Sipos writes "The BBC has a story about pay-as-you-drive car insurance. There is not that much detail about how it would work but it seems that a black box in your car monitors your position using GPS. This information is then reported to a insurance company computer which then works out which roads you used and then bills you accordingly. The article seems to suggest that this will make insurance cheaper. Surely this will only happen for people who drive on dangerous roads less than average, after all there are no less accidents as a result? It also makes no mention of the potential for abuse of privacy this could involve. Are people really prepared to let insurance companies track their every move to save money on car insurance?"
I'm already thinking of hacks... I wonder how hard it would be to spoof GPS signals? Of course, 5 cents worth of aluminum foil over the sensor would work, too. Only if they correlate their measure of distance versus the car's odometer would they know if the system had been duped.
They could also know if you were speeding on a certain stretch of road and up your premium accordingly. "We noticed that you failed to signal your intention to turn 18 times last month. Tsk tsk. Oh, and apparently you've been eating at McDonald's quite frequently, so we've increased your health and life insurance premiums, too."
In the current US trials, reporting the driving information is voluntary. Of course, if/when more consumers participate, I'd expect base rates to go up as the folks most likely to qualify for discouts increase their participation.
Fortunately (or unfortunately for me, since I develop auto insurance rates at another company) the rating algorithm is patented by one company, so I wouldn't expect to see widespread adoption of this technology in the US anytime soon.
Progressive's history of intrusive and pseudo-scientific behavior began when Jack Green retired. They would definitely try to deny a claim if they felt like it. The fact is that the insurance industry is built on well documented statistics, but they have very real limits. Unfortunately, when marketing became more powerful than underwriting at the board table, the marketing guys imposed their own warped view of reality. (Think spammers in charge of network) All kinds of pricing alterations became common that were not adequately - or independently - justified by actuaries. The person who spearheaded it at Progressive was a real paranoid who took the rating structure to the next company she went to work for. Unfortunately, Progressive decided to keep the structure thinking that it had something to do with their marketing success. Maybe and maybe not.
My point is that stuff like this can get away from insurers easily and ends up badly when it is not supervised by adults.
Someday, insurance companies will implant GPS trackers in our heads at birth. Wouldn't that be funny if the tinfoil hat people turn out to be right after all?
>They could also know if you were speeding on a certain stretch of road and up your premium accordingly. "We noticed that you failed to signal your intention to turn 18 times last month.
Umm.. so don't speed and use your turn signal?
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
How much are you willing to trade for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? How big of a blue light special discount are you willing to trade for your privacy and personal information?
What if your life depended it, would you speed? What if every time you turn in the supermarket parking lot you don't use your turning signal, does the discount go away? Have they really thought this through? Have you?
First it was the little forms on the bottom of coupons. Then it was shopper cards. Then hidden little black boxes in cars. Then exposed little black boxes and let us use the info since we were going to anyway. And unconstitutional searches everywhere you bloody go from the movies to the airport.
Why don't we just have a sale. All Americans who are willing to give up ALL of their civil liberties in exchange for no taxes and discounts on everything you buy, please raise your hand. The line for your government implant is to the right (where else would it be?). The rest of you on the left are unpatriotic and can check in your citizenship unless you choose to join those on the right.
Don't you understand that what they are "requesting" today will be "mandatory" tomorrow? All these little chips and digs at our rights are just tests to see how much like sheep they can get us to act like before it's too late.
Call this flamebait, trolling, tin-foil-hat, wearing, whatever you want.
But every day we use a piece of our liberty that NOTHING short of complete and entire revolution can give us back.
So yes. Go ahead. Trade your every movement and purchase on this planet for a discount. And next year when the discount disappears but you still have to report your every move, remember this post and all the others like it that called you a fool.
