Slashdot Mirror


Uber's Smartphone-Based Gyrometer Monitoring Seems To Be the Future of Driving (thestack.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Uber has announced that it has been conducting trials in Houston, Texas, since late 2015 which use data from the gyrometer in drivers' smartphones, combined with accelerometer and GPS data, to perform forensic analysis on Uber journeys where the customer flagged up errant driving behavior such as speeding or tailgating. Uber's post also indicates that talking on a phone whilst driving may be included as a factor in safety-oriented trials. The auto-insurers' move from dedicated telematics technology to smartphone-based data provision was spearheaded by British insurer Aviva in 2012, with massive U.S. insurer Progressive now actively pursuing driver monitoring. However the premium reductions are diminishing as the practice heads from experimental, to default, to obligatory — or so many believe.

85 comments

  1. 3 Uber stories on the front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 Uber stories on the front page? Isn't this enough Uber shilling for one day?

    1. Re:3 Uber stories on the front page? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      The advertisements with the green lead in line are how the bills get paid around here now that all you nerds are using adblocker.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    2. Re:3 Uber stories on the front page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean when they're not shilling for communists?

  2. Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Do insurers really believe people drive the same way when they know the monitoring device is plugged in?

    I've watched a few episodes of Cops, and the roadside interviews on camera are astonishingly more polite than some I've experienced.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do insurers really believe people drive the same way when they know the monitoring device is plugged in?

      Of course people drive differently when being monitored 100% of the time. That's kind of the point here, behavior modification to make driving safer.

      I've watched a few episodes of Cops, and the roadside interviews on camera are astonishingly more polite than some I've experienced.

      Polite or not, every time I see a "roadside" interview I want to drive a sign into the ground that reads "PLEASE DO NOT FEED THE NARCISSISTS".

      Pretty much sums up the benefit of that activity.

    2. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      And the driving differently part is what motivates the discount. You use the device, you have less accidents. The insurance company pays out less money. They pass on part of the savings. Everybody wins financially. In terms of things like privacy and civil rights, that's a much different discussion. At some point, this will be mandatory but that will coincide with the time frame of self-driving cars to the whole thing may be moot.

    3. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they lie less too, which is absolutely huge for insurers. Getting people to tell you the damn truth means you can offer the best deal to the drivers who are low risk, not just to the ones that are best at lying.

      For many years UK car insurers could legally check if you'd been convicted of driving offences, since obviously people who commit driving-related crimes are a higher risk. But checking with the government meant doing a lot of paperwork, might take a week, cost a bunch of money, so they'd skip it unless they found other red flags. Which meant you could lie about small offences. Drunk driver? Try lying, probably your insurer will give you the cheap option for people with no record and never find out. If they catch you, say you forgot, pay the difference, no big deal.

      So, the government bought a computer system and published an API. Suddenly for the insurers authorised to use it, it's just a $0 API call in under a second to find out if "Bob Smith with driving license #XYZ, living at 1 Somewhere, Someplace" has a current license, is licensed to drive the vehicle they want you to insure, and whether they have any unspent convictions. Insurers went from "it's cheaper to just trust drivers not to lie" to "it's cheaper not to even bother asking drivers, just ask the computer". Everybody who'd been lying finds their insurance costs shoot up, those who told the truth get it a little cheaper. Hooray.

    4. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      "since obviously people who commit driving-related crimes are a higher risk."

      That might less obvious than you think. Drunk drivers are a class of their own, I don't want to talk about them. But, people with a lot of tickets aren't necessarily any more dangerous than you, or your Grandma, or the idiot who drives ten mile below the speed limit all the time, or any number of other fools.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    5. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Hylandr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No this doesn't work as intended.

      Progressive penalizes you for what's called a 'Hard stop' which is 7 Miles per hour of deceleration per second. Living in Austin Texas at the time taught me a few things to avoid the penalty.

      - Run most if not all stop signs in parking lots,
      - Not give any shits about yellow lights
      - Run some red lights if the yellow was too short.
      - Switch lanes rapidly to avoid cars slowing down for *anything*
      - Increased my anger at other drivers for forcing me to hard stop, ( eg: playing it safe and avoiding a head on as someone gets into the wrong lane )

      I had to effectively dive my vehicle like a golf cart to avoid the hits to my discount which translated into poorer driving habits that have persisted long after we switched insurance companies.

      I am not alone in this either. You can spot a progressive driver a mile away.

      Also a good write-up by a blogger here:

      https://blog.joemanna.com/prog...

      --
      ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
    6. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      It will be much easier if they offer a discount to drivers who install software on their cell phone than if they try to mandate it.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    7. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      The insurance company pays out less money. They pass on part of the savings.

      Speaking as someone who has just had to shop around for their car insurance... no they don't. The one doesn't automatically follow from the other.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    8. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When central planning goes wrong. Take note here, this extrapolates.

