17 ms·
The big data of bad driving, and how insurers plan to track every turn
- reallydontask 11y agoOne can easily see how this will end up being near universal as people will be charged a massive premium if they choose not to use tracking. It will be sold/marketed as a discount if you use it, of course, but it's the same. It remains to be seen whether it will have any actual effect on the way people drive. Alternatively, self-driving cars take over before we're are effectively forced to use tracking
- flatline 11y agoSelf driving cars can't come to mass market soon enough - but I bet this will beat them there by a modest margin.
- frik 11y agoAn insurance company started with this shit in Spain (about 3 years ago), and expanded later to France and Germany. In case of an accident an offline dashcam (think Russia, China) is the best solution (also for privacy (offline)).
- randlet 11y agoI had this exact same discussion with my insurance agent yesterday. I opted out but the agent had trouble understanding (or more likely I had trouble communicating the idea) that once everyone else takes the discount that I will no longer be paying "the normal price" but instead I will be paying a defacto penalty because I don't want to be tracked. "No, it will only ever be a discount!"
- akerro 11y agoWhen I went to a bank open an online account I asked how and when can I change my password... guy told me "Why would you change it, when you can type anything now". Yea, why would I ever want to change my password that was easy to remember at that point, written on his keyboard, computer and browser?
- rconti 11y agoIn California, your auto insurance "base rate" cannot go up by more than a fixed amount (I think 40%?) upon renewal. This explains why they give me both "Good Driver" and "Exemplary Driver" discounts. I shudder to think what it would look like to lose both discounts and have the base rate go up by 40% all in one fell swoop.
- iolothebard 11y agoI'm moved back to Oklahoma. The only thing that went up was my car insurance. I thought it was nonsense, but 3 hail storms, crushed car (tree limbs), tornado and 2 hit and run drivers (likely uninsured). I can see why. I pay about 200 more a year. My insurance company has paid 36k to fix my cars the last two years. My only surprise is that they haven't dropped me. Oh yeah, they paid to fix my rental car when it got crushed by a tree limb while my car was getting fixed from a hit and run.
- criddell 11y ago> 3 hail storms, crushed car (tree limbs), tornado and 2 hit and run drivers (likely uninsured) Why should any of those claims make your rate go up? If a tree crushes your car you aren't a bigger risk to insure next year.
- sondring 11y agoSounds like he's not parking in a garage. I could see that leading to higher rates in some ares of the US.
- criddell 11y agoHe wasn't parked in a garage before either. If the cost of insurance is based on risk, the fact that a tree falls on your car doesn't increase your risk. If anything, the risk in the future may be lower as presumably that tree isn't going to fall on the car again.
- binarycrusader 11y ago
- TulliusCicero 11y agoYou are correct, but personally I see it as a good thing. Driving is by far the most dangerous thing an average person does on a regular basis. No other regular activity could easily get you or someone else killed if you stop paying close attention for a second or so, and tens of thousands of people (in the US) do die every year in traffic crashes. Therefore, market pressure towards safer driving is a good thing.
- nitrogen 11y agoIs there any transparency to the algorithms they use? Do they penalize based on actual statistics, or just someone's moralized opinion of what "safe" driving means?
- akerro 11y agoQuestion is... will self-driving car prevent tracking or increase it? Will Ford/Toyota start an insurance business and their cars will track us even more (they do now, yes they have built-in ~sim cards). Will card manufacturers take a deal with banks and government to report on car users so you will get a fee before you get back home? http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/ford-exec-gps-2014-1?IR=T http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/technology/ford-speed-limit/ http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/25/technology/ford-speed-limit/
- masklinn 11y agoWould car insurance still be an issue with unowned/rented SDC? I'd assume the manufacturer and possibly lender would be on the hook for the car misbehaving.
- 6stringmerc 11y agoSee also: Health Care "Wellness" programs at US companies with programs that are partially employer paid. Step 1: Raise rates for every participant (individuals, families) Step 2: Demand list of health metrics and personal info, often requiring bloodwork Step 3: Give discount to participants, use X, Y, Z tactics to "improve" health of participants (i.e. make numbers better) Step 4: Convince everybody this is a great idea
- Mikerad1979 11y agoThey don't even use step 4. They just raise the "non-participation" penalty so high that you, for all intents and purposes, have to participate. The company I work for charges a $50 per week penalty for not participating.
- jacquesm 11y agoI'd happily cease to participate in working there if that happened to me.
- abawany 11y agoUnfortunately in the US, the lack of good health insurance options in spite of Affordable Care Act (ACA) means that even after paying the penalty for opting out of soul-crushing health tracking, it is probably still cheaper to work for a company for a company-subsidized health plan than to pay for it all oneself :(.