Indeed, you are right! Here in Oregon you can now get a ticket at 3AM for not going 20mph in a school zone. And the fine is double what a normal fine would be because it is in a school zone. The new signs state: 20mph AT ANY TIME. They used to say "When children are present" which makes sense for safety. Now, safety is secondary, revenue is the goal.
When mandatory insurance laws were proposed, we were told that insurance rates would decrease, but that has NOT ben the case. Insuranc
That would suit me, and other obnoxiously rich fucks like myself, just fine. If not for the "points," that is. I don't know how it works where you usually drive, but here in Japan not only do you have to pay a fine, but you also get points. Get to many points in a given period... there goes your licence. Damn this is annoying, what's the point of being stinking filthy rich if you can't break the law and... and... just write a check.
German driver's licenses are notoriously hard to get, and are considered a rite of passage by many.
The school is expensive, and has a high failure rate, something like 40%. Generally your parents will pay for you to attend the school during summertime after your 18th birthday. Most Germans don't drive before they're 18 years old (unless they're on a tractor).
If you are driving drunk, and are pulled over by the Polizei (think 'pull-at-side'), you will lose your license FOR LIFE. You will never drive a
there is really no point. If you have an accident, and they show that you have manipulated the data, they keep your money and do not pay the claim. This would very simple to do if you have an accident in a location other than the one indicated by the GPS.
The real problem with this plan is that the current mandatory car insurance is there to make sure that if some causes an incident, there is money to pay for damages. Any complicated system that leads itself to abuse will just create more problems.
The BBC interviewed a spokesperson from the insurance company yesterday and they asked her about speeding. She said they absolutely would not be measuring your speed.
No, really.
Honestly, that's what she said and I believe her. I will not, however, be signing up for this scheme because insurance companies are amongst the scumiest most two faced companies there are and I don't believe her.
Yep, not only that but as we know (in the UK), the govt are pushing for country-wide road tolls (like we don't already pay fucking ridiculous amounts of tax to drive - tax when you buy the car, tax on petrol, then "value added tax" on the petrol+tax (hey, we now pay over £4.00 a gallon! Whoopee!), then road tax on top of that). So now, there's an incentive for people to black-box themselves, and won't that be convenient for the road toll idea? Oh, and as you mentioned, it'll also help the lazy fucking
whynot.net already came up with a very elegent and clever solution that gets around any sort of GPS, odometer, tracking measures.
Solution? Put it in the cost of gasoline.
Think about it. You need gas to drive the damn thing, you can't skirt around that issue. So the more you drive (and thus the more gas you use) the more you are paying for insurance. Now granted, this has a few flaws, namely that it is the lowest common denominator insurance. But perhaps that's a good thing. Additional coverage and plans above the standard could be purchased above and beyond what the baseline covers and would be strictly voluntary.
You can either read the book (which I found to be very interesting). Or just go to their website, here's the link for this topic
They had a blurb about this thing, and Progressive's plan to use it, on one of our local news radio stations. They were saying that the time you drive would be a major factor in your insurance premiums. I guess things like this are out of the question for anyone who works odd hours or is on call 24/7 for things that might require a drive to work.
"No, I can't come in and fix the server, it'll cost me a fortune on my car insurance."
Well that sucks for me as I tend to always go above the speed limit. Sometimes a mile above, sometimes 20. I'm pretty sure they would be actively checking the way you drive and if you drive too fast, be prepared for some rate increases.
Not supported by history? That's a stupid argument, my friend: when in history has cheap and ubiquitous GPS technology and cars that can call home been available? Wait a few years, and we'll see whether you're right or I'm a paranoid nutcase.
And has it ever occured to you that a "discount" for OnStar is the same thing mathematically as a surcharge for not having OnStar?
people will alter their behavior if they are being charged this way. Just as you will use less electricity if it is being metered rather than an "all you can eat" plan.
cheaper on average because people will alter their behavior
I disagree. Let's look at one example of prior art...Cell phones. I have a "standard" cell phone plan. It is X dollars a month, with several hundred minutes of free airtime per month. Let's give an arbitrary 400 minutes a month, for argument's sake. The plan is $50 per month.
