by law to either have insurance or prove that you have and keep a buttload of cash, some dozens of thousands of dollars, in the bank. Most people aren't going to like that option very much, even if it were available in their state.
Alright, I have been trying to figure out who to gripe about this for weeks now. And low and behold this post hits good old Slashdot.
My wife signed us up for Progressive's "Snapshot" about 4 months ago, and I have been driving around with the under dash device since it arrived. We have about 2 more months to go. Here are my impressions so far.
1> The device only seems to care about breaking rates. It gives an audible beep whenever you decelerate at greater than 7mph/second, without the ability to log where you are it can't correlate speed limits or traffic patterns.
2> It does not seem to take into consideration terrain or slope. I can safely decelerate at greater than the require speed when going up hill, and frequently do.
3> it does not take into account state recommended yellow light timing. Here in the state of Texas our Department of Transportation recommends yellow lights last 1 second for every 10 miles per hour of the speed limit. This means that they expects us to be able to safely decelerate at 10mph/second. But they also suggest yellows last no more than 6 seconds, meaning on roads with a speed limit of 70mph or greater the expected rate of deceleration is even greater. So either I need to be precognitive and start breaking before the light turns yellow, or I decelerate at 7mph/second and end up somewhere past the light that I am stopping for.
This leads me to one conclusion. This device is not intended to benifit consumers. It is a thinly veiled Pavlovian training device to reduce accidents, benefiting Progressive. But since the "safety" standards are so far off of regulatory recommendations it is nearly impossible for anyone to actually meet the standard and get the promised discount.
I have considered contacting the state insurance board, or a class action lawyer, but I don't know that either would help.
Yet another example of "hey do tihs, it's good for you!" is a laughably transparent rendition of "Hey, do this! it's good for us".
This is only good for you if you're an angelic driver (and only until you make a single mistake, regardless of tickets or accidents.). The more accurately these insurance companies can measure risk, the more apt they are to stick it to anyone who doesn't fit their models.
the whole premise of insurance is to spread unknown risk over a population of people paying into the system, as that risk becomes better 'known', the more likely adverse selection is to occur . And the benefits of that better measurement are not accrued to the insured. So while the perfect driver can save a few bucks here and there, a service that realistically everyone over the age of 21 is legally mandated to have (mass transit/pedestrian folk, ok cool -- but at some point in the past year i'm willing to bet you've relied on someone else's car/insurance) will necessarily become more expensive to everyone else.
Oh, and NSA/FBI/data privacy, yadda yadda.
What do people here think about getting rid of forced car insurance?
I get that it would suck if you were in a collision that wasn't your fault, but I believe it'd be better for everyone on the whole if we ditched something which mostly benefits the insurance companies in the end.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Bullshit. Reduced premiums mean their coverage is more attractive than the other guys, which attracts more customers.
(Of course you don't care what other people say, that means you have to face facts.)
True
Only true while insurance companies are sticking their fingers in the health pie.
A true universal health scheme has no need for insurance companies.
No, that's not true. Insurance companies are interested in Profit not Sales. So, if you pay $100/month for car insurance, but you get into an accident every year that they have to cover, they hate that.
The behavior that they want is for you to pay $90/month ("safe" driver discount) and NEVER get into an accident as a "safe" driver. Therefore, they pocket all the money.
“Bad drivers will at some point need to improve their driving or accept [having] to pay for the real risk they represent” ... yeah, right. If you drive at night, such as for work, Progressive will penalize you no matter how good a driver you are and how safely you drive and how many precautions you take against the possible hazards caused by darkness. They will toss you in the same premium bin with the partiers and drunks. Screw that.
Snapshot can't measure driving quality. It measures speed and distance travelled and sudden stops. Presumably if I'm driving at night and take a longer route going 75mph on a wide-open freeway, instead of driving 35mph on the shorter twisty two-lane country road with far more hazards from drivers crossing the center line or deer jumping into the road, Snapshot will penalize me for it. Again, screw that.
You damn well that the insurance companies are pushing this not for the "carrot" of reduced rates, but the much bigger "stick" of being able to nail bad drivers with higher rates.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Obviously they are interested in lowering premiums, just as long as they can maintain their profit. Lower premiums attract more customers, improve customer satisfaction.
The way they want to reduce premiums is by reducing risk. That way they can keep profit levels the same.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's an awful idea because their rates are still their rates. What happens when these purported discounts go the other way because of where you live or where you drive or that one time you were speeding.
What happens if they decide that you drive too much on the highway or in other states or in Canada or Mexico?
What happens when they realize that drive too much at night when most accidents and DUIs occur?
What happens if they track that you make too many stops and they assume you're running your own gypsy cab?
