Trust an Insurance Company's "Drive-Cam?" 480
ramen99 writes "Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam' that records driving habits and wirelessly transmits video footage to a 'neutral driving coach' for evaluation and comment. While this might be great to monitor a new teen driver, it will also monitor other adult drivers. The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable. Would you give up your privacy to save some dough? Installation is free, and the camera mounts just under the rear-view mirror. Something seems fishy about this..." Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash (sent in by antdude).
Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Would that recording from your camera be admissable if the recording system is not inside a black box that you cannot open yourself without leaving traces?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, I was in a situation that was similar, as it involved video footage, but did not involve vehicles.
In the middle of one night, someone shot out the front windows of his store. Lucky, the people who usually worked late and would have been in the line of fire, happened to go home early that day.
The police looked at their harddrive based surveillance system, but due to the quality of the cameras, they were not able to see any identifying marks and simply said "thank you", not "can we have this for evidence."
They did pull the bullets that they could easily reach. That is, the ones that lodged in shortly after entry, rather than passing through the thin walls and eventually hitting somewhere in the back of the warehouse.
I sat down with the owner, captured all the related video, and send it to my home machine. From there, I poured through all the camera views and compiled it into a single run video, cutting from camera to camera to show his path around the building, and the shots that took out the window.
Back at the store, we had the staff watch the video I made, and asked them if anyone knew the vehicle. The color and type were obvious, but the markings were blurry and the license plate was a whopping 4px wide at best. There were some other distinguishing features. Someone said "Hey, that looks like..." who was a customer that was a bit rude, and they had helped him carry stuff out to his vehicle a few weeks before.
From the customer records, they found a name, home address, etc, etc. That was provided to the police, who said "Well, that's not much to go on, sorry we can't do anything."
We then drove out to the guys house. His vehicle was parked on the street, and I clearly video taped all the distinguishing features of the vehicle, along with a good view of the license plates.
I then edited the new footage, and appended it to the end of the first set of footage. I burned several copies of the DVD, signing each one. I also typed up a statement of what I had done, my sources, and that I was willing to testify to what I had done to make the footage. I honestly didn't even know who the shooter was, I just took the evidence, and make it into something that was easy to view.
It took several phone calls to get the case escalated to a more senior officer. He was presented with the DVD, and watched it with the owner of the store. His response was "wow, you did our work for us."
They secured a search warrant based on my DVD. When they arrived at the guys house, he was honestly surprised. They mentioned a little bit of what they knew, such as "we have video surveillance and positive identification of your vehicle being involved in this incident." He admitted to everything and two other shootings that night. The gun was still under the seat of the vehicle (very illegal in that state).
I've never been called to be a witness in the case, so I'm guessing that he plead guilty and took the sentence.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
Why would you provide evidence against yourself, ever? Don't talk. Don't give them anything. Talk to your lawyer.
If you have evidence, your lawyer will take it and present it with the correct chain of custody maintained.
Providing evidence to the police against yourself has to be one of the stupidest things people can do. Well, I guess pleading guilty to get off on a lighter sentence for something that you weren't involved in is stupider, but that happens a lot.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
The crummier the original source (dash cam, web cam, etc) the easier it is to blend in CG elements perfectly.
The higher quality the source (35mm film, RED 4k Camera, IMAX) the harder it is.
And, just FYI, Hollywood is easily capable of creating photo-realistic CGI- but most movie companies aren't interested in paying or scheduling for it. And that's not even considering the fact that all CGI has to be approved by the director- who many times DOES NOT know what looks right in the scene and says it looks too blue or too orange. The end result is that most VFX shots are "good enough" for the money and time allotted.
Lastly, there are many talented individuals out there who given enough time can do photoreal effects.