My son wanted a particular phone with all the bells and whistles. So he gets one of these pay-as-you-go plans. This plan costs him $0.25 per minute for the first 10 minute
I'm not a fan of the government-imposed insurance tax. If someone smashes into you (and is found at fault) who has chosen not to have insurance, you take them to court and force them to pay for your car.
If you smash into a tree, it's your own damn fault if you don't have insurance.
Dear government, please stop telling me how to spend my money.
why don't we make it a public utility, like water? Well, we all know the answer to that (insurance companies are grotesquely profitable and corrupt). Still, it's painfully obvious if you live in America (not commenting on the rest of the Earth) that you must have a car. Our entire infrastructure is build around fast, personal transportation. If you must have a car, and you must have insurance, it becomes an essential service akin to electricity, water and the telephone. It becomes equally obvious that the g
And what if they hold a minimum-wage job at McDonald's? You'd probably be waiting 500 years to get your money.
Here's where my beautiful idea comes into play. If they have no money/assets/whatever to pay you off, you get first crack at their organs.
I'm betting you could get quite a good deal on one of their kidneys. Get said bad driver's kidney, then sell it to some rich couple who's kid needs a transplant. Doesn't matter if they are an organ donor or not.
Would also be an incentive for bad, noninsured driver no to do it a second time.
New Hampshire actually has no mandatory liability insurance law. Virginia has a "bond" option - you could deposit a certain amount of money with the state in lieu of insurance coverage.
That makes me think. I was in Kentucky last year and got a ticket for driving without proof of insurance (I'm from VA and plan on moving to NH in a few years). Now I have insurance, just didn't have proof on me at the time, so I'm all right, but what if I didn't have it but it was legal in my state for me not to? Would t
So what if I'm a recent [legal] immigrant making $20,000/year and I accidentally hit a $100,000 Mercedes SUV, destroying my $3,000 '88 Ford Focus and inflicting $60,000 worth of damage onto your car? So because I crashed into a car, I am bound for the rest of my life to give up $3,000/year, thereby completely eradicating any sort of chance I had to become a productive member of society and raise children and send them to college who would then go on to be two more members of a productive and non-impoverished society? That's absolutely ridiculous.
I went through this scenario years ago. My insurance got canceled (without my knowledge) 10 days before I got into a collision. Although I wasn't the cause of the collision, the court decided I was liable.
$6,700+ for the other vehicle $6,200+ remaining to pay off on my now totaled car
I moved shortly afterward. The other insurance company sued me, served my previous address and some dimwit signed for it. Insurance company wins a default judgement because I never knew of the suit.
Are people really prepared to let insurance companies track their every move to save money on car insurance?
Why not? It makes perfect sense for people who use their car only every once-in-a-while. Why should they pay as much as someone who is commuting from LA to SF twice a week?
I think many people feel they've nothing to hide and would opt for this payment plan if it can save them significant amounts of money. And as long as it is voluntary (i.e. you can always go with a flat rate), I don't see a problem with it.
It makes perfect sense for people who use their car only every once-in-a-while. Why should they pay as much as someone who is commuting from LA to SF twice a week?
For one thing, someone who drives twice a month gets a lot less practice driving than someone who drives every day. It's for this very reason that pilots must fly a certain number of hours each month.
Another thing: The roads you drive on make a difference. Highway driving, which is what most of us who commute daily do, carries different risks t
For one thing, someone who drives twice a month gets a lot less practice driving than someone who drives every day. It's for this very reason that pilots must fly a certain number of hours each month.
An automobile is not an airplane.
When you're in your twice-a-day commute, you eventually get complacant and stop paying attention. Really, once you've achieved proficency, no ammount of time is going to degrade your ability to drive--although you might need to take a few minutes to learn the car, which can actually be done in a parking lot or driveway.