Nah it's bullshit. Rates are supposed to be based on outcomes not on insurance companies trying to micromanage those outcomes.
Sure - what can go wrong by allowing a device to track your every move?
Yes - some cars have black boxes in them. But I don't believe those are consulted until after the, eh, crime.
Although - I suppose my cell phone is already tracking my every move - in far more detail than my car ever would. Google certainly knows where I've been and even guesses where I want to go next. Friday at 5pm it pops up, "20 minute drive to [girlfriend] house with traffic"
I downloaded my insurance company's app and then took my car to a race track just to screw with their data.
Next stop, Orwellville.
In some places there is no requirement for slower traffic to drive in the right hand lane.
Because I have a heavy foot when it comes to driving. Today is a perfect example:
On I-95 in RI. I look down and keeping up with traffic I'm at 80MPH. But I do tend to leave plenty of space between my vehicle and the ones in front of me. But the thing is, these devices are either using GPS and so going to flag me for speed violations, or they're using ODB-II info and they're still gonna screw me. So I'll just pay the additional and tell them to stuff their once size fits all device straight where the sun doesn't shine.
So, I'm cruising along the highway at normal/safe/legal highway speeds. There's an on-ramp just ahead, with a car about to merge onto the high-speed roadway.
The merging driver should be going the full speed of the roadway. But he isn't. Because he's not actually a good driver. Instead, he's still travelling at on-ramp speed -- 20% below the highway limit, not at merging speed.
The safest thing for me to do is to accellerate much faster to get past the merge area before he gets to it. I have the room in-front of me, not behind me. The surface is safe, the visibility is safe, my car is safe and capable, and I'm very alert. So I accellerate to 30% over the limit for the 4 seconds it'll take.
You show me the insurance company that notices my excessive speeding as the safe driver and the slower merging car as the unsafe driver. I sped, to a speed that on paper is dangerous, illegal, and inappropriate. I just avoided a potential high-speed collision -- likely between the merging car and a third car behind me who couldn't see anything.
Had police unwittingly pulled me over, I'd have appeared before a judge, plead "guilty with a reason", and the judge would have agreed. Meanwhile, my insurance company would have done what, exactly? Would they have even asked me why I was speeding?
What if, by their judgement, I'm a bad driver, and my insurance goes up. Doesn't sounds like such a good deal then.
1. if this becomes common place, they will OVERcharge for the 'privilege' of not having them nanny your driving to the point where only few people will be able to afford it.
2. Once it does become ubiquitous, The 'savings' will disappear, returning us to previous rates, minus the privacy.
The insurance companies, as well as the future nanny state anal kling-ons, can go fuck themselves.
Rapid acceleration wastes fuel.
Not going to lie. I drive faster than the regular driver on the road. But I do have fast reaction so I think I am "safer" than a lot of those drivers. Not only in terms of me "avoiding" accidents, but also making sure I don't induce others from causing accidents either... Whether it be making sure the guy behind me doesn't rear end me, the guy on the far lane doesn't merge-collide with me if both of us try to make a lane change, etc.. I am going to guess that with that all said and done, simply b/c I drive faster, I will get higher rates than the idiot who drives like a turtle simply b/c she can't drive faster, just "merges in" b/c she can't judge the flow of traffic, and makes a left turn as soon as the light turns yellow... just b/c well, she figures it's her right of way. Never mind the guy zooming down the straight road who doesn't have enough time to stop and can still make it before it turns red.. Until they can monitor all traffic simultaneously and do data analysis of your driving in relation to other cars beside you, these "measurements" will mean jack shit and will just be used by the insurance companies to make more money from those of us who have clean records, but may drive faster than normal - simply b/c we can.
Most people already have a few too many overseers peering just a bit too deeply into the details of their lives. This creates stress, even when nothing is 'wrong' and the surveillance sounds 'reasonable', because as the number of watchers goes up, the probability of one of them finding something to pick on increases radically. Reality, your judgment, and thought process no longer matter. What matters are what the watchers are thinking. When the watcher is a computer, it gets worse as there is no contextual judgment whatsoever, making it ripe for abuse when coupled with hollywood trained computer sensibilities in typical law enforcment officers (eg auto ticketing traffic light systems). "Computers don't lie" is the operative phrase here. So, the last thing anyone needs is yet another computer monitoring and passing judgment on them via shitty heuristics like the ones you've presented here. They aren't fool proof..and they never will be. There's already too much of this in society as it is. The pantywaisted twats babbling for this can go fuck themselves.
There is no need to track a car's position.
No need? That doesn't mean there isn't a want or two in there somewhere.. Are you really that naive?
