Big Brother In Your Front Seat 995
Rick Zeman writes "Would you give up your privacy in your car to save a few bucks on your auto insurance? 'Safe' drivers who plug an electronic device into their vehicles will be then eligible for a discount on their insurance. They say, '...the device constantly tracks car speed. By comparing that with a clock in the TripSense device, the device figures how far the car goes, mapping it against the time of day. At the end of each policy term, the customer would download the data and see what discount he or she would get. Customers can see all their data before deciding to send it to Progressive, and can decide not to send it -- and not get extra discounts.' I wonder how soon it will be that everyone has one except those resigned to paying extra as with grocery 'convenience' cards."
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Stay the f**k out of my life.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
They couldn't enforce any such law on older vehicles. In this particular case, it would be any vehicle older than 1996, which is when the diagnostic adapter that this device uses started appearing.
I drive an early 60's, when I bought it it wasn't equipped with seat belts because at that point in history there were no seatbelt laws. First time I got pulled over for not wearing one it was quite fun to point out how I was exempt. I eventually installed some aftermarket ones because driving with no belt is plain out stupid, but the blank look the officer briefly gave me was well worth it.
Considering the availability of vehicles, especially 1995 and earlier, you could go a long, long time snubbing any such law that was put in place.
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh please :) Here's how it will work: Government will require you to have insurance (which in most states it does). Insurance companies won't insure a car WITHOUT the device.
A friend of mine from sweeden says, while marijuana is legal in sweeden, you can't get a job or car insurance if you use it, so you're effectively a non-citizen.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe most accidents happen in cities, and likely at speeds under 50mph. What good does this do for an insurance company to see that I often drive at 55mph or 60mph when I could quite likely be highway driving.
45mph in a 30mph zone is far more dangerous than 65mph in a 60mph zone. How can the device KNOW the speed limit when compared with the speed driven?
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Simple, flood the road ways with an inverse tachyon matrix.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
I know because I beta tested this system.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
It was. Now it is mandated, therefore it is a tax, and therefore it is government. That means we can bypass the whole "well, it's a private company so they can deep fry your rights in wombat shit" argument.
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
Most of us can't afford to tie up $40,000 cash just to avoid getting screwed by an insurance company.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
This makes no sense, you seem mad about government regulation, but you want to answer it with, government regulation!
You can't have both......
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Government mandated payment = tax.
it's only mandated for people that own cars
Sales tax is only mandated for people who buy things.
Re:No (Score:5, Informative)
No, a government mandated payment that goes to the GOVERNMENT is a tax. Your license and registration fees are taxes. Insurance is not a tax, it's quite different -- for one thing, you can't shop around for better rates on a tax or reduce your taxation by taking a ten hour "defensive citizenship class" Insurance is important -- it's a guarantee that if you drive your car like a weapon you'll be able to compensate your victims. In fact some states -- California comes to mind -- allow you to bypass insurance if you're willing to dedicate a certain amount of money to indemnify yourself. You can post a bond and even collect interest on it. Some other states allow super cut rate insurance on tiny cars and/or motorcycles where the chance of injuring others is low. Other states allow you to skip insurance on vehicles that are rarely used ("show" cars) and most will let you skip it if the vehicle is only driven on private roads.
You can also drive without insurance in some areas if you're renting the car -- at least, the rental company is not required to check proof of insurance before issuing the car/truck/hovercraft. But I wouldn't suggest it.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Straw man. Different branch of government. Totally different concept. Judgements are not mandates.
go monopoly (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:go monopoly (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an interesting dilema, and it's easy to say to just pick another company...
When they came for Progressive, I said I didn't have Progressive, so I did nothing.
When they came for State Farm, I said I didn't have State Farm, so I did nothing....
Etc., etc....
Until... then they came for Metropolitan, and there were no other companies to turn to...
Obviously, I think, we are beginning to understand that in order to continue having certain privelages, because so many people violate those privelages, we are going to have to accept enforcement of the proper use of those privelages and pay the penalties when we don't. Speed traps, red light cameras, black boxes... Sure, I know it's not the government... yet.