Here's just one example:
http://vimeo.com/5407991?hd=1 [vimeo.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not entirely true. There are lots of effects in movies used for cleanup... wire work removal, editing street signs, removing bystanders, etc. That most people wouldn't even know were originally on the film. They don't use it for things like "Avatar" because they want it to look CGI and "unrealistic" but it's used all the time in movies to beef up car chases and enhance special effects most people wouldn't even notice.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Err- what's not entirely true? You actually made the next point I was going to make- that even a non-"Effects" film these days can have up to 100 effects shots and most of those are invisible.
In my above comment, I was talking about CG characters, vehicles and environments since that's what the OP seemed to be referring to- my closer was going to be your comment, that what he thinks of VFX is actually pretty narrow.
If I had a dash cam and wanted to make that blurry driver who hit me look like he had a cellp
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol you've never been involved in a court case, have you?
Saying "what if he made it up" with absolutely no evidence to back that up does not introduce any doubt at all. People are smart enough to think "Is there any evidence he made it up? No? Ok, it's probably real then."
All someone has to do is ask themselves which scenario is more plausible: Guy sets up camera in car for just such an occasion, or Guy manages to engineer from scratch a video that even the top special effects guys in the film industry can
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
I'm guessing it'll go like this:
1. teens
2. public employees
3. private employees
4. you
(note, for many #1-3 will already be you.)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Except one of their partners [teensafedriver.com] is Drivecam.com [drivecam.com]
Drivecam advertises a behavior-based risk mitigation program for fleet drivers.
And their site lists a bunch of private companies that utilize their technology.
I think the idea is right, but the order should be:
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Funny)
I've had too many assholes hit my car, so it goes:
1) Me
2) Them
3) Others
4) Employees of anyone
5) Profit (?)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm with you (and the OP of this thread). I'd love to have a camera in the car that records what's happening in front of me so that when some jackass hits me. Someone backed into my car while it was parked a couple weeks ago and took off. $2000 worth of damage (including some used parts rather than new) and $250 out of my pocket for the deductible. You'd better believe I wish I had video of that incident, because not only would they be paying, they'd be getting a ticket for leaving the scene of an accident. In addition, maybe I could find out why they couldn't see a red car parked in a lot in broad daylight.
For a side project, I've sometimes considered creating an "aggressivedrivers.com" website or something that just shows video of some of the stupid shit I see people doing out on the road. But what would be the point? It's not like anything short of dying will stop those drivers.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You don't have to use seatbelts if you drive your private conveyance on a private road. I too weep that my children won't know the joy of cheap high-octane gas made with lead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
everybody misses the obvious. This wont' ever be legally "mandated".. but eventually insurance companies won't let you have insurance without it.
After one speeding ticket or accident (no matter fault) the choice will be to pay $500 extra for 3 years or install this system for "free"... which of course will eventually have monitoring fees/law enforcement uses as usage grows. So as soon as law enforcement give everybody one speedy cam ticket, everybody will be "required" by insurance to have this.... and you
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why do the slashmongs trot out the "correlation does not imply causation" line as if it's some deep wisdom?
Who cares about causation here? Certainly not the insurance companies, they just want to identify factors correlating with crashes.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do the slashmongs trot out the "correlation does not imply causation" line as if it's some deep wisdom?
Who cares about causation here? Certainly not the insurance companies, they just want to identify factors correlating with crashes.
Maybe for "slashmongs" like yourself who apparently don't get the (not-so-subtle) difference between causation and correlation?
Insurance companies certainly care about causation, not simply correlation, e.g. if they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
If they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
I guess you've never worked for an insurance company, this would not seem unreasonable at all to many of the actuaries I know.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, for causation. Therefore, if you want to eliminate causations, and can afford to error in that direction, eliminating correlations is a good way to do so. Especially since it is so difficult to prove causation.
"Correlation is not causation" does not mean all correlations can be mindlessly discarded.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
To an insurance company, if a correlation exists, it is relatively unimportant to know WHY it exists. In fact, the only reason I can think of that they would be interested in the WHY is to use that information to find other correlations.
