"But I agree that premiums should be based on both mileage and risky driving, not just on one of these alone."
Actually, rates should be based on risk of a claim (and how big a claim that might be). Otherwise the company is undercharging one person and overcharging another.
What exactly does mileage travelled have to do with risk of a claim? Where do most accidents happen? IIRC near where you live-so mileage is not a very good indicator. Of course it IS easy to MEASURE. And it probably does have some correlation to claims. Which is why it is used.
The problem with the insurance industry is that to price their product correctly they need to know the future. Problem is they don't and they can't. After all, if they KNEW you were going to have a large claim (greater than your premiums you payed/willing to pay) would they insure you? You only want to insure people who don't have claims. Of course, then your insurance is worthless to the people who would buy it. After all, if I KNEW I wasn't going to have any claims, I would carry the minimum coverage required by law. Problems, problems, problems:)
"It's not that they willfully and maliciously try to swindle their customers - They truly believe that it absolves them of the responsibility to provide the customer satisfaction in regards to rebates."
You do realize that this is essentially a matter of semantics, right? If they believe that not dealing with the rebates they offered/advertised to entice people to buy their products absolves them of all responsibility for them, when it is a CHOICE they MADE, they ARE willfully and maliciously trying to swindle their customers. They are just trying to rationalize the choice (legally and morally).
So, if "Anyone that can READ can understand the service plans." that would mean that the workers are deliberately misleading customers. I mean the workers did READ what they were selling didn't they?
So what's it called when you deliberately misrepresent the product you sell?
Hmmm.
What's the word I'm thinking of...
Oh yeah.
Fraud.
Oh, and two other things. First, those plasma TV's are more expensive than any used car I have ever bought. Cars that were FAR more useful than a TV.... Second, verbal promises are just as binding as written promises. Of course as others have stated, proving it is a bit more difficult....
Do you work at BB by any chance? Because if you don't you would fit right in with the warranty is usually only 90 days on new items crap.
The last time I bought something at BB (many years ago), the clerk had the audacity to claim the speakers only had a 90 day warranty (he was only off by 4 years and 9 months). It seems to be a common line...
If you don't, I'm sorry for the insult:) But you definitely don't have a clue about warranty lengths.
A year warranty isn't uncommon on electronics. Unless of course it is used-then 90 day warranties are common. Frankly if the warranty is only 90 days, I consider the item disposable (many small appliances fit into this category).
Yeah, but didn't Circuit City push that failed DVD format called DIVX (Digital Video Express-not the codec)? Maybe they learned their lesson, maybe they didn't. Still won't shop there because of that. Not that I can stand BB either....
Of course, saying that Circuit City has a huge edge in terms of service is kind of like saying a total jerk is a lot nicer than a serial killer...
Yes, but not as cheap as prevention. Many problems (heart disease/lung cancer) are directly related to lifestyle. So what if your doctor catches your symptoms early-heck it might INCREASE health costs. If you keel over from a heart attack or have inoperable lung cancer I suspect you cost less to treat than if you are given a bypass or chemo and surgery.
"How many of them are really good?"
Well, how many people in any profession are typically really good? Not most. The best ones seem to know what they don't know and refer you to a specialist:)
Heck, a lot of the specialists aren't very good.
As far as I can tell, the reason for most doctors existence is that only they can write prescriptions. I have met very few doctors/specialists that know as much about my medical conditions as I do. Yet only they can treat me with prescription medications that I know more about?
Good doctors are useful. The rest, well, aren't. You would be better off replacing them with lower paid personnel (nurses)-you wouldn't notice a difference in care.
Well couldn't you package the data in small security packets:) I don't think security would add THAT much overhead.
Having been in an academic environment around people who have worked in Antarctica leads me to believe the reason they didn't want the system secure is well, they didn't want the system secure. Because they are in charge, they tend to get what they want (well, at least until there is a really big problem that requires external help). They wanted free and open exchange of information. Security gets in the way of that.