    9. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So we don't actually have to watch them, just make them think they are being watched?

      https://xkcd.com/810/

    10. Re:Tracking drivers doesn't seem progressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time I've had an accident, it has been because of other factors distracting me from my task. This can go one of two ways. It will temporarily change my driving behavior and I will revert over time. Or it will increase my likelyhood of an accident by increasing my mental workload.

  3. Careful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The drivers may notice the leash they're on if you tighten it too quickly.

  4. Forces 2 phone workaround by Serialkoala · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, then Uber drivers and anyone else being monitored for insurance etc, will resort to carrying 2 phones. One tied to their car, one for calling/texting so they can do both simultaneously and not get dinged.

    1. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I can see an app that hooks in so the gyroscope data and such are not handed over, or faked. An XPrivacy, or a PMP (protect my privacy), perhaps.

    2. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by swb · · Score: 2

      I don't think I've been in an Uber where I've seen the driver with less than two phones.

      I'd always assumed one was personal and one was their Uber phone, but maybe for some one is Uber and one is Lyft so they can pick and choose based on where they are.

    3. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by geekmux · · Score: 1

      So, then Uber drivers and anyone else being monitored for insurance etc, will resort to carrying 2 phones. One tied to their car, one for calling/texting so they can do both simultaneously and not get dinged.

      Speaking of dings, feel free to elaborate how an Uber phone addict is going to use 2 phones to text their way out of the accident they caused due to distracted driving.

      Then elaborate as to how this texting addict is going to explain to Uber who monitors this kind of illegal activity why they should not be fired for causing an accident doing something they agreed not to do while driving for the company.

      Not get dinged? Yeah, fat chance of that.

    4. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well considering that most texting and driving does NOT cause an accident (source: most people do it, and we haven't of 80% of driver fatalities) then yes, avoiding the monitoring solves the biggest risk, namely getting caught.

    5. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      'Most people do it'?
      No, most people do NOT do it. A large percentage, probably. Most? No.

      But tell my last truck that it is OK to text and drive. When the 17 year old came strolling through the intersection at 55+, broadsiding me and rolling it on the roof...That was not a fun way to spend my lunch hour.

    6. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      if you are so stupid as to spend more money to call and text while you're driving and increase your risk of an accident, you deserve all that will happen to you

    7. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by geekmux · · Score: 1

      Well considering that most texting and driving does NOT cause an accident (source: most people do it, and we haven't of 80% of driver fatalities) then yes, avoiding the monitoring solves the biggest risk, namely getting caught.

      If you're going to try and use this argument, then I see seat belts as not only a pointless thing to wear, but should be an optional accessory in cars.

      After all, it's not just "most" of the time you don't need a seatbelt when driving. It's more like 99% of the time.

      We're approaching 20% of all accidents with injuries in the US being related to distracted driving. How large does that number need to get for people to realize it's a problem, especially when running a company where you are not merely responsible for the life of the driver...

    8. Re:Forces 2 phone workaround by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      maybe for some one is Uber and one is Lyft so they can pick and choose based on where they are.

      My sister drives for Uber and Lyft. She has both on the same phone, and that has never been a problem. She started out just driving for Uber, but added Lyft for the extra business as soon as they stopped requiring that stupid pink mustache on the front of the car.

  5. Future? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

    The day this shit becomes compulsory for Progressive is the day I find a new insurance company and/or buy 7 more cars (junkers) so I don't have to carry auto insurance. Uhhh, well, maybe not that second option.
    Regardless, this sounds less like the future of driving and more like the future of getting boned on your insurance rates.

    1. Re:Future? by geekmux · · Score: 1

      The day this shit becomes compulsory for Progressive is the day I find a new insurance company and/or buy 7 more cars (junkers) so I don't have to carry auto insurance. Uhhh, well, maybe not that second option. Regardless, this sounds less like the future of driving and more like the future of getting boned on your insurance rates.

      As car ownership declines into nothingness as we face the inevitable future of autonomous driving with vehicles we're not even allowed to own, expect the insurance bullshit to get worse.

      Much fucking worse.

      Here's an example...you act like you're going to have a fucking choice of who you run to when you leave Progressive. You won't, once human monitoring becomes a Federal mandate.

    2. Re:Future? by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 1

      I don't think it'll happen soon, at least where I live. There are many things that are far more dangerous on the road that are allowed, like motorcycles and the horse and buggy (I live somewhat close to a Mennonite community). Regardless, they'll have to pry my keys from my cold, dead hands.

    3. Re: Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much. Could someone in congress sidestep their cronyism and stand up for us please? Anyone? Anyone? Why does Silicon Valley get a free pass on shit like this? Just ridiculous.