This isn't because insurance companies are stupid, it's because they aren't. People have this silly idea that correlation is meaningless, and only causation ever matters. However, when evaluating probabilities, causation is utterly useless.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (...) might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
The question is: useful to who? Chances are your cam gets you in bigger trouble than it could ever save you from.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
(also in reply to all the other replies)
all kinds of things can happen. maybe your cam happens to record some criminal activity, and the police come get it as evidence (i call that trouble), maybe it records some situation you got in due to someone elses' mistake, maybe it happens to record what you were doing while you told someone else (boss, wife?) you were doing something else, and just maybe you actually do something utterly stupid.
crashes or whatever in which video images are required to determine who's fault it was are extremely rare. damage patterns (your backside, their front?), rubber on the road, traffic rules and witnesses provide more than enough clues in nearly all crashes. the only situation in which the cam is your only chance, is when someone hits your from the front (were them cam is) and then leaves the scene. i have quite some trouble thinking of such situations where an accident affects the front of your car AND the license plate of the other party is visible on the video AND it wasn't your fault.
therefore i think a cam has more potential to cause trouble than to solve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative? Insurance rates for that age group are insanely high! So I think the insurance company, having to reduce its risk and still remain competitive, came-up with this idea. As a parent, I would definitively go for it. If my kid doesn't like it, let him/her pay the insurance.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?
Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Informative)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?
Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?
Indeed! I'm one of several driving instructors in my local Audi Club who run several teen driving clinics per year. It's astounding how much they'll learn in a single day of instruction. I certainly feel better about their ability to handle a car when they leave, and (I think) so do they.
We teach basic car control, and give them the opportunity to actually lose control in a safe environment, so they know what it's like, know what their car is capable of (and isn't capable of) and mostly, just instill some confidence in them, so that when something happens on the road, they'll already have been there at least once, and hopefully won't panic.
"Driver education" as taught here in the US doesn't teach them anything about driving a car. It teaches them to obey the law (and not too effectively). If they had a solid sense of the amount of energy involved in even the most basic maneuvers, they'd probably look at speeding etc. in a whole new light. And I hope we help, at least a little, with that.
I'd love to require a course like ours for all new drivers before they get a license, and perhaps an occasional refresher for all drivers, period (even us instructors!)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I like that idea. you are correct, the idea of drives ed as "practice" time went out the window long ago. Most places had drivers ed as an actual class when I was that age and since schools have dropped it. This forces kids to take part-time classes where they might drive with instruction 4-5 times tops then get handed a "learners permit" to drive with their parents. Doughnuts in an empty lot is now "wreckless driving" in most places so practicing anything risky is verboten. Hence kids (and many adults) ha
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so when do they learn to drive at night? Because the risk clock for learning to adapt doesn't start until you get practice.
The silly idea of restricted licenses just moves the problem another 2-3 years down the road.... I expect in 5 years 27 will be the new 25 for getting out of the insurance gutter when the risk factor shifts up from the restricted license laws.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must disagree. A large part of the problem is emotional control. This inherently becomes less of a problem as the driver ages. It still needs to be learned, and learned in unsupervised driving. But older people learn it much more quickly. And women inherently have less of this problem than men.
I'll agree that practice in driving is a part of the answer, but probably only for the first month.
N.B.: Even adults suffer from this problem, though usually to a lesser degree. Ever hear of "road rage"?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"As a parent, I would definitively go for it.", until the Drive-Cam captured "Champaign" actively resting her head in your lap because your car was in the shop, and you just took the kid's car that day.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some things I don't want people to know about me, but I *really* don't care if they know where I've been.
You see, that is the view of the same people that normally claim "I have nothing to hide". Well, sir, I have everything to hide. If they record from your car, the don't just know where you go. They'll probably end up knowing where you go, who you go with, when you did it, how you got there, how long you stayed, what you carried with you, which way you go to work, what school your kids go to, what time and where you pick them up, what you talk about in the car with your wife, what you talk about when you cal
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Funny)
You have to think about the big picture here.