The article seems to suggest that this will make insurance cheaper.
I saw the BBC's news report on TV on this a couple of days ago. They did say that this is how the insurance companies are marketing it, but the reporter came over as being pretty sceptical of it actually doing so.
Are people really prepared to let insurance companies track their every move to save money on car insurance?
Since when has the general public made it a bpoint to care about their Privacy over Money? You think that the existing lack of privacy occured because the masses didn't have a choice, or were just lazy and took shortcuts allowed by corporations?
Based on my experience with insurance companies, I don't really expect to see them use this to lower premiums, just to raise them and have excuses to terminate policies.
A great example of the shadiness of insurance companies happened a few years ago in Washington State. The insurance companies lobbied heavily to limit driving privliges for those 16-18 (limited number of minors as passengers, restrictions on driving after dark and whatnot) citing studies saying that it'd reduce the accident rates by a significant margin, which it did. The problem is that they never adjusted the insurance rates downwards to reflect these lowered accident rates, effectively giving their profits a big boost.
I live in the UK, and I can tell you there is no way that premiums are based on actuarial risk. Premiums are related to percieved ability to negociate. If you live in a poor area, your premiums go way up. If you drive a 2 litre diesel (75HP), your premiums is the same as for 2 litre petrol (150HP).
If you buy a second car (so as to have a big one when you need it and a small one when you don't) you cannot use your no claims bonus on both cars, even if you can't drive two cars at once! If you get a minibus, you cant use the no claims bonus from a van on the minibus, or vice versa, even if both are the same Ford Transit body.
You have to declare the value of the vehicle when you apply for a policy, but if you write off the vehicle, they value it half what you did. I could go on, but no need... its pretty clear that these people are major league crooks. And they use the fact that insurance is compulsory to demand money with menaces. (Pay insurance or we send the boys in blue round to visit...)
"...but our GPS log show that you were travelling at 56 mph moments before the accident. We're going to have to decline your claim..."
People don't seem to realise that an insurance company's sole purpose in existence is to NOT pay out on claims. Otherwise how do they increase their profits?! Anything that can help them reduce the percentage of claims that are paid out will be snapped up.
They make money not paying claims, but they make more money on investments. That's the real profit - the collecting of premiums and paying claims is just supporting their stock market habit.
My wife and I were discussing a different take on this concept a couple of days ago, and came to agree that this kind of thing is a *bad idea*.
Our conversation was about health care premium reductions for opting out of "maternity" services. But I think the same arguments apply here. Basically, this kind of system defeats the core purpose of insurance; namely, to share risk.
There are times when charging more for a given behavior makes sense (eg quitting smoking) and times when it doesn't (eg driving in safer neighborhoods). Basically, given that people for the most part can't choose where they drive, this amounts to a violation of the risk sharing priciple. It doesn't drive down overall premiums, simply shifts those premiums to an unlucky subset, while getting others a break the didn't earn.
And of course, the system is designed to encourage safer driving, but we already have that in the form of accident reports and moving violations, which bring up your premium dramatically when you commit them.
I don't want to see a system where the rich folks get lower premiums due to driving in suburbs, while urban drivers get nailed. It leads to that insurer ending up with safer drivers overall (as the higher premiums for those in Compton drive them out of the insurance pool). In fact, in most cases such preferential insuring is actually illegal.
You can't accept only low-risk drivers as an insurer, because doing so breaks the risk-sharing concept that underlies the whole system.
I'm surprised that in 35 posts no one has mentioned that pay-as-you-drive insurance would tend to decrease driving, and so would help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming, and urban air pollution.
These would seem to be the major benefits of this idea by far, in the grand scheme of things.
Also. There's no need to track everywhere the car goes in Orwellian fashion. All you need is a new design of tamper-proof odometer that can be read once a year when you renew your insurance.