    4. Re:Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The day this shit becomes compulsory for Progressive is the day I find a new insurance company and/or buy 7 more cars (junkers) so I don't have to carry auto insurance. Uhhh, well, maybe not that second option.

      Regardless, this sounds less like the future of driving and more like the future of getting boned on your insurance rates.

      It's why I keep turning down the offers from State Farm, nowhere does it say that they won't use the data as an excuse to raise rates. That data is also fairly nonsense, without data on what was around the car there is no way to know why the brakes were occasionally applied hard, and who cares if someone is accelerating quickly on an empty highway but the tracker doesn't know that he's not on a residential street.

    5. Re:Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insurance is a mandate already. It won't become a double one. The government doesn't care how you get insured, and they don't want your driving data (hint: they assume you're terrible at it or they wouldn't have insisted that everyone get insurance).

      This is entirely about insurance company profits. And when the insurance companies pass a certain threshold for premiums, it will be cheaper for people to start self-insuring. And when that happens, someone will come along and offer to use his self-insurance to insure others... for a periodic fee. He'll call that fee a "premium". And then you'll have another insurance company. It'll be in its infancy, with just a simple pool of money. It will soon invest that money to make more money. Then it will turn itself into a bank. Then it will build little electronic monitoring devices to make sure that it's maximizing profits. Then it will raise its rates to a point where people will find it cheaper to self-insure instead...

      In short, don't sweat it. This too shall pass. Sic semper finis.

    6. Re:Future? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Didn't Rush predict this in 1981 with "Red Barchetta"? Genius!

    7. Re:Future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried progressive snaphot, it was awful and not spec'd for city driving....safe acceration and stopping short basically required you to just release the brake for several minutes when going and letting off the gas several blocks and then riding the brake when stopping...try that when two lights are out of sync with 30 feet between them. Im generally light on the gas and got beeped when my coffee wasn't even spilling out or not feeling like I was moving forward or pressing back into my seat. They should call it the 90 year old "granny shot" because you have to drive like you half blind and with arthritis in your ankles..

    8. Re:Future? by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Quite the contrary. Red Barchetta predicted cars so safe and crash-proof that they could be used as battering rams against older cars. The aggressor vehicles were definitely being driven by people, however.

      Song's based on "A Nice Morning Drive."

      http://www.mgexp.com/article/n...

    9. Re:Future? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It seems unlikely. I do not know as fully autonomous vehicles are anywhere near as close as you seem to think they are, either. For a small example; There are people like me. I've not actually insured a single vehicle that I own (and I own quite a few) in a very long time. Instead, I just insure my license. Any vehicle I drive - even if I do not own it, is insured. And, to touch on the second part, I own a significant number of automobiles - as an aficionado and a collector of sorts. I doubt they'll prohibit them for a long time to come.

      I don't know when you expect autonomous vehicles, fully autonomous, but I suspect it's going to be quite some time before you see that.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  6. Gyro data is misleading by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

    Say you break heavily because some arsehole cuts you up and hits his breaks. Happens a lot in the UK, because if you leave adequate stopping distance in front of you some prat will pull into it, realize he is going to read end the guy in front and stomp on his brake. According to data it looks like you are a bad driver who brakes heavily sometimes, even though you are avoiding someone else's mistake.

    Similar issues exist with telematics that uses the ODB-II port to monitor the pedals. In cars with small engines you need to floor it to get up hills or accelerate to motorways speeds, but to the telematics it looks like you have a lead foot and enjoy accelerating hard.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Gyro data is misleading by N1AK · · Score: 2

      What you're talking about isn't an issue. You don't analyse driving based on samples small enough that one incident of hard breaking is going to flag up as an issue. We analyse our fleets performance and the smallest interval we'll typically do any analysis for is ~50 hours driving. A driver would have to show a consistent bias towards excessive breaking over weeks before we'd investigate further. In our case we'd then look up the incidents on the dashcam before taking any action, but with thresholds set right the odds of a completely innocent driver being pulled up will be negligible.

    2. Re:Gyro data is misleading by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Also, I have not seen any links between acceleration and accidents.
      Cars accelerating up to speed isn't when accidents typically happen. If anything, those who merge onto a road without having stepped on it are far more likely to cause an accident. Even if they're not always involved.
      Avoiding using more than the first tenth of the gas pedal isn't defensive driving, it's creating dangers for everyone else who already are driving at legal speeds.

    3. Re:Gyro data is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing happens in Austin. Someone pulls in, then does a 60-0. Every. Single. Day. No matter how much space you leave, you will be standing on the stop pedal.

      This is why I would never buy an OBD-2 diag monitor that the insurance companies want installed. Flo will blame me for piss-poor driving when in reality, there isn't anything I can do, and I've not had a collision in decades (knock on wood.)