It's Monday morning after a weekend of hard rocking. The day is already a bit hazy because several elements of various substances are still floating around in your system.
While traveling a cozy 57mph in a 35mph zone some elderly guy in a walker leaps out of nowhere across the street during a possibly red'ish light.
The light was more maroon than anything.
This is a fairly serious accident, but it's important to note you really shouldn't stick around for something that was obviously not your fault. You reap what you sow or at least that is the passing comment you provide to the evil knievel elderly gentlemen.
In most circumstances this really shouldn't be a problem. However, cameras are funny things and it might be interpreted differently by others. There are just risks and unnecessary risks. Myself... I like to err on the side of caution.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Informative)
How are people supposed to know which posts are jokes if they aren't modded as Funny?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Was that a pedestrian? I thought it was a squirrel, and as far as I know, I'm under no legal obligation to stop after running over a squirrel.
If you didn't see the suicidal elderly man who jumped in front of your car, and heard the bump/thump, it could be dismissed as an animal or some other road debris. I've never hit a person, but I have unfortunately hit a few animals over the years. I once hit a plastic trash can one morning at about 55mph (the speed limit on the road),
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Ditto. And if you discover the insurance company raised your rates after you install the camera, then just switch companies. That's one of the advantages of not having a monopoly-based system.
Ultimately you'll run in to adverse selection if this becomes widespread. Here's the simplistic version: Drivers start off all paying x, but some are safer than others and the camera picks this up. The safest drivers install the camera and save money. The average safety of those without a camera falls, so the non-camera premium rises. The safest without one install the camera and save money. The average safety of the remainder falls again. And so on.
You have to expect that someday saying no to a camera implies you are almost certainly a high accident risk, so all of the insurance companies will charge you very considerably more.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Then those who don't want one, get it forced on them just record a safe drive to work, then installs a lcd screen playing that back in front of the camera so they get a friendly view. Or figure out a way to just play it directly into the camera.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, my phone belongs to me, not my phone company, and it's open source. Meaning, it's pretty unlikely someone will actually use it to snoop on me. If they can, it'd certainly be a targeted attack, not a broad monitor-every-driver-always situation like we're discussing here. It's next to impossible to defend against a targeted attack, especially when it comes to computers (e.g. cell phones)... but that's not the issue here.
Field Mod (Score:4, Funny)
Not if you put a PostIt note over it while you're driving.
Re: (Score:2)
Subpoena (Score:5, Insightful)
If a participant is involved in an accident, will anyone besides parents and their teens have access to the audio and video?
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
Which in reality means the very people you wouldn't want to show the video to will be able to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Which in reality means the very people you wouldn't want to show the video to will be able to see it.
I'm a responsible driver, and I find it more likely that I'd WANT to have hard evidence when the other guy starts lying about the circumstances of an accident.
Or better yet, when a cop gives you a bullshit ticket. When you're in court, if it's your word versus the cop's, the cop wins. If it's the camera versus the cop, you might have a chance.
Will be added to you tax ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least until the jaywalk riots of 2010 anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well except that this is private industry, not the government. Let me make that more accurate for you:
The next step is to put equipment on your body that continuously monitors your activities where each Jaywalk and other minor infringements result in changes to your life insurance deductible. You health insurance company will also adjust your deductible for each offending word that comes out of your mouth, as it shows that you haven't been dealing with stress in your life properly and are liable to die quic
It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's simple (Score:5, Informative)
Per the slashdot post - ""Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam'"
Per the link provided in it.
"Will teens or parents participating in Teen Safe Driver get a discount on insurance?
A. No. While there are many financial and non-financial benefits from participating in Teen Safe Driver, American Family does not have enough information at this point to provide an insurance discount to participants. "
One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want it in my car so don't put it in a teenager's either.
Re:One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
People who think it's acceptable to monitor their teens' driving habits, cellphone position or bank transactions have an awful basic view of their children. I could understand such measures for small children up to 12 years of age or so, but after that they should be taught trust and responsibility. How are you supposed to grow up as a responsible adult if you have your parents watching and commenting your every move?