Of course security prevents your systems from being hacked too.... (Possibly) not a big deal if you are on a remote continent but a little more important if you are located at a major University in Ohio....
Well, its intrinsic value is the value of the "paper" it's printed on.
If you need to wipe your behind, it probably has a higher intrinsic value:)
But paper money is really no different than precious metals. Gold only has value because people value it. It really isn't that rare. And frankly it isn't a very useful metal, less useful than iron for most things....
The point is, if you need to make a tool, iron is much more useful than gold. And if I need that tool to survive, I am not going to trade it for gold. In stable times, paper money tends to work just as well as precious metals. In really bad times, well, precious metals tend to work just as poorly as paper money...
"The depressing sticking point is that with a $100 billion, Manhattan-style research project we could probably get something like fusion power off the ground, thus solving our energy and pollution woes for basically forever."
I recall a saying that goes roughly like this: Fusion, energy source of the future and always will be.
If a $100 billion investment was all it took, I think it would already be here. Fusion isn't easy.
Oh, and there is a little pollution associated with fusion. The fusion reactors will become radioactive during use and have to be replaced eventually (just like our current fission reactors).....
"If you find a way to produce hydrogen which is at least 50% efficient, you have.5*.5 = 25% efficiency..."
Sure, if you ignore all the other efficiency losses that are factored into your ICE efficiency number...
The larger problem is that you are probably NOT going to find a really efficient (cheap) way of producing hydrogen. The best methods would probably involve fission (unpopular) or fusion (energy source of the future and always will be...).
It is however VERY easy to make more efficient gas powered vehicles. Heck, they exist today.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are really only useful for pollution control. Otherwise they are a solution looking for a problem.
Actually ethanol from corn does NOT use more energy to make than it produces with modern techniques according to recent at least one recent study (one link is http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm). Your belief is based on old data (I used to believe the same thing).
You are however quite correct that using ethanol would probably put "a big dent in the world food supply." Realistically, it isn't practical on a large scale.
Insurance company statistical data is for the most part crap. Crappy data equals crappy results.
How would you determine if your customers speed? The only guaranteed method is to check for speeding tickets. The police don't ticket everyone who speeds. I would submit, based on my daily travels, that almost everyone speeds. So their basic data is crap.
Oh, and how would you determine EXCESSIVE speed. That is a judgement. Enough said.
Second:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Finally:
Yes, young males AS A GROUP have more costly claims. You can justify their insurance rates being higher than young females based on that. Problem is, there are even more young males that don't have claims. Many of these even have speeding tickets and/or sped regularly. I was one. Therefore, the insurance company rates/statistics were WRONG for ME. I was overcharged, while others were undercharged. Tickets and speeding, despite so-called correlations, are not a useful correlation if you are interested in ACCURACY.
"You're wrong. The fact is people that choose red cars, for example, are a greater risk than those that choose white. Now obviously having a red car doesn't cause an accident, yet every insurance company finds the same relationship."
I disagree. However, we may be arguing slightly different things....
Well, if having a red car doesn't cause accidents why should a person who owns a red car have higher insurance rates? Sure, some colors are harder to see, so you could justify rates there-but if everyone has insurance why am I being charged for someone elses problem.... Yes, there may be a correlation but if there is no causation...
What I was trying to get at (and you and the insurance companies too) is that driving styles matter a lot. But the information the companies use can't get at that accurately. Oh, on a gross level, yes. But that means they price the insurance incorrectly.
Here's the problem. I have a preferrence for colors, red isn't one of them. But according to the insurance company, I am a riskier driver if I drive a red car (say a rental or a friends car) than if I drive my own. That's assinine. My credit rating is worse than it used to be, so suddenly I am a worse driver, even though I have more experience and can less likely afford an accident? That's assinine.