    4. Re:Gyro data is misleading by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      It's less that hard acceleration per se is an issue (or hard braking), but rather a pattern that combines a lot of the two.

    5. Re:Gyro data is misleading by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The driver who is aware of their surroundings but drives in places with crazy drivers will break a lot and sometimes hard, but not cause accidents

      The driver who does not care about the car will break softly and ding other cars, and cause far more accidents ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    6. Re:Gyro data is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the entire *point*! They only want to judge drivers based on misleading data that makes drivers look worse so that they don't have to pay out any real discounts. (But make no mistake, other, more valuable data, is being collected. You're just not being judged based on it.)

    7. Re:Gyro data is misleading by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's less that hard acceleration per se is an issue (or hard braking), but rather a pattern that combines a lot of the two.

      I still don't see it. Is there any reason to believe that hard braking is more dangerous when also combined with a pattern of hard acceleration, than hard braking alone?

    8. Re:Gyro data is misleading by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I'm almost tempted to sign up, hire myself to drive, than spend the day at a track burning up a set of tires.

      Just to fuck with you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    9. Re:Gyro data is misleading by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Bottom line, it doesn't matter WHY there's a connection, only THAT there's a connection. If a given driving pattern is correlated to higher claim expenses, then it's entirely reasonable for an insurer to charge people who display that pattern a higher premium, and vice versa.

    10. Re:Gyro data is misleading by N1AK · · Score: 1

      The driver who is aware of their surroundings but drives in places with crazy drivers will break a lot and sometimes hard, but not cause accidents

      Citation needed, or are you just making stuff up because it 'sounds right' to you. Our drivers do the best part of a million hours driving a year so I'll base my position on the results of that data, and the fact that our insurers discount based on exactly the factors you're claiming would increase accidents thanks.

    11. Re:Gyro data is misleading by KGIII · · Score: 1

      They're full of shit. Not only am I an automobile aficionado but I worked in the traffic modeling industry, have driven professionally, and have taken countless advanced driving courses over the years. Hell, I've even gone on vacation (at considerable expense) to take special driving lessons, including classroom time and time spent with a professional coach in the passenger seat or in the driver's seat, while renting exotics and I spent *days* doing laps at Nurburgring. That's just *one* of many examples. I've taken lessons in everything from open-wheel/CART to asset protection. I've driven on track and closed "street" courses. I've rallied and I've driven giant vehicles with a bunch of armed men inside of them - including one where I had an armed man poking his head out the roof on a regular basis - if not constantly. Yet, I suspect they'd argue with me. About driving... It'd be like me arguing the best way to use a Java library...

      If you are aware of your surroundings then the exact opposite is true - you're NOT hitting your brakes often and hard. If you were aware of your surroundings then you'd not NEED to hit your brakes often and hard. It's important to note, an absurd percentage of people think that they're above average drivers. It's pathetic how little most drivers actually know and how poorly they drive. You're not a race car driver, you're on an open road with other people around you. Don't drive like you're in a race. Drive like you're on the street. There's a time and place for heavy braking and acceleration, that time and place is not normally on the street. If you're doing either, on the street, it generally means that you're doing something horribly wrong.

      Here's one that pisses people off. Nearly all accidents are because someone was driving too fast for the conditions. That is factual, yet so few people understand it. More often than not, someone will try to argue with it. For some reason, they think they know more than someone who's very experienced, highly trained, and actually has a record to back up their claims. But, damn it, they've got an automatically shifted Ford Focus and it's got a spoiler AND it's the S package! They've only had two accidents in the past five years and they are an expert driver who has had their license (standard license) for 12 years now! It's kind of amusing, to be honest.

      That they think (maybe because they not "causing accidents") that they're a good driver and qualified to not just opine authoritatively but to argue with you after you clearly indicated specific domain knowledge is a great example of people who should have their license revoked on general principle. How these people actually manage to drive without killing someone daily is a testament to the skills of others - and not them. (Typically the folks who designed the roads and the vehicles have done a good job at keeping a lot of people from harming themselves or others out of a combination of ignorance and arrogance.) What they said is so exactly wrong that it is exactly opposite. As near as I can tell (and this is with some effort applied) I can not think of how they could have made that statement any less correct without including explosives, a cell phone, and a pet zebra in the back seat.

      And people wonder why I point out that modeling traffic is akin to modeling chaos... You can account for everything, including the colors of automobiles and the sky, and then some drunk idiot will drive, in reverse, the wrong way down a one way street. This, that person you replied to, this is an example of why we have so many deaths on the road. Seriously, they think they're a good driver. Hell, they think they know more than someone who works in the industry. Yet they say something so patently wrong that it's laughable. Sadly, it's not a troll. They seriously believe they're correct and that they're a skilled driver.