The trouble with granting your children privacy is that you also run the risk of them doing things you don't like. They might lie to you. They might go to a parties and drink alcohol. They might even have sex (oh noes!). But this is something that is bound to happen sooner or later anyway, and it's impossible to stop teens from being teens. The solution is not to monitor your children 24/7, but to give them the knowledge and ability to handle those situations. Teach them the risks of alcohol in itself and drunk driving in particular. Tell them about STDs, birth control and safe sex. Let them know when you find out they've lied about their whereabouts and give them a reasonable punishment (e.g. not borrowing the car again for month or so). Better yet, take the opportunity to talk about said things.
As it happens, I don't doubt that Teen Safe Driver works when it comes to reducing accidents. I just think it's an awful way of raising your children.
Don't know how it is in Britain, (Score:3, Informative)
I can imagine that *most* people with their own cars will scratch their heads once or twice before filing the claim, as doing so could deprive them from no-claim bonus of said insurance company.
Re: (Score:2)
but here in The Netherlands, many "computer engineers" (I don't know how broad they take that term) working for a *contractor* drive a lease-car. When "we" have an accident, it is common practice to file the complete claim, because "we" don't have to pay a dime. I can imagine that *most* people with their own cars will scratch their heads once or twice before filing the claim, as doing so could deprive them from no-claim bonus of said insurance company.
Detachering, you mean? 'ICT-secondments' would fit the description, but i don't know if it's a word. Yay for foreign languages.
Re: (Score:2)
10 years ago my then girlfriend moved in. I added her to my insurance policy.
2 year ago we got married. My insurance premium dropped by 25% because statistically, married couples crash less.
It's all statistics.
Three biggest lies (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there is a difference between changing the insurance rate (lowering it) and issuing new rates (raising it). So, they would never use any information obtained to consider changing the insurance rate.
Do it like Gmail. (Score:2, Insightful)
Follow Googles Gmail model, Instead of giving a discount they should give people free petrol. People prefer tot receive than to save. As Gmail has proven will sell our their privacy for receiving something.
Bound to work.
Coming soon to an "Ask Slashdot" near you ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays. (Score:2, Interesting)
Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays in hotels unless the job has been scheduled to be completed over more than a day which has only happened once in 4 years.
This means I have to get up at 5am to drive 300 miles from one end of the country to another over motorways usually on the damn M6 then over twisty country roads for 4 to 5 hrs arrive at one of the many generic industrial parks to do a days work and then drive back usually arriving after 10pm all without going over the legal speed limits.
Ther
Re:Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're an idiot.
You're being forced to work under unreasonable and dangerous conditions.
You are risking your life and others on the road (no sleep, exhaustion, skip eating = eventually you will fall asleep and/or pass out on a major motorway).
Your employers have absolutely zero care for you at all - to the point where what you have said suggest they are actually, knowingly, breaking several employment laws. That's how much respect they have for you.
What they are doing is *not* shifting the cost - it's called finding some idiot to work his arse off and pay you for doing one page of tax paperwork and not caring about *anything* else that happens to them, including if they kill themselves or others.
Get a brain. Get the hell out. If I knew you, I'd report you AND your employer for a) dangerous driving, b) employment-related offences. That's *not* a job. It's slave labour. Screw the "credit crunch", there are millions of jobs out there that pay the same and don't involve that crap. Where the hell are your brains?
Re: (Score:2)
On the side of the road, next to the one belonging to the person he just ran over.
It would be wonderful! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For some definition of better. By Canadian definition, retarded bacon brain idiot who has reflexes of a dead horse, always drives 45 km/h an hour everywhere, because he is scared shitless to drive faster than that, never uses turning lights (probably doesn't even know what they are for) is considered a great driver by police, insurance company and even general population.
