The telemarketing problem was already solved with the national do-not-call registry. If you opt out there, they already can't call you.
The real problem is that people other than telemarketers can still get around that registry, and can make robocalls (presumably, this new rules won't change that).
So the short of it? This will do nothing to stop say, Rick Santorum's campaign calling me to ask if it would change my opinion about Mitt Romney if I knew he *did x act that he didn't do*.
Crack down on push polling robocalls, instead. We already have a means to take care of the telemarketers.
Couldn't agree more. If you can't deliver what you're promising, don't promise it. If you do promise it, and you don't deliver, it's not reasonable to blame the people who gave you money based on your promise.
Then their marketing message doesn't reflect reality, which isn't exactly an industry first. How many companies tell you that the average driver that switches to them saves *x* hundred dollars? Every one? That's a message that's deliberately skewed to make it sound like every insurance company has the cheapest rates.
I admit that this isn't an altruistic invention of the insurance company, existing solely to provide you accolades for your ways of driving. It's a way they use to try to better figure out what you're going to cost them as a customer, and thus better figure out what they should charge you for insurance. But "prove to us you're a good driver" sure sounds better, doesn't it?
One important thing to keep in mind about insurance as a product: A lot of people have the mindset that insurance companies are trying to punish or reward good or bad drivers. And that couldn't be farther from the truth.
Insurance companies are in the very unusual position of trying to set a price on a product that they don't know the cost of.
That's a difficult concept to wrap around, but it's the basis of the industry - they're trying to figure out how much it's going to cost them to sell you this insurance. Some of the costs are known (payroll being a biggie), but most, they can only make educated guesses at.
This is just another way that they're trying to better the information at hand to make a better educated guess.
Segmentation (dividing people into smaller and smaller groups to price most accurately) favors safe drivers, to a point. Of course, if it went to its logical conclusion, and they knew exactly how much each person would cost them, insurance could not exist - because people who are going to cause three or four accidents are not going to be able to afford insurance.
However, it will never be able to get to the point of segmentation that's that predictive. Due to competitive forces, though, the market will always trend that way when regulations don't interfere - and that's the cause of another important insurance term, adverse selection.
If all of the good drivers are with a different company (due to their superior segmentation), the only customers you'll be left with are the bad drivers, and thus, you'll be the one paying all of the claims, and eventually will be unable to compete in the industry (except for an occasional niche company).
So the short of it? If you don't like this, the target shouldn't be the insurance companies doing this - this comes down to your legislators, and their regulations. Because no insurance company is going to want to be left out - but as long as there's a level playing field, certain aspects don't need to be used.
If you need further proof as to how competition forces insurance companies to use factors to increase segmentation, do a search to try to find out how many insurance companies DON'T use credit scoring for rating these days.
You're 100% wrong there. If someone is a statistical outlier for hard braking, it isn't likely to mean that they just have bad luck of things jumping in front of their car. It's likely to mean that they're putting themselves in situations where they're going to need to brake harder and more often than the average person. And that could mean a number of things, none of which make them less likely to be involved in an accident.
It's not like they're looking at this data (I hope not, anyway) and just saying, "Well, this person braked hard once, let's double their premiums". Statistical outliers are the key - people who show trends that indicate that they're more dangerous than others.
(Which is exactly the opposite of what cops do when enforcing traffic laws - they're looking for specific samples of driving to penalize drivers for, which is an entirely different concept)
That's specifically why you see sharp braking mentioned in the article. Whether you're on a side street or an expressway, you're a lot more likely to be involved in an accident if you're tailgating, driving erratic speeds, and the like. If their actuaries are doing their jobs, they realize that, and that's going to be weighted a lot more heavily than actual speeds.
Erratic speeds can be an indicator of:
Tailgating (I have to stop suddenly because I didn't leave enough room)
Distracted driving (I have to stop suddenly because I was paying attention to something else and didn't see the person slowing down)
Slow response time (I have to stop suddenly because it took me too long to realize the person in front of me was slowing down)
All of these things are huge indicators of potential accidents.
(And of course, if an accident occurs, I guarantee 99 out of 100 people who caused accidents in the above ways try to frame it to make the other party sound at fault. "Well, the driver stopped short in front of me...")