Look, insurance companies have to use correlations because they don't have the proper information (and I would submit they really don't want it-it would cost more money and the current system is good enough-for them). But don't pretend the pricing is accurate. It isn't. You can be in a high risk group and be a very safe driver. You can be in a low risk group and be a very unsafe driver. That's the problem applying group rates to individuals.
In many states you have to have insurance OR proof of financial responsibility. So you could have a bond of X amount (30,000 in Ohio) on file with the appropriate authorities.
If you have anything of worth or have any earning power, of course, you would be crazy not to have more insurance of course.
So, when upgrading a computer system or database would it be useful to know if it came in mauve?
I mention this because knowing your speed is about as useful as knowing what color your customer would want his computer or database. Might be useful, probably not.
Speeding is not inherently unsafe. If you believe it is, you are wrong. Going too fast for conditions is inherently unsafe. This system cannot determine this.
They MIGHT have a point about time of day. However, why should I be penalized for driving at certain times of the day if I am an otherwise safe driver? Just because that is easy data for the company to collect and use? There is a reason companies use tickets for rates. It is NOT accuracy. It is because they have a limited amount of information that they can EASILY (aka cheaply) utilize.
If they cared about how safe a driver I was, why can't I get a discount on my rates if I take a driving course (a good one, one that teaches you how to handle a vehicle in emergency situations, etc.)? Because they don't.
Look, some risk (of a claim) is based on conditions outside my control. But a heck of a lot of risk is controllable directly by me. But you should reward/penalize people accurately for this. The insurance companies cannot do it and don't want to do it. This system won't change that. It merely adds more (poor) data to their limited (poor) system.
It's even less money than you calculated. Why? Well, the discount will only be taken off of certain PORTIONS of your insurance. Do you think the discount will apply to the Comprehensive part of your insurance? Or other parts of your insurance not directly related to driving?
Heck, my 10% airbag deduction is less than $10 a YEAR because of this. They don't/won't mention this very clearly....
Frankly, they probably want people to collect valuable statistical information for essentially free. A more cynical person would note that they don't really care about this information because they have already concluded speeding increases claims (hence less discount) and that this will, as some have noted, eventually become the equivalent of discount shopping cards (instead of giving you the artificial "savings" for free, we insist on some information first...).
Actually, they only care about the PERCEIVED risk to THEMSELVES. They don't give a rats behind about actual safety.
If they cared about real risk, some companies wouldn't automatically raise rates if you were caught speeding. I would have no problem if they could show correlation AND causation between speeding and accidents.
" They WILL care if you're driving at the speed limit while everyone else is driving five miles over, though."
If this becomes the case, then one of two things better happen. The speed limit should be abolished or the insurance companies should be banned from basing rates on this information. It is inherently unfair to increase a person's insurance rates (auto insurance/responsibility is mandated by the State) if they are obeying the law.
But do they look for causation? I doubt it and it is VERY important. Using correlations for rates is guaranteed to INaccurately price insurance.
In my experience, very few people obey the speed limit. However the police can only ticket a certain percentage. Therefore basing rates on speeding tickets is worthless. Sure people with speeding tickets get into accidents. But so do people who speed but don't get caught. I suspect the difference is in the type of tickets (reckless, excessive speed, etc.). Of course, after a recent accident, I have no doubt that police are generally clueless and that tickets don't always reflect reality....
This system MIGHT improve this, but I doubt it. The fact that they give discounts for essentially going the speed limit implies it won't. Quick example, if I go 65 in a 55 on a freeway it is often safer than going 50 in a 50 on rural roads. One is speeding the other isn't. One is a lot safer than the other. Will they account for this? I doubt it.
This is a good way to increase (or not decrease) rates for people who live in "bad" areas while not looking like an "evil" corporation or running afoul of civil rights laws.
Finally, if they want to collect information to improve their system to make more money, I would like to be paid. I am willing to be paid hourly or on a salary. Not for an insignificant discount.