A true pay as go or 'those who drive more pay more' concept would be to pay at the pump. The states should add.10 (or whatever) per gallon to go to Liability coverage for all that drive. No more uninsured motorists. No high fees for those that only drive 200 miles per month. It may sound a little socialist but you'd sure see those SUV sales give way to Hybrids.
Young drivers are usually saddled with -HUGE- -annual- premiums, even if they don't drive that much (unlikely, but - hey - with Internet & other hacking activities eating up our time, there's less left over for cruisin'...;-)
Excellent idea, who's time has come... ie, as soon as it becomes sufficiently hack-proof to work... eg, with independent checking stations installed, a one-City-only policy could work (every time the car passes an automatic toll-RFID station, it could broadcast its ID & the number of KM's driven, up to that point, which could be relayed to the insurance company...)
There was some talk about this in California a few years ago, they wanted to bake the car insurance into the price of gas, so that everyone would automatically be covered. This would have solved the problem with uninsured drivers, as well as promote energy efficient cars - drive a gas guzzler, and you pay more for insurance too. Personally, I thought it was a great idea, but of course the insurance industry lobby shot that idea down real fast.
Auto insurance is a mandated purchase by the government, and controlled by a few large companies. Those squealing that the "free market" will prevent abuses either are willfully blind to or for some reason can't see the imbalance of power involved here--in no way could the automobile insurance market be considered a free market in any sense. Because insurance is a government required purchase, and because of the history of the insurance industry robbing the public, the industry is and hopefully will continue to be heavily regulated, which is the only hope of preventing this becoming mandatory except for the very rich who can afford large surcharges.
Exactly. It leaves me wondering too, wouldn't the insurance companies be against this for the same reason the cable companies are against a la carte programming? Because the good subsidize the bad. Obviously they wouln't want to do this if the majority of people are going to save money as that would just decrease their revenue. Hence I think the "save money" thing is really just a ploy to implement a new system that would actually have the same effect (for most people) of increased rates. Thanks but no thanks.
The insurance companies WANT to know that information so they can root out and refuse coverage to the high-risk pool of drivers. That would allow them to reduce their risk, reduce their costs (reinsurers), and make a boat load of cash. The problem is that it SCREWS the high-risk group since they have to pay OUTRAGEOUS costs for insurance, and you end up with a hunk of people who are uninsured.
This is essentially what health care is dealing with right now. As costs and liability goes up and technology in
Why don't they just take down the miles of the odometer
Some people do try that. However, odometers are designed in such a way that it obvious to see when the number has been reversed (the gears have assymmetric shaped teeth that allow the odometer to count upwards). Odometers which have been "clocked back" usually have numbers that are misaligned like certain styles of web page counter.
Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Insightful)
They could also know if you were speeding on a certain stretch of road and up your premium accordingly. "We noticed that you failed to signal your intention to turn 18 times last month. Tsk tsk. Oh, and apparently you've been eating at McDonald's quite frequently, so we've increased your health and life insurance premiums, too."
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Informative)
Insurer Eyes Driving Habits [myrtlebeachonline.com]
Insurers offer discounts to customers who allow their driving to be tracked by electronic monitors [cnn.com]
Progressive to Use Data-Logging Device To Help Drivers Save Money On Auto Insurance [businesswire.com]
In the current US trials, reporting the driving information is voluntary. Of course, if/when more consumers participate, I'd expect base rates to go up as the folks most likely to qualify for discouts increase their participation.
Fortunately (or unfortunately for me, since I develop auto insurance rates at another company) the rating algorithm is patented by one company, so I wouldn't expect to see widespread adoption of this technology in the US anytime soon.
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:4, Informative)
My point is that stuff like this can get away from insurers easily and ends up badly when it is not supervised by adults.
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Funny)
Great, so it's not enough anymore to just make a tinfoil hat for myself. Now I have to make one for my car, too!