      It is people like them who are to blame for you not being able to get a light-weight automobile as easily any more. It's people like them who made it so that side impact cur

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    12. Re:Gyro data is misleading by KGIII · · Score: 1

      That would be awesome! I believe that, during the week, I can get onto the track at Daytona for just a few bucks during the week. I've got my 6 series with me. Hell, want to take turns? We can even buy some slicks and see if we can how high we can get the LA to trip. I'm game for something like that - I'll even let you drive my car for a few laps (it's insured) if you want. It's "that" 6 series. As in dual turbo and ~450 ponies. It's a bit heavy feeling but actually very poised. I've not put it on a track but I've played with it. It's about 3.5 for 0-60 and has giant brakes (we'll need to replace those too when we're done) so it stops almost as fast. Once you get used to it, you'll find it behaves a lot lighter than it is but you can still throw the ass out, on command, and just rip into it. You can, I know, be tooling along at 60, drop it into 3rd, peak the RPMs, and smoke 'em and toss the ass end out sideways like that.

      What are you gonna bring to Fuck With Uber Track Day? Ha! I should sign up for Progressive and do that too. I already insure my license so anything I drive is automatically insured. I do so through a private insurance company. I could give two shits what Progressive thinks. I just want to read the letter, email, or get the phone call that asks what it is that I'm doing and that I need to pull over immediately as they'll be refunding my premium, in part, as I am no longer insured by their fine company.

      I like the way you think! We could get a whole group of us together. We'll never, ever, be covered by Progressive or allowed to drive for Uber again. Oh wow... We could get some older vehicles and then put them inside of vehicles used at one of those demolition derbies! My Saab has a blown engine so I've nothing to rally with (really) so that's not an option at the moment but that'd be a whole lot of fun too. There's a privately owned, but public has access - but not right of way, road called the Golden Road back up in Maine. It's like 90 miles of road and it's one of the ones where we hold/have held a rally race with our local club before. We could do the NEFR course - I've got access even when there's no race in session to a good portion of it. It's a blast! There could even be a legitimate destination and start point so that we completely fuck with Uber.

      As they collect the data AND provide insurance... Oh, I'm not thinking of fraud. I'm wondering if they forward that information automatically to the insurance provider? We should seriously do something along those lines. We can even record ourselves, put it on YouTube, and let others live vicariously through us! 'Cause, I'm there for you - I'd not let you undertake something of this level of importance (or risk!) all alone. I can't believe nobody has thought of this with the existing Progressive type devices that hook into your OBD-II slot. I truly don't give a shit, and never will, what Progressive thinks of my driving. I can also afford a few dollars for something this entertaining - there are MULTIPLE ways to screw with them. From rallies to demolition derbies to track day! I'm sure we can come up with more. So long as we never, ever, make any effort to cash in on the insurance - it should be entirely lawful. It shouldn't even be remotely a problem to go through a set of tires at the track, like you mention. Just so long as we never actually try to cash in on the insurance... I'm pretty sure that will get us into a whole bunch of trouble. At that point, it stops being funny.

      So, yes... I'd not want you to have to face this type of dangerous task on your own! I'm afraid I must go with you and help keep you safe.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    13. Re:Gyro data is misleading by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of just piggy backing on a SCCA track day and bringing my mild Mustang (300HP ballpark, just installed yellow Konis and polyurethane). The quarter mile car won't be any fun at whatever they call sears point these days.

      I might just fly to Florida to drive a M6 around Daytona...you've got me thinking. But I couldn't really run someone else's car really hard, like my own. Also super speedways are just insanely dangerous. I was thinking more road course, hard braking and cornering. Spin without dying.

      The private Maine road sounds ideal. I suspect they have GPS on those units and will detect the commonly run tracks. I can't be the first to think of it. Couldn't get as crazy as a track, but should still be sufficient to get our insurance canceled.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Gyro data is misleading by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's got insurance and I own it to be driven. When it breaks, I'll fix it or get a new one. It's just money, they'll make more. Yes it's "bespoke" but that just means I've got some extra sport package features, unusual trim and tires, and some different colors. Oh, and a nice stereo with a fancy HUD that's a little different from the standard model. ;-)

      So, drive it like you stole it. 'Cause if my insurance company asks, that's what I'm gonna tell 'em you did. I kid... I kid... My license, thus any vehicle I own or drive, is covered by $1m USD. It's full coverage so you'd be covered, in full, even on the track. They're well aware that I race but I don't race anything expensive enough to actually make claims on it. I could and they'd just charge me more money. It's a private insurance company and already a bit pricey but not really that bad when you look at what it covers.