Look, the first poster is wrong about many things. Becoming a lawyer requires a lot of study and you have to pass the BAR exam (well, I believe the study is so you CAN pass the bar exam...). But the poster IS correct when he states:
"Frivolous Lawsuits and Abuse of the Law....is almost completely committed by lawyers."
They may be doing it at their clients behest, but the lawyers should know better.
And before you harp on people implying that you haven't spent much time studying to prepare yourself for your field you should do the same. So you spent three years in law school. That's less time than people spend in a CS program, or an engineering program, or heck, even in my field of geology, especially if you count graduate school. Granted, you did have to get at least a BA before going to law school (I believe). But that is NOT studying in your field.
"NOTHING, we still have human judgement, in the case of the black box (it would have shown a short accelartion very easy to differ from real speeding) and in the case of a human cop. Both would have seen you speeded for traffic reasons, not because you wanted to speed."
Oh, goody, human judgement from a cop. Problem is, it may not be GOOD judgement. I was in a recent accident. The official police report was filled with errors (things like where the damage on the car was, the diagram at the scene was wrong, my statements were recorded incorrectly,etc.) I received a ticket for the accident (I was hit) despite obvious indications that the information the other driver gave was incorrect (his stated speed was simply too low due to the damage to my vehicle and the accident scene) and probably led to the accident. But the officer wanted/needed to write a ticket and I was the easiest target.
A black box on the car(s) would not have helped. The officer wouldn't have considered them. The court won't care (I have been to traffic court twice in my life-facts seem to be unimportant). Frankly, in my experience, most police officers are idiots, nice, but ultimately idiots. Having information coming from a computer (gee, it must be correct/the "truth") will only make things worse. Once an officer makes a decision, it is very hard to change that decision, even if you have the "facts".
"Because there is no specific law against this (or it is not mentioned specifically in a current law), I (or my staff) will actually have to do some work to convict someone of a crime"
It has nothing to do with not having applicable laws, which as you pointed out, they do. It is all about making it EASY for them to convict people. It should never be easy to convict people of a crime, as guilty as they may appear to be.
"You're awfully cavalier about killing millions of people."
Well, most people are. At least he is being honest about it.
What is the value of a human life? Not yours or someone you know. But the value of one that starves to death in Africa, one of millions every year? Most people hardly think about it, I surely don't. Yet those deaths are fairly easily preventable (there is not a lack of food in the world, yet).
The fact that we are willing to let people strangers die indicates that the value of human life is VERY low. I'm sure you can find other examples closer to home.
This is not very surprising. Because as the previous poster noted, we would hardly notice 6 million deaths in a population of 6 + billion....
"People who are interested in rocks or exobiology also don't like manned space travel."
Well, you are wrong. I like rocks (I am a geologist). Many of the astronauts that landed on the moon were geologists or had training in the field. Manned space travel is the BEST way to determine what rocks are present on another planet (in simple terms, go collect some and bring them back/or study them on site). Probes are rather restricted in this (limits on where they can travel, tests that can be done).
Granted remote sensing technology IS very nice (what we currently use) but the only way to be sure of what is there is to go look at it/bring it back to be studied. Humans ARE needed for that.
Of course, one can debate the importance of knowing the composition of other planets.
I have come to the conclusion that some people just aren't comfortable unless they are a 5, 10, 20 feet away from your bumper at highway speeds. I can't explain it with certainty, but it seems to fall into certain categories:
I regularly watch people leave the right lane (empty) and squeeze into the center lane between other vehicles. Apparently, they are confused when confronted with a large empty patch of road in front of them....
Other people drive closely because that's all the further they look ahead. They are fixated on that distance and get as close to your rear bumper as their forward vision focuses...
The rest are just inconsiderate jerks, of course:) But I find the first two types far scarier....
Slashdot Mirror
"But I agree that premiums should be based on both mileage and risky driving, not just on one of these alone."
:)
Actually, rates should be based on risk of a claim (and how big a claim that might be). Otherwise the company is undercharging one person and overcharging another.