On a note regarding Progressive, the Tripsense is an old, retired program. It was sort of the pilot for what they do now, which is significantly different (and a far cry from the GPS based tracking that is mentioned in this article).
The new program is called Snapshot (formerly MyRate), and is in fact OBD port based. They changed around the information used significantly on the basis of feedback and data gathered from the pilot.
Specifically, they only use, at this point, mileage driven, hard braking, and times driven. There's no GPS component, so they stopped looking at time spent in speed bands, because that's useless information without the speed limit in a given location being known.
It's also only a temporary thing - you can build up a discount over a 6 month period, then send them the device back and the discount persists, as long as you had enough driving data established.
(Former Progressive employee here)
It's a difficult transition, and one I had to make myself within the last year. There are really two major things that helped me to become a much better programmer, and got me out of the 'hack/patch' mindset.
1) My company has a mentoring relationship set up - I had the good fortune of working with a mentor that had the right mindset, and worked hard at it. Even if your company does not have such an opportunity, try to find someone at the company whose work is well respected, and see what you can learn from them (or failing at that, from their code itself, since there should be plenty of documented changes).
2) Take your time. There is always going to be multiple solutions to any given problem. What will set you apart is if you look at it, and cure the problem rather than the symptoms. When you see a bug report, don't take it at face value. Find out *why* the software is doing the sort of thing it's doing, and fix the right problem. The hardest part of it is actually finding the right problem.
The easiest analogy is thinking of yourself as a doctor. If a patient has a bad cough, a bad doctor will give you some cough syrup and call it a day. A good doctor will find out why you have a bad cough - sometimes the solution is a cough syrup, sometimes it's a chest x-ray and chemo. But the doctor that gave you cough syrup, even if it did end up being nothing more than just a cough, really didn't do his homework, and is going to do plenty of harm in his career.
DNS, while a very technical description, can be described in a very non-technical way so that people can get it.
If you have an old phone book around (probably unlikely), a good way to describe it would be to flip through the phone book, find a number, and cross it out with a marker. Cross out several more names and numbers, and explain that that's what the trade organizations (RIAA/MPAA) can do if the laws pass, without giving the affected party a day in court, first. You can explain that if you know someone's phone number, then you can still call them. But you can't find anywhere that can legally give you that phone number, and if they change it, you'll have no way of getting the new one legally.
In lieu of a phone book, you could always go to the index of a technical book. I wouldn't recommend vandalizing the index of one that matters to you, though.
...before there was a cancer cluster amongst TSA workers in Boston, and before the frequently flying public was exposed to that much danger. Yes, it's good that it's being looked at now, but it was absolutely irresponsible to deploy these in the first place.
It's something that's definitely a big consideration that you have an operation that's spread out amongst several locations, and IT professionals, who specifically keep up on the latest developments in security procedures, threats, and the like, are going to be more adept at planning for such things than engineers who happen to be able to set up a computer network.
With an IT department, it's easier to justify the costs of continuing education to make sure they stay apprised to the latest developments. And this will help to insure that necessary network communications between locations stays secure.
The big question to ask - what information, important to your business, would be the most devastating for someone to get a hold of, and what does your current batch of engineers do to protect it? If you aren't comfortable with your answer to that question, then an IT department is a necessity.
(While I'm in an entirely different industry, I'd say it would hurt pretty badly if someone got a hold of every record associated with your advertisers (customers), including contacts, detailed information on payments, even potentially account information, etc, etc)
I'm sorry, but the article linked is flat out wrong.
They're missing the point. Yes, two bus drivers did things that were wrong that contributed to the accent. But what really matters is proximate causation. Their actions did not cause the accident. But for what they had done, it would not have been as bad. What caused the accident was a distracted driver in a pick-up truck, sending texts, not paying attention, and rear-ending another vehicle. Had that not happened, there would not have been a pileup. Period. Even if the school bus drivers could have avoided making it worse, no matter how much attention was paid, there still would have been an accident. They did not cause it.
While I feel that the NTSB is overstepping by trying to put a national ban on all cell phone usage while driving, it doesn't change the fact that this accident was not caused by the scapegoats that the article tries to present, nor was it caused by the scapegoat that the NTSB is trying to present (people who talk on cell phones while driving, a SIGNIFICANTLY safer activity than texting while driving).
Slashdot Mirror
60% of the time, it works every time.