      It's probably not the optimal choice for the Golden Road. The engine is blown in what *would* be my optimal choice, for what I own. I've been thinking about a WRX or a Mini. I've seen some WRX after-market jobs (you buy it and send it directly off to them) that I'm impressed with. I also seem to recall that there's a company that will tweak your Mini to get some 700 ponies. No, I have no idea how long the engine will last in one. I'm assuming that 20k would be lucky. There's a few very nicely done up WRX models, specifically configured to rally, but I'd then probably not want to push them as far and as hard as I can.

      If you can't push it and enjoy it, why own it? So, by that token, I'd be sitting beside you and urging you to go faster. We should probably outfit it with a roll cage, better seats, and five point restraint harnesses (and wear helmets) if we're going to really push it. While I am certainly game, I really think that'd be better done on the Golden Road and with a better vehicle. Putting the 6 on Daytona would be a lot of fun, however. I'm pretty sure that either of them would make them shit a brick.

      Oh, and we could look on innocently when they're reviewing the data... That would be also awesome. Yes, I don't think you should be forced to go it alone! As such, I'm afraid I'll have to go with you.

      "No, sir, this says you hit 186 miles an hour."
      "Oh, that? Yeah, that has to be some mistake."
      "No, I don't think so sir. It says here that you maintained that speed for nearly 45 minutes and had lateral motion of greater than 1G for 37% of the time."
      "Oh, you mean THAT. Yeah, I was outrunning the cops that day. Does this insurance plan also cover bullet holes?"

      Hmm... Assuming I shift well, I should be able to pull about a 12.5 quarter mile. That should almost certainly get their notice. So, we could have some fun there. I'm liking the idea of a WRX or Cooper, tweaked into a roaring machine that sounds like it has come from the bowels of hell, and the Golden Road. That should, bare minimum, get us some interesting letters and emails. Even more fun will be doing it as Uber drivers. I promise, you can drive first and I'll leave you a stellar review.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  7. Obligatory my ass ... by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    However the premium reductions are diminishing as the practice heads from experimental, to default, to obligatory -- or so many believe

    I don't have a smart phone, and I don't want one.

    Unless they plan on making ownership of a smart phone as a mandatory condition for providing insurance, which I question the legality of, they simply can't make this obligatory.

    Consenting to being tracked at all times for the benefit of an insurance company? Yeah, go fuck yourselves.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by The-Ixian · · Score: 1

      You could always go with a Windows smart phone... nobody will ever develop an app for that... ;)

      Years ago I did the data port device thing in my '98 Jeep Cherokee. I was using Progressive at the time and they were rolling this thing out with the promise of significant savings on monthly premium costs.

      I had it plugged in and working for almost a year and was also committed to proving what a safe driver I was. I would never exceed the speed limit, always brake as gently as possible, leave 1 car length for every 10MPH of speed and all that.

      After several months I was not seeing any rate reduction at all and then without warning Progressive told me the unit didn't work with my car and they were taking the device back.

      I still wonder if, perhaps, what they were really trying to do with the program was nail people for bad driving and increase rates.

      --
      My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
    2. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Unless they plan on making ownership of a smart phone as a mandatory condition for providing insurance, which I question the legality of, they simply can't make this obligatory..

      Why would it be illegal? I suppose it could be regarded as discriminatory against people who can't afford a smartphone, but that's not necessarily a protected class (they already use credit scores in ratings in most states, which have clear correlations with income), and offering to provide the device for free would resolve that issue.

    3. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The obvious answer to the obligatory question is your insurance agency will provide you with a cheap generic one.... complete with the back doors to spy on everything else you do with it besides driving.

    4. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless they plan on making ownership of a smart phone as a mandatory condition for providing insurance, which I question the legality of, they simply can't make this obligatory.

      Oh, it won't be mandatory. You'll just get a significant discount if you agree.

      As for the smart phone, it's not required. Insurance companies implementing this give out an inexpensive dongle that plugs into the OBD-II port.

      This concept actually has been around for a few years already. It's called usage based insurance.

    5. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      Measuring speed vs speed limit is, to me, the worst possible thing to measure. I always exceed the speed limit...because I drive the same speed as (or slightly slower than) everybody else. Around here, 5 to 10 mph over is the average. How will any device fairly report this?

      My money is on tailgating as being the best thing to measure. It astounds me how close others drive to the car in front.

      Also, lateral g-force would be very good to know -- a sign of a bad driver, in my books. Whereas acceleration to speed would be meaningless (i.e. unjust) to record. But deceleration would be quite meaningful. Consistently high decelerations would indicate a driver consistently not anticipating road conditions, or overly relying on the ability of his vehicle to stop in time.