I could be flip about it and say "well, if you don't speed then why would you object?" But I won't, because we all know it doesn't end there. On the other hand, with so many people violating rules and laws, costing lives and money, something like this is inevitable.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Say you are in one, the insurance company then pulls out your data and says: You drive an average of 3 mph over the speed limit based on the data you have provided for the last couple of years and that puts you in violation of our terms so you're on your own buddy.
While it may reduce the costs for some customers initially there is a point when all insurance companies will require it (assuming consumers don't complain and it's likely they won't). Then there will be no reason to give any one a price cut for using it and they can get out of paying for more claims as so many people violate the speed limit laws etc.
Then again maybe I'm just paranoid when it comes to corporations, privacy, etc.
Re:No (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:No (Score:5, Funny)
InsureCo: No problem. Have a nice day and good luck driving your car without insurance.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
InsureCo: No problem. Have a nice day and good luck driving your car without insurance.
Me: Thanks, it's very easy to drive without insurance. It's not really harder than driving with insurance, actually. Now, getting pulled over without insurance, that's a different story. Still relatively easy, but expensive. I'll go talk to company B who will give me discounts based on my lack of accidents, lack of tickets within the last three years, and the fact that I purchased other insurance policies through them as well. Have a nice day!
InsuranceCo: Wait, come back! We don't want to lose your business, we just wanted to make more money from you by proving that you speed despite your clean record!
Insurance Companies live and die with statistics. The one they're playing with now I'll bet says that even their "best" drivers that don't get speeding tickets and get into accidents are still speeding, but not getting caught. I'd imagine that most of their customers speed from time to time, so this is an easier way of increasing their rates without having to rely on the CHP or local law enforcement to catch them. I'm not against people wanting to do this, but I imagine that a whole lot of people that try this will be disappointed in the end because their premiums don't go anywhere but up because only the most cautious drivers actually go the speed limit or slower ALL THE TIME. Most people speed, and the insurance companies probably have the statstics to prove it.
Bottom line: a large company that is in the business of making money will NEVER offer incentives to their customers that causes them to lose money somehow. That's bad business.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
I can decide if I'm willing to pay their outragous prices and contribute to their record profits (last year for example). Stay the hell out of my life.
Re:No (Score:3)
You obviously have no idea how car insurance works.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I do it occassionally just to piss-off tailgaters...
Anyway, IMOSFHO, the real danger on the road is people who pass on the right, tailgaters, people who don't use turn signals, and people who generally act like asshats. Speed is just a multiplier for other stupid behavior. When are we going to g
Re:No (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, at least in New Jersey, you are driving illegally if you fail to yield to a vehicle that wishes to pass.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:5, Interesting)
Certainly if one is not paying attention, no matter who they are, they're going to cause an accident. I disagree it's just the speeders.
--
You can have my sports car when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
To make this as easy as possible for insurance company representatives (or any other representatives of big business and government) to understand: Stay the f**k out of my life.
Is now a good time to say, "Who is forcing you to use these devices? This plan doesn't even force to report results after you check them."
Ignoring slippery slopes for a moment, the insurance company is trying to "prove" that you aren't a problem case waiting to happen. And why wouldn't you want to let the crazier drivers pay for the risk? Do you really like subsidizing their rates? Of course, reading the posts in other articles here, slashdot readers are pretty crazy drivers (e.g. passing at 100mph driving on the wrong side of the street) so maybe I'll be mobbed in a minute.
Also, they aren't trying to collect much information at the moment, but I imagine it would be a lot harder to justify the increased benefits of full tracking logs vs just speed logs. That, and for the non-tinfoil crowd, the detail to really recreate an accident would probably take way to much storage unless it was only the most recent data. The tinfoil crowd isn't reading this anyway.
P.S. For those who worry about it being sub-poenaed and self-incrimination, I agree it shouldn't be but it probably will. I still don't feel sorry for those who actually cause accidents by being deliberately reckless time and time again and try to hide it though.
Everyone should have one (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how long till someone hacks it to get a discount on their insurance.
Oh and does it run Linux?