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Interesting)
Someday, insurance companies will implant GPS trackers in our heads at birth. Wouldn't that be funny if the tinfoil hat people turn out to be right after all?
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Insightful)
>They could also know if you were speeding on a certain stretch of road and up your premium accordingly. "We noticed that you failed to signal your intention to turn 18 times last month.
Umm.. so don't speed and use your turn signal?
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Insightful)
Umm.. so don't speed and use your turn signal?
Seems like a fair trade for lower insurance premiums.
How much are you willing to trade for life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? How big of a blue light special discount are you willing to trade for your privacy and personal information?
What if your life depended it, would you speed? What if every time you turn in the supermarket parking lot you don't use your turning signal, does the discount go away? Have they really thought this through? Have you?
First it was the little forms on the bottom of coupons. Then it was shopper cards. Then hidden little black boxes in cars. Then exposed little black boxes and let us use the info since we were going to anyway. And unconstitutional searches everywhere you bloody go from the movies to the airport.
Why don't we just have a sale. All Americans who are willing to give up ALL of their civil liberties in exchange for no taxes and discounts on everything you buy, please raise your hand. The line for your government implant is to the right (where else would it be?). The rest of you on the left are unpatriotic and can check in your citizenship unless you choose to join those on the right.
Don't you understand that what they are "requesting" today will be "mandatory" tomorrow? All these little chips and digs at our rights are just tests to see how much like sheep they can get us to act like before it's too late.
Call this flamebait, trolling, tin-foil-hat, wearing, whatever you want.
But every day we use a piece of our liberty that NOTHING short of complete and entire revolution can give us back.
So yes. Go ahead. Trade your every movement and purchase on this planet for a discount. And next year when the discount disappears but you still have to report your every move, remember this post and all the others like it that called you a fool.
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, you are right! Here in Oregon you can now get a ticket at 3AM for not going 20mph in a school zone. And the fine is double what a normal fine would be because it is in a school zone. The new signs state: 20mph AT ANY TIME. They used to say "When children are present" which makes sense for safety. Now, safety is secondary, revenue is the goal.
When mandatory insurance laws were proposed, we were told that insurance rates would decrease, but that has NOT ben the case. Insuranc
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Funny)
I don't know how it works where you usually drive, but here in Japan not only do you have to pay a fine, but you also get points. Get to many points in a given period
Damn this is annoying, what's the point of being stinking filthy rich if you can't break the law and
PS:
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Interesting)
The school is expensive, and has a high failure rate, something like 40%. Generally your parents will pay for you to attend the school during summertime after your 18th birthday. Most Germans don't drive before they're 18 years old (unless they're on a tractor).
If you are driving drunk, and are pulled over by the Polizei (think 'pull-at-side'), you will lose your license FOR LIFE. You will never drive a
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem with this plan is that the current mandatory car insurance is there to make sure that if some causes an incident, there is money to pay for damages. Any complicated system that leads itself to abuse will just create more problems.
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Informative)
No, really.
Honestly, that's what she said and I believe her. I will not, however, be signing up for this scheme because insurance companies are amongst the scumiest most two faced companies there are and I don't believe her.
Parent
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big brother-in-law, the insurance salesman (Score:5, Interesting)
Solution? Put it in the cost of gasoline.
Think about it. You need gas to drive the damn thing, you can't skirt around that issue. So the more you drive (and thus the more gas you use) the more you are paying for insurance. Now granted, this has a few flaws, namely that it is the lowest common denominator insurance. But perhaps that's a good thing. Additional coverage and plans above the standard could be purchased above and beyond what the baseline covers and would be strictly voluntary.
You can either read the book (which I found to be very interesting). Or just go to their website, here's the link for this topic
http://whynot.net/view_idea.php?id=499
enjoy
Parent
Re:Hacks... how else? (Score:3, Interesting)
"No, I can't come in and fix the server, it'll cost me a fortune on my car insurance."
hmmm, not for me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmmm, not for me (Score:3, Insightful)
And has it ever occured to you that a "discount" for OnStar is the same thing mathematically as a surcharge for not having OnStar?