      --
      I come here for the love
    6. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      You would have no means to record anything you ask in a meaningful manner. The orientation of the phone is not fixed, so you would be basing the information off of multiple pieces of data and calculating results, none of which are accurate to the necessary degree. Since they don't want you talking on the phone etc anyways, my suggestion would be to drop your phone in an anti-static bag while driving. Solves all the above problems.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      It is the worst possible way unless, of course, you are in insurance company. The device will fairly report that you are 5-10 over and your rates will adjust accordingly. I think that your argument is that you are an exceptionally good driver (everybody thinks they are) and that the system will be unfair in that it will give you a worse risk score than less competent drivers who happen to obey the speed limit. On the surface, there is some merit to this argument. However, as an insurer, speed is probably the thing you care about most. Slow moving vehicles don't cause death and dismemberment. I'd rather insure somebody who has a parking lot accident once a year than somebody who regularly speeds but has never had an accident. The payout from the former won't be much more than their premiums. For the latter, I'm going to end up paying the policy maximum. We always have heated debates on /. about speed limits, but the fact is that the easiest thing you can do to reduce injuries and death is to simply make everybody slow down. If we had better public transit, we could consider a 40mph national speed limit and require all cars to be retrofitted with governors. I know I'll get modded to oblivion by the people who think they have a God given right to speed. The way we get around right now is inefficient and dangerous and any progress we can make should be welcome.

    8. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by stu72 · · Score: 0

      You've got it backwards.

      You are being monitored because of your decision to put others at risk by accelerating several tons of metal to fatal velocities.

      Unless you're doing it in a private track, you are endangering the public and they have a stake in how you do it,

    9. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      the easiest thing you can do to reduce injuries and death is to simply make everybody slow down

      How do you propose to do that? Radar vans don't ticket vehicles unless they are doing 10mph or more over the limit. So *this* should be the measure of what true speeding is.

      BTW, I'm not saying I'm an exceptional driver. I'm saying something very different -- that I'm typical, and that typical is good.

      Monitoring should only trigger on extremes. Drivers who never go over the speed limit should be ticketed -- they are a true hazard on the road and cause countless accidents when people frantically try to pass them. I dealt with one yesterday -- 10mph under the limit, in the passing lane. Ticket worthy, if I was a cop.

      --
      I come here for the love
    10. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by Tom · · Score: 1

      Unless they plan on making ownership of a smart phone as a mandatory condition for providing insurance, which I question the legality of, they simply can't make this obligatory.

      They will make it the usual reverse way. If you give them permission to monitor your driving, they will give you a big number of percents off - about the same number that they've just raised their premiums.

      So basically, you have a choice - you can pay more, or you can be monitored.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    11. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      So how do you deal with the wife constantly razzing you to get one? (Or maybe that's just me).

    12. Re:Obligatory my ass ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I don't know who these people are who think it's the "future of driving", but it's in no way in my future.

  8. What if it's unavailable? by One+With+Whisp · · Score: 1

    What if they don't own a smartphone? What if their smartphone doesn't have gyro bullshit? What if they don't have a phone or data plan, just a phone itself?

    This shit doesn't make sense.

    1. Re:What if it's unavailable? by wxxy___ · · Score: 1

      Then your rates go up; and, at some point in the future 'regular' insurers just won't cover people who don't fall in line, only high risk places

    2. Re:What if it's unavailable? by jiriw · · Score: 1

      Or what if the gyro in their smartphone is unstable?

      I have a Nexus 5 and an Asus tablet. The level and compass apps I've tested on them should use the internal gyro data... Level is reasonably stable but compass is anything but stable. Especially when moving wildly, the compass goes everywhere but in the right direction...

      I'm not against monitoring driver behaviour for drivers transporting passengers on a commercial basis or insurance premium cuts for 'model' drivers. But I do want to see some certified hardware doing the monitoring. Not just any old smartphone and preferably paid for by the company doing the monitoring.
      Oh, and an air-tight privacy statement along the lines of 'Information gathered by our monitoring hard/software will be made available to the customer on request (for counter-evaluation) and furthermore only be used for internal evaluation to improve our product X or calculate your benefits for Y. All data older than Z months in any way traceable to the customer will be destroyed. Never will this data be released to any third party. Bankruptcy or a buyout of our company U will mean mandatory destruction of all data gathered and all derivatives of it.'.

    3. Re:What if it's unavailable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things like this make me want to go for an iPod Touch with a VPN and Google Voice. The VPN will ensure my IP comes from the same source, and there isn't any data to upload since there is no SIM or cellular radio present.

    4. Re:What if it's unavailable? by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Good idea, because data can't be uploaded on VPNs. What an odd comment.

    5. Re:What if it's unavailable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a slashdot advertisement nothing more. Don't worry about it as they seem to be paid to promote Uber.

  9. employees? by fermion · · Score: 1
    I know that this tracking and data analysis is only used to verify customer complaints, but I wonder why a complaint against a contract worker needs to be verified? If I am an employee, then there the firm that employs me not only has real costs associated with me but also has laws they need to comply with before terminating me. However, with a contract worker there are fewer costs and no laws preventing with termination. If we believe in the Uber model, driver should be terminated as quickly as possible so that the driving pool is as constantly good as possible. After all, one cited issue with the traditional cab industry is that it encourages bad drivers because incumbent practices protect bad drivers. That Uber now seems to think of drivers as employees to be protected shows a fast evolution to the cab model.