Re:Everyone should have one (Score:3, Interesting)
It would be no different than committing odometer fraud. Sure, it can be done, but it's cheating (used car buyers in one case, insurance companies in the other).
Re:Everyone should have one (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember, it's a device drivers can simply plug in to the car. OBDII is a serial protocol that would be a bit harder to hack than the speedometer pulse wire.
Some things the CarChip does that this device will likely do:
1. Record times the device was disconnected
2. Record times data was downloaded/memory cleared
3. Keep a record of the speeds via timed snapshots
4. Keep a record of the date/time car was used (and how long).
It can keep track of vehicle usage (in my case) for the last three months with logging data points every 5 seconds.
No records of destinations or GPS tracking on these base models.
Disclaimer: I don't work for the company, but I have a Carchip E/X installed as insurance against unfair tickets and warranty "abuse" claims by the manufacturer.
Re:Everyone should have one (Score:3, Insightful)
Entrapment (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is part of the trend toward automated mass transit. Suck all the joy/autonomy out of driving by constraining the ways you can legally drive, and after a while there will be no "freedom" in having your own car. You may as well get on the subway with a toy driving wheel and make vroom-vroom sounds.
Re:Entrapment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Entrapment (Score:4, Insightful)
The grocery stores charge up to a SIXTY PERCENT PENALTY for not handing over an address, social security number, etc. Why not auto insurance? And why not say, 150%?
discount vs surcharge (Score:5, Insightful)
If all my apples cost 20ct/piece for everyone, has for many years, whatever.
And you fill in a form that gets you a bonus card, and entitles you to get them at 15ct/piece.
Does that mean you got a discount ?
Or does that mean everybody else got a surcharge ?
Considering everybody else is still paying their 20ct/piece, as they have in the past, there is no change in the situation for them.
There is, however, for you. You can get them cheaper. You are getting.. a discount.
The situation you're talking about is this..
Apples used to cost 20ct/piece
Then I raise the cost to 25ct/piece, whilst introducing the bonus card. You fill in the info, I get you the bonus card, and you can once again get your apples for 20ct/piece.
Everybody else, however, would be paying the 25ct/piece.
In THAT case.. everybody else is getting a surcharge, whilst nothing changes for you.
Of course you could go halfway. Up the price to 22.5 or 17.5 for those with the card - in which case everybody else would get a surcharge - albeit a 'minor' one, whilst you would still get a discount - albeit a 'minor' one.
That said...
Of course insurance companies will raise the prices for those who opt not to get it. That's been the case for almost every piece of technology, though they're usually smart enough to make this a gradual change.
I.e. at the introduction of airbags, they didn't just raise the price insanely immediately - just gradually, until the time came where most cars do have an airbag - therefore not having an airbag makes you a clear minority.. a minority which, compared to the others, is a liability.
Re:Entrapment (Score:3, Interesting)
What civil liberties are being given up here?
What I see is two people making a deal. One offers a discount to the other if you voluntarily provide additional information.
That's not giving up civil liberties.
Now, if the government stepped in and prevented such deals, that's an obvious violation. People should be able to decide for themselves if such agreements are good for them.
Re:Entrapment (Score:5, Interesting)
progressive = insurance for bad drivers. Most mainstream insurance companies like State Farm and AAA are actually much cheaper than progressive if you are a safe driver already. I'm insuring 2 vehicles + a RV for almost $100.00US less a month than the 1 vehicle I had insured under progressive.(I have had no tickets or accidents for almost 14 years now) also, if you ask for any discounts after they jack your rates, they tell you to sod off.
it's a gimmick trying to get more bad drivers to switch to them... and then they up your rates like MAD when you have to renew.
you have to look at the company first.
Re:Entrapment (Score:3, Insightful)
And what's wrong with that?
It all depends on the statistics they gather and whether or not there is a correlation.
Profitable insurance companies don't use personal judgements. They use statistics and look for correlations.
If people that upload are less a risk, they should be charged less. If people that don't upload are a greater risk, they should pay more.