The telemarketing problem was already solved with the national do-not-call registry. If you opt out there, they already can't call you. The real problem is that people other than telemarketers can still get around that registry, and can make robocalls (presumably, this new rules won't change that). So the short of it? This will do nothing to stop say, Rick Santorum's campaign calling me to ask if it would change my opinion about Mitt Romney if I knew he *did x act that he didn't do*. Crack down on push polling robocalls, instead. We already have a means to take care of the telemarketers.
Couldn't agree more. If you can't deliver what you're promising, don't promise it. If you do promise it, and you don't deliver, it's not reasonable to blame the people who gave you money based on your promise.
Then their marketing message doesn't reflect reality, which isn't exactly an industry first. How many companies tell you that the average driver that switches to them saves *x* hundred dollars? Every one? That's a message that's deliberately skewed to make it sound like every insurance company has the cheapest rates. I admit that this isn't an altruistic invention of the insurance company, existing solely to provide you accolades for your ways of driving. It's a way they use to try to better figure out what you're going to cost them as a customer, and thus better figure out what they should charge you for insurance. But "prove to us you're a good driver" sure sounds better, doesn't it?
One important thing to keep in mind about insurance as a product: A lot of people have the mindset that insurance companies are trying to punish or reward good or bad drivers. And that couldn't be farther from the truth. Insurance companies are in the very unusual position of trying to set a price on a product that they don't know the cost of. That's a difficult concept to wrap around, but it's the basis of the industry - they're trying to figure out how much it's going to cost them to sell you this insurance. Some of the costs are known (payroll being a biggie), but most, they can only make educated guesses at. This is just another way that they're trying to better the information at hand to make a better educated guess. Segmentation (dividing people into smaller and smaller groups to price most accurately) favors safe drivers, to a point. Of course, if it went to its logical conclusion, and they knew exactly how much each person would cost them, insurance could not exist - because people who are going to cause three or four accidents are not going to be able to afford insurance. However, it will never be able to get to the point of segmentation that's that predictive. Due to competitive forces, though, the market will always trend that way when regulations don't interfere - and that's the cause of another important insurance term, adverse selection. If all of the good drivers are with a different company (due to their superior segmentation), the only customers you'll be left with are the bad drivers, and thus, you'll be the one paying all of the claims, and eventually will be unable to compete in the industry (except for an occasional niche company). So the short of it? If you don't like this, the target shouldn't be the insurance companies doing this - this comes down to your legislators, and their regulations. Because no insurance company is going to want to be left out - but as long as there's a level playing field, certain aspects don't need to be used. If you need further proof as to how competition forces insurance companies to use factors to increase segmentation, do a search to try to find out how many insurance companies DON'T use credit scoring for rating these days.
That being said, driving in a busy city with bad traffic makes you more likely to be involved in an accident. So maybe the system works?
You're 100% wrong there. If someone is a statistical outlier for hard braking, it isn't likely to mean that they just have bad luck of things jumping in front of their car. It's likely to mean that they're putting themselves in situations where they're going to need to brake harder and more often than the average person. And that could mean a number of things, none of which make them less likely to be involved in an accident. It's not like they're looking at this data (I hope not, anyway) and just saying, "Well, this person braked hard once, let's double their premiums". Statistical outliers are the key - people who show trends that indicate that they're more dangerous than others. (Which is exactly the opposite of what cops do when enforcing traffic laws - they're looking for specific samples of driving to penalize drivers for, which is an entirely different concept)
That's specifically why you see sharp braking mentioned in the article. Whether you're on a side street or an expressway, you're a lot more likely to be involved in an accident if you're tailgating, driving erratic speeds, and the like. If their actuaries are doing their jobs, they realize that, and that's going to be weighted a lot more heavily than actual speeds. Erratic speeds can be an indicator of: Tailgating (I have to stop suddenly because I didn't leave enough room) Distracted driving (I have to stop suddenly because I was paying attention to something else and didn't see the person slowing down) Slow response time (I have to stop suddenly because it took me too long to realize the person in front of me was slowing down) All of these things are huge indicators of potential accidents. (And of course, if an accident occurs, I guarantee 99 out of 100 people who caused accidents in the above ways try to frame it to make the other party sound at fault. "Well, the driver stopped short in front of me...")