On the other hand person confident in their driving ability, driving a good fine tuned car with good handling and breaking capability, who
Re:It would be wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically this is massive systematic criminalization of speeding, just because it's so much simpler and easier to enforce.
If you go twice as fast you have four times the energy. This is why speeding is a priority. Car parts sometimes fail while you are using them through no fault of your own, speed limits are supposed to reflect that.
Obligatory Disclaimer: Anyone not going 75 mph on the posted-65mph Highway 280 in California is getting passed by everyone, including the truckers and the buses. Just took 101 to 1something to 1 to 9 to 35 to 280 to 101 to 175 to home yesterday, and the freeway was MOVING. I actually got to get up around 100 C on the thermostat in my 1982 W126 300SD :)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"breaking capability"
Well no wonder. Get a car that doesn't break all the time. Breaking cars are dangerous.
Consider The Question (Score:5, Interesting)
The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable.
Consider the question at a basic level. Is your insurance company altruistic, or are they profit seeking? For many corporations the answer is the latter. In fact it may be their fiduciary duty, unless their mission statement says they will be altruistic.
Assuming the corporation is profit seeking, you can assume that your relationship is adversarial. They may consider good treatment of the customer to be a profitable thing, but the principal motivation is still profit.
Can you tell if they treat their customers well? What evidence do you have? If you have no evidence of how they treat their customers, it may indicate that such information is not generally available. If that is the case, it is safe to assume that the company is not overly concerned with customer satisfaction.
That leaves you with legal obligation. What legal binding have they entered into? Did they put the commitment not to use the information to adjust rates in writing? Are they advertising that commitment broadly?
Assuming one of those is true, also consider whether you can prove that they used the information to adjust your rate. If they adjust the rate, and you suspect it was a result of the camera, how will you demonstrate that in a court of law?
Some corporations are altruistic (a typical example being a Mom & Pop in a small community that relies upon good neighbor status). Many other corporations are amoral. Some believe that amorality is, in fact, the right objective of all corporations. If that is the case with your insurance company, you are in an adversarial relationship and should make your decision as such.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely, unequivocally NO (Score:5, Interesting)
Privacy, like freedom, is a right you should not give up so easily. At present there is really a war against privacy rather than terrorists. It's not fought with bullets, but by bit-by-bit corruption of principles. Just say no.
The only acceptable way this could work is if the device records in such a way they can detect alterations, and they can look at a span of time (say 15 mins) before and after an incident that generated an insurance claim - the rest of their life is of no interest. And that view only after you, as parent, can review before giving permission (apart from your human right to privacy you are also entitled to refrain from self incrimination - it appears you have to give up that right too).
Otherwise your child could (worst case) actually become part of a national covert surveillance system. It would be better if people coming up with such ideas thought about maybe giving some extra training, or limit the power of the car kids may have for the first year - something that doesn't involve even MORE spying on people but brings some knowledge.
In the UK they had a series where frequent joyriders had to go through a programme. Nothing worked, until they were ordered to help at an accident scene - having to help to cut kids their own age out of the wreckage.
Neutral? As in... (Score:2)
...“You have the right to remain quiet. Anything that you say or do will be used against you.”.
It’s like with disease-insurance: The point of such a company is to make money. And if in any way physically possible, to sell your grandmother to do so.
It's target at teens because they have less choice (Score:4, Insightful)
"Think of the children" as an argument is a red flag--usually means there's something wrong with what you're saying and you don't want people to think rationally about it.
Usually, Mom and Dad fund teen's car (that's the car which belongs to the teen, for all you BTAF fans).
If the gadget saves m&D money, teen gets a take it or leave it option (well, teenage was a few decades ago; maybe it's changed since then...).
If the surveillance was actually something people wanted, it would be offered to everyone as the latest perk on the insurance plan.
To be fair (Score:5, Funny)
You lose control when 3rd parties are involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I followed the link to DriveCam.com. Now is when concern start rising. Yes - I did see an Insurance company monitoring a teenage driver and maintaining extremely personal data forever and may have been okay with that. But now the data goes to yet another service provider. In looking there, it is not clear to me that the videos or data does not go to any other company.