The burden of payment shoul
Re:Entrapment? (Score:3, Funny)
I wouldn't mind being entramped a little, even if I had to pay more for my insurance...<G>
Hacked... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bidding starts at $1 - NO RESERVE (Score:5, Funny)
Includes:
1 SDP download (compatible with GEICO, AAA, Allstate, Progressive, and Farmers)
1 SDP handbook that includes background information of driving habits for answering those aggressive insurance agents
Don't pay extra for insurance! Let the Sunday Driver profile work for you - guaranteed to meet the specifications of your insurance company or your money back.
SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
"I used the SDP package and saved 100s of dollars on my insurance! Thanks SDP!" - M. Gecko, San Diego
no (Score:3, Insightful)
it's all the lawyers fault anyways. go put the damn black box in their car and see how they like it
And with that news (Score:5, Funny)
Progressive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, what about those of us who constantly go 5 mph above the speed limit? Would we be targeted as reckless drivers because we "speed" most of the time? No thanks.
Re:Progressive? (Score:3, Interesting)
The system only checks your speed to determine distance travelled, not speeding. To tell if you're speeding, the system would need GPS, and a knowledge of the speed limits in the area. checking for speeding, however, would be the logical next step.
That would RULE (Score:5, Insightful)
Or if I'm going to be crazy for a little bit I'll just deactivate it.
Remember a tip of security of a device... if you can get your hands on it, especially in your house or garage for a matter of months, it's as good as hacked. Other, non-tech savvy people may think otherwise about it though.
Re:That would RULE (Score:5, Informative)
Great Idea! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey... maybe they should make them mandatory in police cars to stop all those speeding cops... Anyone else notice how cops are immune to the speed limit?
Re:Great Idea! (Score:5, Informative)
Friggin' crock of shit if you ask me.
Yup (Score:5, Interesting)
If you donate to their pension fund and put that little sticker they send you on your car, they'll be more inclined to let you go. It's not the get out of ticket free card that being a cop is, but unless you were doing something radical or they're WAY under quota, you'll likely just get off with a warning.
Re:Great Idea! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great Idea! (Score:3, Informative)
I checked out my state laws and found out that they aren't.
They are permited to exceed the limit when in hot pursuit or when calibrating their speedometers. At all other times they are as legally bound to the limit as you and I.
The same applies to right of way rules.
Running lights at 90 mph in order to be first in line at Dunkin Donuts is right out; and if they hurt anybody whi
Not for me (Score:5, Interesting)
IMO, I think they'd have to offer a little bit more of a discount for the masses to really consider it. I'd slow down a bit if it were worth it. But for someone who may be paying $500/yr for insurance and getting MAYBE 5% off, that's only $25, or maybe $2/month. Just doesn't sound too enticing to me, though some people may jump at the opportunity to save a little. But your results may vary.
Not if your kids drive (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not if your kids drive (Score:3, Informative)
But then again, some parents are morons whose sweet little angel could NEVER do ANYTHING wrong...
What about legitimate speeding (Score:4, Interesting)
Or how about the dumbass who goes slow as hell on the highway, causing more of a danger to others than the guy who goes slightly over the speed limit?
Hell, what about the number of morons I've had to avoid becuase they can't figure out which fucking lane to turn into in a double left turn?
My point is speed isn't the only deciding factor in accidents, and if you have a device that measures only speed, well, it's like asking a blind man to describe the mountain vista to you. He can only say so much about it, in a non-contextual way, in a situation where context is of the utmost importance. It's the reason we don't have automatic pilot on cars yet... context is too important.
do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:5, Insightful)
And once THAT happens, it becomes information they could subpoena.
So you get into an accident that you *know* was the other guys fault, but your little black box says you were speeding slightly at the time, and the courts could quickly decide that you really were partially at fault and force your insurance company to pony up (and thus increase your rates) where now the other guys insurance would have to pick it up.
Information you are not in control of will be used to control you. Better it simply not exist at all.
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, let's start with the assumption that the device works properly. (if you start to question that, you can't have any reasonable discussion anymore) So you were speeding. So you were breaking the law. So you were at fault. So you do deserve to be considered part of the problem.