What exactly does mileage travelled have to do with risk of a claim? Where do most accidents happen? IIRC near where you live-so mileage is not a very good indicator. Of course it IS easy to MEASURE. And it probably does have some correlation to claims. Which is why it is used.
The problem with the insurance industry is that to price their product correctly they need to know the future. Problem is they don't and they can't. After all, if they KNEW you were going to have a large claim (greater than your premiums you payed/willing to pay) would they insure you? You only want to insure people who don't have claims. Of course, then your insurance is worthless to the people who would buy it. After all, if I KNEW I wasn't going to have any claims, I would carry the minimum coverage required by law. Problems, problems, problems
"It's not that they willfully and maliciously try to swindle their customers - They truly believe that it absolves them of the responsibility to provide the customer satisfaction in regards to rebates."
You do realize that this is essentially a matter of semantics, right? If they believe that not dealing with the rebates they offered/advertised to entice people to buy their products absolves them of all responsibility for them, when it is a CHOICE they MADE, they ARE willfully and maliciously trying to swindle their customers. They are just trying to rationalize the choice (legally and morally).
So, if "Anyone that can READ can understand the service plans." that would mean that the workers are deliberately misleading customers. I mean the workers did READ what they were selling didn't they?
So what's it called when you deliberately misrepresent the product you sell?
Hmmm.
What's the word I'm thinking of...
Oh yeah.
Fraud.
Oh, and two other things. First, those plasma TV's are more expensive than any used car I have ever bought. Cars that were FAR more useful than a TV.... Second, verbal promises are just as binding as written promises. Of course as others have stated, proving it is a bit more difficult....
Do you work at BB by any chance? Because if you don't you would fit right in with the warranty is usually only 90 days on new items crap.
:) But you definitely don't have a clue about warranty lengths.
The last time I bought something at BB (many years ago), the clerk had the audacity to claim the speakers only had a 90 day warranty (he was only off by 4 years and 9 months). It seems to be a common line...
If you don't, I'm sorry for the insult
A year warranty isn't uncommon on electronics. Unless of course it is used-then 90 day warranties are common. Frankly if the warranty is only 90 days, I consider the item disposable (many small appliances fit into this category).
Yeah, but didn't Circuit City push that failed DVD format called DIVX (Digital Video Express-not the codec)? Maybe they learned their lesson, maybe they didn't. Still won't shop there because of that. Not that I can stand BB either....
Of course, saying that Circuit City has a huge edge in terms of service is kind of like saying a total jerk is a lot nicer than a serial killer...
"Early diagnosis is much cheaper, too."
:)
Yes, but not as cheap as prevention. Many problems (heart disease/lung cancer) are directly related to lifestyle. So what if your doctor catches your symptoms early-heck it might INCREASE health costs. If you keel over from a heart attack or have inoperable lung cancer I suspect you cost less to treat than if you are given a bypass or chemo and surgery.
"How many of them are really good?"
Well, how many people in any profession are typically really good? Not most. The best ones seem to know what they don't know and refer you to a specialist
Heck, a lot of the specialists aren't very good.
As far as I can tell, the reason for most doctors existence is that only they can write prescriptions. I have met very few doctors/specialists that know as much about my medical conditions as I do. Yet only they can treat me with prescription medications that I know more about?
Good doctors are useful. The rest, well, aren't. You would be better off replacing them with lower paid personnel (nurses)-you wouldn't notice a difference in care.
Well couldn't you package the data in small security packets :) I don't think security would add THAT much overhead.
Having been in an academic environment around people who have worked in Antarctica leads me to believe the reason they didn't want the system secure is well, they didn't want the system secure. Because they are in charge, they tend to get what they want (well, at least until there is a really big problem that requires external help). They wanted free and open exchange of information. Security gets in the way of that.