So my interest in helping educate and protect my son is obliterated with so many others having access to this information. I question their inability to do geo-location - it is merely one more chip and a few more bits of data to be passed! Add the name, vehicle info, date/time, location and events (yes - there will be many "events" as someone learns to drive) with audio & video.... sorry The Minority Report comes immediately to mind!!
A far more appealing device would be one that does the recording but retains the data longer. I would buy a device that informs me of "events" as they happen. Give me some information such as sudden swerving, acceleration, braking or jostling of the vehicle. Let me, the responsible parent, be able to choose if I should or should not contact my child and make a parental decision. I would love to be able to review the events at home afterwards. I am not willing to wirelessly transmit this stuff anywhere. Yes, it is after the fact and bad stuff can happen. But it is far better than not being informed like today and would give me the chance to sit down with my child and review his (her) actions as an upcoming adult.
Succinctly - I don't want 3rd parties involved. I'd pay a reasonable amount of money for the device (upto $150 or so) for us to use.
Turn the offer down (Score:3, Informative)
Hmmm
Regardless of how much money this deal would save you, I would say no. I am cynical about the motives of the insurance company. I am from the UK, I have seen such assurances about potentially intrusive systems given many times, in the end the assurances all turned out to be worthless. Any system that can be abused will be abused.
Hell no (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another way to indoctrinate kids into a world where they have no privacy and accept constant surveillance by corporate America ( and the goverment ) as the 'norm'. This is rather offensive and i hope people boycott the companies that are offering this.
What happens when this is required? (Score:3, Interesting)
Will it have GPS or...? (Score:3, Interesting)
I call shenanigans. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash
I don't buy that - how many computer engineers are women?
/ducks
Rules for insurance companies... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
...and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast...
You're from the city, ye? Perhaps the fact that farmers generally live in rural areas with less congested roads could have something to do with it?
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that most people growing up in farming areas (at least here in the UK, not sure about other countries) have usually got at least five years more driving experience when they go to sit their driving tests than people from other areas. If you can't drive a tractor, and fit, maintain and operate all the implements for it by the time you're 11, then it's special school time...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"If you can't drive a tractor, and fit, maintain and operate all the implements for it by the time you're 11, then it's special school time..."
Farming often instills a higher degree of competence in operating mechanical systems.
In training US Air Force technicians I found the "farm boys" (and girls!) were much quicker to adapt to tasks from towing aircraft/backing them into hardened shelters to troubleshooting and repair.
Modern farms are highly technical, and in the US some of the largest tractors ever buil
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with him?
Since everything you posted seems to indicate that, yes, children from farming areas do do all that with tractors by the time they are 11.
Why would there be a "campaign to keep children younger than 12 away from tractors" is that wasn't the case?
Lost in translation (Score:5, Funny)
Sometimes the media rewords things for a story, and the original meaning is inadvertently lost in the translation.
The actual statistic is that Microsoft engineers are responsible for most crashes.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After a while, even when you own the truck, you accept it as part of the cost of doing business.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Black boxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the situation in the US really like that?
Yes. Right now the US has a serious shortage of experienced truck drivers and new drivers are being shot right through school (figuratively, of course) and into the cab of a truck making long hauls. Truckers are forced to sleep short hours and make long hauls over the speed limits in order to make deadlines in some cases; in others they are paid poorly and "encouraged" to make up the difference on bonuses in order to entice the same behavior. Seasonal trucking often also involves inexperienced drivers; in general, trucks without air brakes can be driven with trivially available licenses.
A lot of my lifts in Europe and Central Asia come from truck drivers, and a lot of them are quite well-educated people, often with university degrees, who began driving trucks because of uncertain economic times. It's not like there's much other work to do in certain places, especially the former Soviet Union.