Wrong turns (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wrong turns (Score:3, Interesting)
cheaper on average because (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:cheaper on average because (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. Let's look at one example of prior art...Cell phones. I have a "standard" cell phone plan. It is X dollars a month, with several hundred minutes of free airtime per month. Let's give an arbitrary 400 minutes a month, for argument's sake. The plan is $50 per month.
My son wanted a particular phone with all the bells and whistles. So he gets one of these pay-as-you-go plans. This plan costs him $0.25 per minute for the first 10 minute
Pay As You go eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:3, Funny)
If you smash into a tree, it's your own damn fault if you don't have insurance.
Dear government, please stop telling me how to spend my money.
Thank you.
Re:Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if they hold a minimum-wage job at McDonald's? You'd probably be waiting 500 years to get your money.
Parent
If it's such an essential service... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:5, Funny)
Here's where my beautiful idea comes into play. If they have no money/assets/whatever to pay you off, you get first crack at their organs.
I'm betting you could get quite a good deal on one of their kidneys. Get said bad driver's kidney, then sell it to some rich couple who's kid needs a transplant. Doesn't matter if they are an organ donor or not.
Would also be an incentive for bad, noninsured driver no to do it a second time.
Parent
Re:Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:3, Interesting)
That makes me think. I was in Kentucky last year and got a ticket for driving without proof of insurance (I'm from VA and plan on moving to NH in a few years). Now I have insurance, just didn't have proof on me at the time, so I'm all right, but what if I didn't have it but it was legal in my state for me not to? Would t
Re:Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Do We Really Need Mandatory Insurance? (Score:3, Interesting)
$6,700+ for the other vehicle
$6,200+ remaining to pay off on my now totaled car
I moved shortly afterward. The other insurance company sued me, served my previous address and some dimwit signed for it. Insurance company wins a default judgement because I never knew of the suit.
The state suspends my drive
Why not? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? It makes perfect sense for people who use their car only every once-in-a-while. Why should they pay as much as someone who is commuting from LA to SF twice a week?
I think many people feel they've nothing to hide and would opt for this payment plan if it can save them significant amounts of money. And as long as it is voluntary (i.e. you can always go with a flat rate), I don't see a problem with it.
Re:Why not? (Score:3, Insightful)
For one thing, someone who drives twice a month gets a lot less practice driving than someone who drives every day. It's for this very reason that pilots must fly a certain number of hours each month.
Another thing: The roads you drive on make a difference. Highway driving, which is what most of us who commute daily do, carries different risks t
Re:Why not? (Score:4, Insightful)
An automobile is not an airplane.
When you're in your twice-a-day commute, you eventually get complacant and stop paying attention. Really, once you've achieved proficency, no ammount of time is going to degrade your ability to drive--although you might need to take a few minutes to learn the car, which can actually be done in a parking lot or driveway.
Parent
Sceptical (Score:2)
I saw the BBC's news report on TV on this a couple of days ago. They did say that this is how the insurance companies are marketing it, but the reporter came over as being pretty sceptical of it actually doing so.
I want my privacy...ooooh! Money! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when has the general public made it a bpoint to care about their Privacy over Money? You think that the existing lack of privacy occured because the masses didn't have a choice, or were just lazy and took shortcuts allowed by corporations?
I don't trust 'em (Score:5, Insightful)
A great example of the shadiness of insurance companies happened a few years ago in Washington State. The insurance companies lobbied heavily to limit driving privliges for those 16-18 (limited number of minors as passengers, restrictions on driving after dark and whatnot) citing studies saying that it'd reduce the accident rates by a significant margin, which it did. The problem is that they never adjusted the insurance rates downwards to reflect these lowered accident rates, effectively giving their profits a big boost.