Of course security prevents your systems from being hacked too.... (Possibly) not a big deal if you are on a remote continent but a little more important if you are located at a major University in Ohio....
Well, its intrinsic value is the value of the "paper" it's printed on.
:)
If you need to wipe your behind, it probably has a higher intrinsic value
But paper money is really no different than precious metals. Gold only has value because people value it. It really isn't that rare. And frankly it isn't a very useful metal, less useful than iron for most things....
The point is, if you need to make a tool, iron is much more useful than gold. And if I need that tool to survive, I am not going to trade it for gold. In stable times, paper money tends to work just as well as precious metals. In really bad times, well, precious metals tend to work just as poorly as paper money...
"The depressing sticking point is that with a $100 billion, Manhattan-style research project we could probably get something like fusion power off the ground, thus solving our energy and pollution woes for basically forever."
I recall a saying that goes roughly like this: Fusion, energy source of the future and always will be.
If a $100 billion investment was all it took, I think it would already be here. Fusion isn't easy.
Oh, and there is a little pollution associated with fusion. The fusion reactors will become radioactive during use and have to be replaced eventually (just like our current fission reactors).....
"If you find a way to produce hydrogen which is at least 50% efficient, you have .5*.5 = 25% efficiency..."
Sure, if you ignore all the other efficiency losses that are factored into your ICE efficiency number...
The larger problem is that you are probably NOT going to find a really efficient (cheap) way of producing hydrogen. The best methods would probably involve fission (unpopular) or fusion (energy source of the future and always will be...).
It is however VERY easy to make more efficient gas powered vehicles. Heck, they exist today.
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are really only useful for pollution control. Otherwise they are a solution looking for a problem.
Actually ethanol from corn does NOT use more energy to make than it produces with modern techniques according to recent at least one recent study (one link is http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm). Your belief is based on old data (I used to believe the same thing).
You are however quite correct that using ethanol would probably put "a big dent in the world food supply." Realistically, it isn't practical on a large scale.
A couple of points:
First:
Insurance company statistical data is for the most part crap. Crappy data equals crappy results.
How would you determine if your customers speed? The only guaranteed method is to check for speeding tickets. The police don't ticket everyone who speeds. I would submit, based on my daily travels, that almost everyone speeds. So their basic data is crap.
Oh, and how would you determine EXCESSIVE speed. That is a judgement. Enough said.
Second:
Correlation does not equal causation.
Finally:
Yes, young males AS A GROUP have more costly claims. You can justify their insurance rates being higher than young females based on that. Problem is, there are even more young males that don't have claims. Many of these even have speeding tickets and/or sped regularly. I was one. Therefore, the insurance company rates/statistics were WRONG for ME. I was overcharged, while others were undercharged. Tickets and speeding, despite so-called correlations, are not a useful correlation if you are interested in ACCURACY.
"You're wrong. The fact is people that choose red cars, for example, are a greater risk than those that choose white. Now obviously having a red car doesn't cause an accident, yet every insurance company finds the same relationship."
I disagree. However, we may be arguing slightly different things....
Well, if having a red car doesn't cause accidents why should a person who owns a red car have higher insurance rates? Sure, some colors are harder to see, so you could justify rates there-but if everyone has insurance why am I being charged for someone elses problem.... Yes, there may be a correlation but if there is no causation...
What I was trying to get at (and you and the insurance companies too) is that driving styles matter a lot. But the information the companies use can't get at that accurately. Oh, on a gross level, yes. But that means they price the insurance incorrectly.
Here's the problem. I have a preferrence for colors, red isn't one of them. But according to the insurance company, I am a riskier driver if I drive a red car (say a rental or a friends car) than if I drive my own. That's assinine. My credit rating is worse than it used to be, so suddenly I am a worse driver, even though I have more experience and can less likely afford an accident? That's assinine.