    As an employee, there is strict time enforcement, there are rules on paperwork, and even behavior. As a contract worker, I was never micromanaged. No one every bugged my computer, or demanded detailed records. If I was not getting work done then the contract was terminated. It was that simple. If I am a contract worker being treated as an employee would not seem to be very fair and counterproductive.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:employees? by jratcliffe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why wouldn't a company want to be able to assess the quality of its contractors, and decide if a complaint was valid or not? If you work for an outsourced call center company, and the company gets a call saying "I just spoke to CSR Fermion, and he was unhelpful and swore at me," if I'm the company, I'd want to know if the complaint was legit, rather than just having a policy of "drop anyone who gets a complaint."

      The customer is not always right (or sane).

  10. Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This may not be the case in Europe, but in North America a majority of the cities we have were designed for the automobile as the main mode of transportation. this means that giving up telemetrics of your car says a lot about you. combine this with a side push for smart house monitoring systems and the insurance companies will know everything about us. Then its just a NSL letter away from tryanny.

    personally i dont get why people are willing to raise their personal risk level to lower the risk level of the corporation that is supposed to be providing them with a service.

    On a side note, what if i dont have a cellphone and drive a car made before OBD2? because of my personal choices i am no longer allowed to drive? here's hoping that a bunch of seniors take up the cause!

  11. Invalid readings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If it came down to monitoring your phones gyro, then I would let my phone dangle from a string on the mirror, and let it swing around while driving. The readings would so wild and out of parameter they couldn't possibly be counted as valid.

    1. Re:Invalid readings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fine print will say that invalid readings default to a penalty most likely.

    2. Re:Invalid readings by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Only idiots have things dangling from their mirrors.

      They are training their cranial collision detectors to not work.

      Think about it. What's the easiest way to 'see' a collision course? (Constant vector.) What does a pendulum do at the end of each swing? (present a constant vector)

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. makes there drivers more like W2's and not 1099's by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    makes there drivers more like W2's and not 1099's. So how far do they want to push this?

  13. Re:makes there drivers more like W2's and not 1099 by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    There? Where?

  14. Phone on dashboard/in glovebox? by rHBa · · Score: 1

    What if the driver does 50hrs with their phone sliding around on the dashboard or in the glove box? That would look like they love cornering hard every time the phone reaches the extremes of its confines and suddenly stops.

    1. Re:Phone on dashboard/in glovebox? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      One would assume that if you're going to monitor driver performance based on things like phone accelerometers (in my case the vehicles are fitted with a dedicated device) that you'd tell the driver and they'd be smart enough not to throw it around the car...

    2. Re:Phone on dashboard/in glovebox? by rHBa · · Score: 1

      Let's hope they make it clear to their users then, even then though I'm sure there will always be a few stupid/lazy people who slip through the net.

  15. simple: require Uber (progressive )snapshot by vpness · · Score: 1

    this is just easily solved by requiring uber to deploy the equivalent of progressive snapshot. Phones are unreliable given they can be tossed about, etc. and, noting, per other threads, that what makes for aggressive driving in the burbs is 'required' to get around in say NYC. My biggest gripe about uber is that when I complain, it sure seems that their helpdesk says 'they'll have a word with the driver,' when in fact, it's the uber corporate that is at fault. An uber snapshot would help better inform them.

  16. Remember when. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your auto insurance rate was based on.
    Your actual driving record not everyone else. Pepper Ridge Farms does.

  17. WTH is a "gyrometer"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are they coining their own terms now?
    "Gyro sensor", "Gyroscope" etc. sure, but "Gyrometer"? WTF?

  18. Great. Another data hogging app by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    from companies that want to use my data for their business purposes. Once they start getting data they'll want more simply because it's available and can be turned into money. Of course, it may very well become evidence in court cases, since insurance companies and trial lawyers will know what to look for to bolster their case, and third parties may want access as well in matters unrelated to driving. Once a data breach occurs things could get real interesting, especially if they geo tag the data. "Politician X, you make a lot of stops at this sadness inhabited by Z. Having a little fun on the side?"

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  19. Web engineers, meet control engineers by recharged95 · · Score: 1

    use data from the gyrometer in drivers' smartphones, combined with accelerometer and GPS data,

    Also know as Inertial Measurement and Inertial Navigation techniques. Drones, [and some hoverboards] use this all the time (it's their core)...

  20. Easy by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    They were never an employee of Uber to begin with. Uber has no employees, they're strictly an information service, right? Right?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/