On a note regarding Progressive, the Tripsense is an old, retired program. It was sort of the pilot for what they do now, which is significantly different (and a far cry from the GPS based tracking that is mentioned in this article). The new program is called Snapshot (formerly MyRate), and is in fact OBD port based. They changed around the information used significantly on the basis of feedback and data gathered from the pilot. Specifically, they only use, at this point, mileage driven, hard braking, and times driven. There's no GPS component, so they stopped looking at time spent in speed bands, because that's useless information without the speed limit in a given location being known. It's also only a temporary thing - you can build up a discount over a 6 month period, then send them the device back and the discount persists, as long as you had enough driving data established. (Former Progressive employee here)
It's a difficult transition, and one I had to make myself within the last year. There are really two major things that helped me to become a much better programmer, and got me out of the 'hack/patch' mindset. 1) My company has a mentoring relationship set up - I had the good fortune of working with a mentor that had the right mindset, and worked hard at it. Even if your company does not have such an opportunity, try to find someone at the company whose work is well respected, and see what you can learn from them (or failing at that, from their code itself, since there should be plenty of documented changes). 2) Take your time. There is always going to be multiple solutions to any given problem. What will set you apart is if you look at it, and cure the problem rather than the symptoms. When you see a bug report, don't take it at face value. Find out *why* the software is doing the sort of thing it's doing, and fix the right problem. The hardest part of it is actually finding the right problem. The easiest analogy is thinking of yourself as a doctor. If a patient has a bad cough, a bad doctor will give you some cough syrup and call it a day. A good doctor will find out why you have a bad cough - sometimes the solution is a cough syrup, sometimes it's a chest x-ray and chemo. But the doctor that gave you cough syrup, even if it did end up being nothing more than just a cough, really didn't do his homework, and is going to do plenty of harm in his career.
DNS, while a very technical description, can be described in a very non-technical way so that people can get it. If you have an old phone book around (probably unlikely), a good way to describe it would be to flip through the phone book, find a number, and cross it out with a marker. Cross out several more names and numbers, and explain that that's what the trade organizations (RIAA/MPAA) can do if the laws pass, without giving the affected party a day in court, first. You can explain that if you know someone's phone number, then you can still call them. But you can't find anywhere that can legally give you that phone number, and if they change it, you'll have no way of getting the new one legally. In lieu of a phone book, you could always go to the index of a technical book. I wouldn't recommend vandalizing the index of one that matters to you, though.
...before there was a cancer cluster amongst TSA workers in Boston, and before the frequently flying public was exposed to that much danger. Yes, it's good that it's being looked at now, but it was absolutely irresponsible to deploy these in the first place.
It's something that's definitely a big consideration that you have an operation that's spread out amongst several locations, and IT professionals, who specifically keep up on the latest developments in security procedures, threats, and the like, are going to be more adept at planning for such things than engineers who happen to be able to set up a computer network. With an IT department, it's easier to justify the costs of continuing education to make sure they stay apprised to the latest developments. And this will help to insure that necessary network communications between locations stays secure. The big question to ask - what information, important to your business, would be the most devastating for someone to get a hold of, and what does your current batch of engineers do to protect it? If you aren't comfortable with your answer to that question, then an IT department is a necessity. (While I'm in an entirely different industry, I'd say it would hurt pretty badly if someone got a hold of every record associated with your advertisers (customers), including contacts, detailed information on payments, even potentially account information, etc, etc)
...because I won't have to go to the Google Store and buy a new phone to get the software update that implements this.
I'm sorry, but the article linked is flat out wrong. They're missing the point. Yes, two bus drivers did things that were wrong that contributed to the accent. But what really matters is proximate causation. Their actions did not cause the accident. But for what they had done, it would not have been as bad. What caused the accident was a distracted driver in a pick-up truck, sending texts, not paying attention, and rear-ending another vehicle. Had that not happened, there would not have been a pileup. Period. Even if the school bus drivers could have avoided making it worse, no matter how much attention was paid, there still would have been an accident. They did not cause it. While I feel that the NTSB is overstepping by trying to put a national ban on all cell phone usage while driving, it doesn't change the fact that this accident was not caused by the scapegoats that the article tries to present, nor was it caused by the scapegoat that the NTSB is trying to present (people who talk on cell phones while driving, a SIGNIFICANTLY safer activity than texting while driving).