Secondly, once this takes off, those who DON'T opt for it are going to come across as the ones who have 'something to hide', i.e. bad driving habits.
Right, so I'm sure you post your passwords online for all to see? CC numbers? bank accounts? SS number? Do you leave your home unlocked? Your car? Would you give the police a key to your home? Riight. You 'got nothing to hide' people are just nanny state apologists. Go move to sweden if you like that smothering socialist feel. A lot of us don't.
scale out a bit and you'll see it's really 'no sovereignty over your life.' This thing with car 'insurance' is just one piece of it..
A cop with a speed gun, or a speed trap, or even a stoplight with a camera is **completely different** than letting a company put a GPS on your car.
You are equivocating.
Progressive will track your car's every move...that is absolutly different than anything before.
Do you think law enforcment could access Progressive's tracking data on your car w/o a warrant?
Thank you Dave Raggett
Fuck Yes - Cyclist
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
So, 'Monitor How You Drive Can Be a Good Thing'. Maybe it can. Problem is, how we drive and how they think we drive will never mean the same.
Firstly, dangerous drivers who present the most risk are not those, who drive faster, make one or two sudden moves from time to time, or drive more than the average. Dangerous drivers are those who can't drive fast enough - ever been in a jam caused by some idots holding everyone back? -, those who can't drive safely according to environmental conditions - ever seen Californians drive in a rain? -, those who are not patient enough - remember those idiots jumping lanes like a kangoroo? -, those who aretoo inexperienced to judge any traffic situation and cause even more trouble, and so on and so forth.
Secondly, if they are not there, and can't judge the circumstances, than they are in no position to make decisions on how safely we drive. They can calculate your prices based on the speeds you drive at, the roads you drive on, the moves you make, and while they all might be safe and adhering to current traffic situations, you might still end up paying more.
This is all too short to speak about all relevant issues, but all things considered, I'll never opt for monitoring-based payments. If my fees will be higher because of this, I'll still be fine with that, since at least they won't lie to my face about how honestly and objectively and correctly they calculated those fees.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Motor insurance in the UK and US runs at a loss. They pay more claims than they take in premium. Have done for years. So, yeah, on an aggregate level they are not at all interested in reducing premiums.
[FUCK BETA]
I have a snapshot and I also got one for my mom. I have a 26% discount my moms discount is about 11% because she drives a lot more.
It doesnt beep when you "slow down quickly" it beeps when you slam on the brakes. It will not beep when stopped at a red light.
It will beep when she slams on the brakes to avoid someone cutting her off. No its not her fault but yes she was driving in a riskier area. People
who drive in heavy traffic will have more stop and start driving.
Presumably the data collected could also be used by insurance companies to find reasons not to pay in the event of an accident.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
I drive like a complete idiot. But I've never been in a wreck. So I sent Progressive their little thingy back after connecting it to my grandmother's car for a month.
...this is nothing more than a leftist agenda and then trying to convince a free-thinker that it's a good thing, and the benefits thereof, and how they outweigh the fact that someone is tracking everywhere you go, everything you do, and every move you make. "Oh but it's really a good thing, because we said it's a good thing"
There are 2 groups of people you can make fun of on the Internet without fear of attack. The illiterate, and the Amish.
Progressive is owned by a liberal, so it would be consistent that Progressive would want to monitor, and control, your every move.
Insurance company surveillance only adds another arc to the open circle of government control, and further deplete our liberties and rights. For instance, I am not a speeder when I am the only one or of few on the road, but during rush hours everyone has a personal agenda, maybe as simple as a full bladder or rectum, and the daytime speed limit does not apply. If I want to not be run over, I have to go with the flow. Insurance companies have imposed themselves over every area of our lives. There are insurance offers for every thing, and insurers decide your quality of life, how much of your money you get to keep, and what share they get to claim every month while writing the rules. No, enough of that already. Insurance is another form of government sanctioned thuggery and extortion. Now insurance companies want to monitor how I drive so they can regulate their portion. People should be required to keep a certain amount in an Insurance escrow account and the money belongs to group members individually. The money in escrow always belongs to the insured unless there is a claim. Large claims are paid out of the group, which the persons who were judged at fault have to repay to the group at 1.0% interest. If the insured fails to repay, they lose their driving and car ownership privileges and can pay someone to drive them around or take public transportation until they repay their damages amount. There always will be money to pay damages and good drivers are rewarded by having access to their escrow premium money in full plus 1% when they surrender their driving privileges. There always will be people maturing into the group. Insurance is about money, control, regulation, punishment and duress. People need to begin forming self-insured unions, or coops and defy insurance companies and regulators. That's all I'm saying. Unless I am provoked into saying something else.