Re:I don't trust 'em (Score:5, Interesting)
If you buy a second car (so as to have a big one when you need it and a small one when you don't) you cannot use your no claims bonus on both cars, even if you can't drive two cars at once! If you get a minibus, you cant use the no claims bonus from a van on the minibus, or vice versa, even if both are the same Ford Transit body.
You have to declare the value of the vehicle when you apply for a policy, but if you write off the vehicle, they value it half what you did. I could go on, but no need ... its pretty clear that these people are major league crooks. And they use the fact that insurance is compulsory to demand money with menaces. (Pay insurance or we send the boys in blue round to visit...)
Parent
"I'm sorry sir..." (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't seem to realise that an insurance company's sole purpose in existence is to NOT pay out on claims. Otherwise how do they increase their profits?! Anything that can help them reduce the percentage of claims that are paid out will be snapped up.
Re:"I'm sorry sir..." (Score:5, Insightful)
--RJ
Parent
Your life is an open book anyways (Score:4, Insightful)
People don't have a problem with their credit card companies tracking every cent they are spending, so why should they have problems with this?
Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Our conversation was about health care premium reductions for opting out of "maternity" services. But I think the same arguments apply here. Basically, this kind of system defeats the core purpose of insurance; namely, to share risk.
There are times when charging more for a given behavior makes sense (eg quitting smoking) and times when it doesn't (eg driving in safer neighborhoods). Basically, given that people for the most part can't choose where they drive, this amounts to a violation of the risk sharing priciple. It doesn't drive down overall premiums, simply shifts those premiums to an unlucky subset, while getting others a break the didn't earn.
And of course, the system is designed to encourage safer driving, but we already have that in the form of accident reports and moving violations, which bring up your premium dramatically when you commit them.
I don't want to see a system where the rich folks get lower premiums due to driving in suburbs, while urban drivers get nailed. It leads to that insurer ending up with safer drivers overall (as the higher premiums for those in Compton drive them out of the insurance pool). In fact, in most cases such preferential insuring is actually illegal.
You can't accept only low-risk drivers as an insurer, because doing so breaks the risk-sharing concept that underlies the whole system.
Less greenhouse gas emission (Score:4, Insightful)
These would seem to be the major benefits of this
idea by far, in the grand scheme of things.
Also. There's no need to track everywhere the car
goes in Orwellian fashion. All you need is a new
design of tamper-proof odometer that can be read
once a year when you renew your insurance.
True Pay as you go... (Score:3, Interesting)
Great savings for Young & Pensioner Drivers... (Score:3, Insightful)
-annual- premiums, even if they don't drive
that much (unlikely, but - hey - with Internet
& other hacking activities eating up our time,
there's less left over for cruisin'...
Excellent idea, who's time has come...
ie, as soon as it becomes sufficiently
hack-proof to work... eg, with independent
checking stations installed, a one-City-only
policy could work (every time the car passes
an automatic toll-RFID station, it could
broadcast its ID & the number of KM's driven,
up to that point, which could be relayed to
the insurance company...)
Add it to the price of gas. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Free market" does not apply here. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Exactly the opposite is true... (Score:3, Insightful)
The insurance companies WANT to know that information so they can root out and refuse coverage to the high-risk pool of drivers. That would allow them to reduce their risk, reduce their costs (reinsurers), and make a boat load of cash. The problem is that it SCREWS the high-risk group since they have to pay OUTRAGEOUS costs for insurance, and you end up with a hunk of people who are uninsured.
This is essentially what health care is dealing with right now. As costs and liability goes up and technology in
Re:Simple Fix (Score:5, Informative)
Some people do try that. However, odometers are designed in such a way that it obvious to see when the number has been reversed (the gears have assymmetric shaped teeth that allow the odometer to count upwards). Odometers which have been "clocked back" usually have numbers that are misaligned like certain styles of web page counter.
Parent