I do agree that this device is bad because of privacy issues, but the argument you're bringing up is a dead argument used by many : But
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't say that just because you were speeding that it was partially your fault. What if someone was speeding up behind you really fast and you punched the gas to lessen the impact? Your speed would probably be over the limit but you actually saved yourself some possible injury.
Again, what if you are on a 4 lane(2 either way) highway and you were passing someone and they chaned lanes and side swiped you? How is that any of your fault because you were going 5 or 10 or more over the limit? They should be able to judge your speed and know when it's safe to change lanes.
This box is nothing but another way for insurance companies to get out of paying you. They would no doubt have a clause in their agreement stating that if you were speeding according to their box that they wouldn't have to pay you squat which is BS.
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:4, Insightful)
I could easily have been over the speed limit, along with everybody else who drives 70mph on 28 near dulles airport outside DC. so yeah, i'm speeding, but i'm not the traffic risk. the guy doing 90 and changing lanes like he's in Le Mans IS, and if he hits me, its his fault no matter what speed i was doing.
in fact, in that circumstance (VERY common near DC) if I was doing the 55 speed limit, i would be presenting even MORE of a risk to getting hit by mr. 90mph.
so i'm not saying i wasn't speeding, i'm saying i was not a threat to the flow of traffic which the other individual was. should i be penalized because I was trying NOT to be a threat to traffic?
speeding is, in spite of everything they try to do with their fucking cameras and crap, a relative crime, not an absolute, and any attempt to make it an absolute simply causes traffic to STOP at the places they do it at, or penalizes the poor and middle class while the rich pay the fines (without point penalty or chance of losing their license) as if it was just a "tax in order to have the right to speed".
its a cheap tax to them.
i'm bitter about this because I got a camera-ticket a few weeks back because I 1) was driving the same speed as everybody else, but 2) had backed off just enough so that I was effectively driving "alone" (nobody near me at the time). I do this because I can't trust the other drivers to not change lanes without looking (i've had dozens of near-misses because people suck) so i match speeds with the "packs" but considerably behind them.
This means, of course, that I can get picked off like any prey not hiding among the herd. I get penalized because I was trying to remain in a safe situation where i wasn't getting swallowed up in a pack of cars full of drivers who can't drive for shit.
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:5, Interesting)
- I consume 15% to 25% less fuel. Amazing isn't it ? This is mainly due to not constantly accelerating to 130-140 just to break again 1 minute later. My speed remains far more constant
- I get everywhere at the same time as i did when i drove faster. There is ZERO difference on average. I do Brussels-Ostend (150km) every week, and there's really no difference since i started driving slower.
- I feel safer, calmer and less stressed. I never thought that this 10km/h speed difference would make such a mental difference. I 've started listening to music again, since at 130-140km/h, i had to focus on traffic instead of music.
- the whole 'you have to drive along with the flow' thing is complete and utter bollocks. Traffic flows in blocks, that group themselves around a group of trucks who can't bypass eachother since they have speed limiters. Cars just move from block to block. The speeders wiggle their way thru these blocks a few % faster than the rest, and then pull up to 150km/h untill they reach the next block 10secs later. I just reach that block 12seconds later.
Honestly : just give it a try and drive slower. you'll notice that most of your prejudices are balooney.
Note : driving slower has one explicit effect : middle fingers from freaks who think their lives are so filled up, they really need those 10% they think they can shave off in traffic. Usually types who wash their car every week and thereby lose hours of time
Interesting. (Score:5, Insightful)
Awesome. Where do you live?
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:4, Interesting)
While I have been known to exceed the speed limit, and in fact been cited for it on numerous occasions all of which are more than four years in the past because I have slowed down on the freeway (while speeding up almost everywhere else, amusingly) I strongly disagree with your apparent assignation of blame. Driving the actual speed limit should never put you in danger through YOUR actions. It puts you in danger through the actions of the assholes who are driving too fast for their abilities.
Allow me to clarify: I drive plenty fast on twisty roads. I accept that if I should drive up someone's ass in my little sports car, that I will bear the responsibility. Not only is that the law in California, but it also makes sense. If you are going too fast to see what is ahead of you, you are going too fast. As Nimoy said in Star Trek IV: Bring the Money Home, "I would accept that as an axiom." Consequently, when I believe that the road ahead looks sketchy, or my visibility is reduced too significantly due to tight turns (or whatever) I slow down. It is the only responsible thing to do.