Look, insurance companies have to use correlations because they don't have the proper information (and I would submit they really don't want it-it would cost more money and the current system is good enough-for them). But don't pretend the pricing is accurate. It isn't. You can be in a high risk group and be a very safe driver. You can be in a low risk group and be a very unsafe driver. That's the problem applying group rates to individuals.
In many states you have to have insurance OR proof of financial responsibility. So you could have a bond of X amount (30,000 in Ohio) on file with the appropriate authorities.
If you have anything of worth or have any earning power, of course, you would be crazy not to have more insurance of course.
So, when upgrading a computer system or database would it be useful to know if it came in mauve?
I mention this because knowing your speed is about as useful as knowing what color your customer would want his computer or database. Might be useful, probably not.
Speeding is not inherently unsafe. If you believe it is, you are wrong. Going too fast for conditions is inherently unsafe. This system cannot determine this.
They MIGHT have a point about time of day. However, why should I be penalized for driving at certain times of the day if I am an otherwise safe driver? Just because that is easy data for the company to collect and use? There is a reason companies use tickets for rates. It is NOT accuracy. It is because they have a limited amount of information that they can EASILY (aka cheaply) utilize.
If they cared about how safe a driver I was, why can't I get a discount on my rates if I take a driving course (a good one, one that teaches you how to handle a vehicle in emergency situations, etc.)? Because they don't.
Look, some risk (of a claim) is based on conditions outside my control. But a heck of a lot of risk is controllable directly by me. But you should reward/penalize people accurately for this. The insurance companies cannot do it and don't want to do it. This system won't change that. It merely adds more (poor) data to their limited (poor) system.
It's even less money than you calculated. Why? Well, the discount will only be taken off of certain PORTIONS of your insurance. Do you think the discount will apply to the Comprehensive part of your insurance? Or other parts of your insurance not directly related to driving?
Heck, my 10% airbag deduction is less than $10 a YEAR because of this. They don't/won't mention this very clearly....
Frankly, they probably want people to collect valuable statistical information for essentially free. A more cynical person would note that they don't really care about this information because they have already concluded speeding increases claims (hence less discount) and that this will, as some have noted, eventually become the equivalent of discount shopping cards (instead of giving you the artificial "savings" for free, we insist on some information first...).
"Insurance companies only care about risk..."
Actually, they only care about the PERCEIVED risk to THEMSELVES. They don't give a rats behind about actual safety.
If they cared about real risk, some companies wouldn't automatically raise rates if you were caught speeding. I would have no problem if they could show correlation AND causation between speeding and accidents.
" They WILL care if you're driving at the speed limit while everyone else is driving five miles over, though."
If this becomes the case, then one of two things better happen. The speed limit should be abolished or the insurance companies should be banned from basing rates on this information. It is inherently unfair to increase a person's insurance rates (auto insurance/responsibility is mandated by the State) if they are obeying the law.
But do they look for causation? I doubt it and it is VERY important. Using correlations for rates is guaranteed to INaccurately price insurance.
In my experience, very few people obey the speed limit. However the police can only ticket a certain percentage. Therefore basing rates on speeding tickets is worthless. Sure people with speeding tickets get into accidents. But so do people who speed but don't get caught. I suspect the difference is in the type of tickets (reckless, excessive speed, etc.). Of course, after a recent accident, I have no doubt that police are generally clueless and that tickets don't always reflect reality....
This system MIGHT improve this, but I doubt it. The fact that they give discounts for essentially going the speed limit implies it won't. Quick example, if I go 65 in a 55 on a freeway it is often safer than going 50 in a 50 on rural roads. One is speeding the other isn't. One is a lot safer than the other. Will they account for this? I doubt it.
This is a good way to increase (or not decrease) rates for people who live in "bad" areas while not looking like an "evil" corporation or running afoul of civil rights laws.
Finally, if they want to collect information to improve their system to make more money, I would like to be paid. I am willing to be paid hourly or on a salary. Not for an insignificant discount.