That's unfortunate for them; it really blows what you say next out of the water though:
I wouldn't call the job shit house work either.
If you have a Uni degree and you're driving a truck because of uncertain economic times, it's shit work. (Anything you want to do is a great career, if it will pay the bills and you won't have to wonder what will happen to you when you're old and senile.)
While it is monotonous, the money is a lot better than you'd expect, and the amount of time drivers have to actually work is continually reduced by new legislation.
Not around here, at least, not effectively.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
i work with truckies all day every day, and i can assure you it's because about 90% of them are morons who NEED constant monitoring. it's just like running a prep school [fragment]. while it'd be a valid whinge that they do get the shit end of the stick, all i say is, you should have paid more attention in class and avoided having to do shit house jobs like drive trucks because your a dumbass.
Hey Pot, have you met Kettle?
Ride a bicycle (Score:2)
Ride a bicycle and you can extend 90% to all drivers. They speed, pass too close and are very impatient.
They claim they pay for the roads when in fact in the UK the roads are paid for by a combination of council tax and income tax.
Fit speed limiters and black box recorders on all cars. Drivers just can't be trusted to obey the law.
Re:Ride a bicycle (Score:4, Insightful)
Fit speed limiters and black box recorders on all cars. Drivers just can't be trusted to obey the law.
What about putting cameras in every home then, since people cannot be trusted to obey the law?
It is a slippery slope.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ride a bicycle and you can extend 90% to all drivers. They speed, pass too close and are very impatient.
Let's have them for cyclists too, so that it's all recorded when they swerve in front of cars, nip up the inside of vehicles that are turning left, run through red lights and cycle on the pavement at dangerous speeds close to pedestrians.
Cyclists are all - without exception - the most dangerous road users.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Already done. Most late-model vehicles have computers that can save the last X seconds of data (speed, throttle position, RPM, etc.), along with malfunction codes. So you claim your brakes went out? An insurance company gets a judge to seize your vehicle's computer, and guess what? No abnormal codes...guess those brakes were working fine in the last few seconds before you plowed into their client.
Spe
Black boxes With GPS are out there now (Score:5, Informative)
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that these 'discounts' match a price increase of the same amount when the technology is ready for the general population. One year, your health insurance provider will give you a $10/month break on your premiums if you sign a 'I do not smoke' form. The next year, the rates will go up by $10/month, or more.
The year after that, the rates go up yet again. They then tell your employer that if any employees are seen smoking on company grounds, they'll double their premiums. Suddenly, you can't smoke within view distance of your work building.
A few months later, they start blood pressure/cholesterol/insulin/weight monitoring. With a discount, of course, if you choose to opt-in.
Insurance is a gambling game. The company is the dealer, and we, the consumers, are the players. We belly up to the table, place our bets, and the dealer gives us our cards. Of course, they've been allowed to stack the deck with their own cards and change the rules around a little bit, because let's face it, you're playing in their casino, under their rules.
This is why people have such a problem with insurance companies. You know, you pay your premiums for five years, make one or two claims, and both of them are auto-rejected, making you call and beg for them to cover it, so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for a procedure that took five minutes.
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
A safe driver has nothing to fear, takes the camera, and pays less.
This is a fallacy in line with "innocent people having nothing to fear from the government" that we hear as justification for illegal wiretaps, which is patent bullshit. If I get in a wreck and it's my fault, my policy (typically) gets reviewed, maybe canceled and my premiums go up. Insurance companies serve me, not the other way around. I've had one ticket in my last 20 years of driving in a large, congested metro area and I sure as hell don't want my insurance company watching me drive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yes and no
I'd venture for majority of people, insurance is a case of paying some money to prevent the occurence of something that will take ALL your money (or even bankruptcy). You may get into a situation that insurance will cover but you would not at that time have had the chance to save up enough money to cover.
At least that's how I think of it. e.g. sure maybe the entire sum of my auto accident damage is say 50 grand and I could easily save that over the next 10 years, but it may come in one hit ne