I agree that it can be dangerous to drive slowly, but I think it's more annoying than dangerous. It's not the fault of the people driving slow, unless they're driving REALLY slow.
Re:do NOT do this, and do NOT support it (Score:4, Informative)
speed limits along residential roads are partially set to protect children, but actually are more often set to control noise.
in Sterling, there's a 4-lane divided road through town, with service roads, meaning cars in the main road are 45+ feed away from the sidewalk that any kid might walk along...
turns out the reason is not safety (the road in and of itself qualifies for a 45), but noise. cars and trucks driving a steady 35-40 are much quieter than vehicles accelerating to try to get back up to 55mph.
What is next?! (Score:3, Funny)
-- You traveled 1.2 hours this month at speeds of over 120 miles per hours...
-- It is estimated that you traveled 0.0 hours below the speed limit this month...
-- You traveled 3432 miles this month...
-- You spent 60.4 hours in the car this month...
-- You need a life...
-- You have had 0 girls in the car this month...
-- You have had your laptop in the car for a total of 60.4 hours...
-- LOSER
Nothing like helping the self-esteem and getting a 0$ discount
speed and time of day? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully they'll do more than just histogram your speeds -- maybe they'll try to categorize your driving -- local, stop-and-go, freeway -- and then maybe check to see how often you suddenly decellerate. Jazz it up right, and you could detect cell phone usage, too.
Why this idea is crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
The only real benefit I see to this problem is that if you call them out on it, you'll probably be able to get the 'safe' rate without having to plug the thing into your own car.
Nothing new... (Score:3, Informative)
there are already database records of speeding (Score:5, Insightful)
if you enter the NJ turnpike at the south end and drive to the north end, its a simple equation to figure out if your average speed was higher than the speed limit.
there are ez-pass scanners everywhere, including buildings all over manhatten. but everyone in the NYC area has them because it makes their lives and their commutes easier (as the name would suggest) and cheaper.
people don't seem to have a problem with those things being recorded if it means they don't have to pay more/ wait in line.
Yes, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
The actuaries tell them that could make substantial rate cuts, and advertise them like crazy (in ads even funnier than Geico's "I just saved a bundle...") if they could only make their process of weeding out relatively dangerous drivers more precise.
I wear a pretty fancy tinfoil hat most of the time, but I'm a safe driver, goddammit, and I can prove it, by my behavior. So: yes, please. I'll take it.
Misleading Brilliance (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They allow drivers to voluntarily put this device in their cars for reduced insurance rates.
2. Drivers get used to having these devices in their cars.
3. Now that everybody is used to it, it is much easier to require it for insurance. So, they require it for insurance. With a few insurance companies doing it, it becomes the norm.
Of course, the caveat to the insurance companies is that fast driving does not mean dangerous driving. Many drive slower and (seemingly) safer but have more accidents.
Unfortunately, those boxes can't measure driver skill or the situations under which good/bad driving occurs. For example, 100 km/h is safe on the highway unless there is a lot of traffic with heavy rain and/or snow. Also, I drive a van at a fraction of the speed of my sports car. Driving at any speed in a van is much scarier than burning rubber in a sports car.
From my cold, dead fingers (Score:3, Funny)
Give up privacy of my back seat? Never. No way. Okay, okay, certainly not for just few bucks, but serious offers will be considered. Oh, you said "front seat"? No problem then.
Boycott Progressive (Score:5, Informative)
How does the device know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does the device know (Score:5, Insightful)
And that time it recorded me doing 75 MPH, I was vacationing in Montana.
Fixed speed limits are a crock anyway, how does it tell the difference between driving on an icy covered road in a blizzard, and a clear day with dry roads and unlimited visibility, with no traffic? Driving 50 in the first case may be suicide, yet it is legal. Doing 50 on the open highway in clear conditions, you are a traffic impediment.
Data Context? (Score:5, Insightful)
So what happens with the guy that always drives 60, but only drives in the 25MPH school zones? Data without context is worthless!