Look, the first poster is wrong about many things. Becoming a lawyer requires a lot of study and you have to pass the BAR exam (well, I believe the study is so you CAN pass the bar exam...). But the poster IS correct when he states:
"Frivolous Lawsuits and Abuse of the Law....is almost completely committed by lawyers."
They may be doing it at their clients behest, but the lawyers should know better.
And before you harp on people implying that you haven't spent much time studying to prepare yourself for your field you should do the same. So you spent three years in law school. That's less time than people spend in a CS program, or an engineering program, or heck, even in my field of geology, especially if you count graduate school. Granted, you did have to get at least a BA before going to law school (I believe). But that is NOT studying in your field.
"NOTHING, we still have human judgement, in the case of the black box (it would have shown a short accelartion very easy to differ from real speeding) and in the case of a human cop. Both would have seen you speeded for traffic reasons, not because you wanted to speed."
Oh, goody, human judgement from a cop. Problem is, it may not be GOOD judgement. I was in a recent accident. The official police report was filled with errors (things like where the damage on the car was, the diagram at the scene was wrong, my statements were recorded incorrectly,etc.) I received a ticket for the accident (I was hit) despite obvious indications that the information the other driver gave was incorrect (his stated speed was simply too low due to the damage to my vehicle and the accident scene) and probably led to the accident. But the officer wanted/needed to write a ticket and I was the easiest target.
A black box on the car(s) would not have helped. The officer wouldn't have considered them. The court won't care (I have been to traffic court twice in my life-facts seem to be unimportant). Frankly, in my experience, most police officers are idiots, nice, but ultimately idiots. Having information coming from a computer (gee, it must be correct/the "truth") will only make things worse. Once an officer makes a decision, it is very hard to change that decision, even if you have the "facts".
No, what he is really saying:
"Because there is no specific law against this (or it is not mentioned specifically in a current law), I (or my staff) will actually have to do some work to convict someone of a crime"
It has nothing to do with not having applicable laws, which as you pointed out, they do. It is all about making it EASY for them to convict people. It should never be easy to convict people of a crime, as guilty as they may appear to be.
"You're awfully cavalier about killing millions of people."
Well, most people are. At least he is being honest about it.
What is the value of a human life? Not yours or someone you know. But the value of one that starves to death in Africa, one of millions every year? Most people hardly think about it, I surely don't. Yet those deaths are fairly easily preventable (there is not a lack of food in the world, yet).
The fact that we are willing to let people strangers die indicates that the value of human life is VERY low. I'm sure you can find other examples closer to home.
This is not very surprising. Because as the previous poster noted, we would hardly notice 6 million deaths in a population of 6 + billion....
"People who are interested in rocks or exobiology also don't like manned space travel."
Well, you are wrong. I like rocks (I am a geologist). Many of the astronauts that landed on the moon were geologists or had training in the field. Manned space travel is the BEST way to determine what rocks are present on another planet (in simple terms, go collect some and bring them back/or study them on site). Probes are rather restricted in this (limits on where they can travel, tests that can be done).
Granted remote sensing technology IS very nice (what we currently use) but the only way to be sure of what is there is to go look at it/bring it back to be studied. Humans ARE needed for that.
Of course, one can debate the importance of knowing the composition of other planets.
Well, you are supposed to check your mirrors regularly anyway (to see where other vehicles are).
The extra time looking at a vehicles expression is time that should be spent looking where you are going....
I have come to the conclusion that some people just aren't comfortable unless they are a 5, 10, 20 feet away from your bumper at highway speeds. I can't explain it with certainty, but it seems to fall into certain categories:
:) But I find the first two types far scarier....
I regularly watch people leave the right lane (empty) and squeeze into the center lane between other vehicles. Apparently, they are confused when confronted with a large empty patch of road in front of them....
Other people drive closely because that's all the further they look ahead. They are fixated on that distance and get as close to your rear bumper as their forward vision focuses...
The rest are just inconsiderate jerks, of course