Plus, on a $1200 annual insurance bill, you'd only save $60 by giving up your privacy...
Good idea - consider the flip side (Score:5, Interesting)
Suppose you're bidding on a contract to upgrade/replace a computer system for a potential customer. In order to give a proper cost estimate, you'll need to know as much detail as possible about the requirements. Perhaps this would include something like the average number of transactions per day performed. If all the customer can do is say that there is "a bunch" of transactions, your estimate will be very approximate, and you'll have to pad it accordingly or add a large contingency factor.
However, if the customer could produce for you an automated log of all daily transaction counts for the last month, you would have a precise understanding of what to expect, and could estimate accordingly. This may result in a lower estimated cost, and increase your chances of winning the bid.
Essentially, this is what Progressive is doing - they are asking for more detailed information in an effort to win your continuing business. If you don't provide that information, that's fine... but then they will have to rely on a more approximate estimate of risk, and the quote they provide you with will likely be higher based on less precise information. If you're a prudent businessperson, you'd be trying to do the same thing whereever you can.
Ugh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Informative)
Chris Mattern
Ahead of the curve (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, I walk more, and get derided by my coworkers, and have to put up with horrible commuting hours, and have to carry an umbrella every time I go somewhere (just in case), and get demeaning looks from everyone in society...
But it has nothing to do with social classes, or social engineering, or rich vs. poor, because ultimately it's my choice. No one is forcing me not to have a car. No one's forcing me to walk everywhere. I still get the same opportunities that everyone else gets. I have yet to be turned down by any hot chick who has subsequently been picked up by a "responsible citizen" who owns their own transportation. There are no hidden systems at play.
Re:Ahead of the curve (Score:4, Insightful)
Funny, I'd argue that you've already given up and they've beaten you.
Here's how the insurance companies will scam you (Score:5, Interesting)
Same thing with this: You start out saving money, prices creep back up to normal. Those that refuse to submit to the program are hosed.
BTM
Fasle Sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only is there obviously possible entrapment but what data exists that driving at the exact speed limit makes you a safer driver?
There are many other situations this will not cover: changing lanes without a turn signal, running lights, tail gaiting, driving *under* the speed limit (which can be just as unsafe), and drive-by shooting?
All of these could be more unsafe than going 10 MPH over the limit. Are they going to start monitoring that too? Will they forward high speeds to the police to fine you? What I would like to know is who will be monitoring the insurance agents' cars
Just give it to mom... (Score:3, Funny)
Alternatively, turn the box on only for "safe days", i.e. when you're driving slow because of traffic or alcohol consumption.
Speed limits change.. (Score:3, Informative)
What if they get it wrong? Do I have a right to appeal?
I complain regularly about speeding drivers [armchairdissident.com], but this is not a good solution!
Re:I doubt this will take off (Score:3, Funny)
Four.
Re:I doubt this will take off (Score:5, Insightful)
It may not even matter to the insurance company.
Seriously. An insurance company looks at all these things statistically. If there is no statistical relationship between speeding and how much they have to payout on a claim, they aren't going to charge extra for speeding.
And it makes business sense, too.
Suppose speeders showed no difference in their odds of getting into an accident, yet Big Insurance Corp A charges extra money for people with speeding tickets.
Big Insurance Corp B discovers during routine data-mining that there is no relationship between speeding and payouts and so charges less for insuring speeders.
At some point Corp B has all the "speeders" business while A is out of luck because they over-charged.
Profitable insurance companies look at all kinds of things that might not seem relevent like credit reports, car color, and profession. Yet, when they dump all this information into their systems they find correlations. And these correlations allow them to more accurately price insurance for people.
Those companies that use personal judgements like, ALL SPEEDERS ARE A BIG RISK -- CHARGE $$$!!! aren't going to be able to compete if their judgements are inconsistant with statistical reality.
Re:Avis does something similar, don't they? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Avis does something similar, don't they? (Score:4, Interesting)
But, the system is still in place. The car dealership I use has a similar system, and if you drive out-of-state or too fast, you'll never get a free loaner car there again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)