- mikeash 11y agoI'm unfamiliar with these programs. What does participation entail?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Wingman4l7 11y agoI know someone who works for Blizzard; if they wear a Fitbit and meet the goal set on it, they get a healthcare discount or a small cash kickback, I forget which. Found a detailed presentation of the incentive plan here: http://www.myablife.com/files/HIP-Presentation.pdf http://www.myablife.com/files/HIP-Presentation.pdf
- shpx 11y ago> Alternatively, self-driving cars take over before we're are effectively forced to use tracking And since most people will use SDCs without owning them, everything will be tracked any way. They'll probably even film you in the car, like all public transport does already. And the people that own SDCs will still submit all their data for training the entire fleet, just like all Tesla drivers do already. At least they will hopefully not get filmed.
- vonmoltke 11y ago> And since most people will use SDCs without owning them Many people here keep saying that, but I don't think that future is nearly as likely or imminent as they think.
- ghaff 11y agoSomething about the idea of self-driving cars seems to just shut off critical reasoning in some circles, I suspect because a lot of folks in those circles don't want to deal with cars and drive. I do think we'll get to very good autopilots for certain types of roads. But this idea of app-summoned robocars is likely decades out and it's not clear how the rent/own economics will work out even then.
- mikeash 11y agoPeople seem to ignore peak vs average demand, envisioning each car being shared by dozens or hundreds of people, while most cars get used for commuting at similar times so the sharing factor would probably be more like 3-5.
- ghaff 11y agoYeah, I think there are at least a couple somewhat unrelated points. - Getting from, say, freeway autopilots to more or less arbitrary self-driving under a wide range of road and weather conditions without a competent human even present is going to be a lot harder IMO than a lot of people credit. I actually don't think the NIST autonomy levels are that well thought out. I can't help but think there's a bit of "and then a miracle happens" between 3 and 4. - Peak demand is definitely an issue. It's not just commuting. Going away for a weekend has definite unidirectional patterns. There are also lots of reasons people will prefer personal vehicles, such as keeping stuff in them.
- fweespeech 11y agoYeah, pretty much all insurance companies seem to be trying to force their consumers to submit to such tracking.
- wfo 11y agoIntroduce 'discounts' for participating in loyalty programs/giving company plenty of data it can sell. Raise discount prices to current prices (it's not like things are priced too high -- people are buying them as is). Raise non-discount prices to a new premium and milk the few privacy-conscious for all they're worth, getting data from the rest. Grocery stores, car insurance, same plan there's just a lot more regulation about insurance because of discrimination, etc, so it's taking longer.
- Washuu 11y agoThere is another problem with not using the tracking device in the future. If the companies design the tracker to use CAN bus data then the people with older vehicles(even relatively safer older vehicles) are out of luck. Not even Chrysler completely stopped using their proprietary CCD bus until around 2006. Hopefully they would design the trackers to be mostly independent by putting the accelerometers in the unit itself.
- rwmurrayVT 11y agoFor over a year now I thought "SnapShot" from Progressive was just some absurd marketing gimmick. I didn't realize it was a legitimate product. Based on the way I see people drive in Hampton Roads, VA I don't think any one would ever use this. There are maniacs at every turn. If you are willing to risk going the speed limit on I-64/262/464 you're likely to get run over.
- parennoob 11y agoSounds like a big NO from the privacy perspective. I hope this gets regulated to the point where these companies cannot offer a discount based on such intrusive tracking. If you enable a random insurance company to have all data about where exactly you have been every moment of the day, you are giving up a lot of your privacy. And I bet the terms of service will be the standard "Oh, by the way, we are going to share this with all our partners" kind.
- maxerickson 11y agoWhy not regulate their use of the data (as opposed to preventing collection of it)? I'm pretty sure lots of people will be happy to exchange the tracking data for lower rates, so there needs to be some justification if you want to prevent them from making that choice. So what are the risks introduced by allowing the companies to make some use of the data? If you ban sharing or sale of the data, you still have the risk of a leak, but the companies could be encouraged to do things like discard the detailed information and only store 'events' or whatever. So discard that you drove on a particular freeway and instead store that you safely passed a medium distance on a limited access road (or store that you swerved abruptly multiple times on that length of limited access road).
- humanrebar 11y ago> Why not regulate their use of the data (as opposed to preventing collection of it)? If the Sec of State can't use top secret information appropriately, why should I trust that dozens of faceless agents, programmers, data scientists, actuaries, etc. are all using my data? See also the OPM data breach: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management_data_breach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Personnel_Management...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- massysett 11y agoIf you don't like it, don't get it. Why should government regulate it away so that people who do like it can't get a discount?
- aeharding 11y agoThe problem I find with this is that it doesn't track everything that defines safe driving, and could incorrectly identify what is safe. For example, is driving more aggressively more dangerous than texting (or simply not being attentive to the road)? Because only the former is tracked.
- randlet 11y agoIt is trivially easy to game too in some cases. My insurer wants to use your smart phone to do the tracking over a period of 6 months after which you no longer have to be tracked. Want to do some street racing every weekend? Just leave your phone at home and go wild. Drive gently on your commute every day until the 6 month period is up and then resume driving like a maniac.
- bdavisx 11y agoAnd when they check your cars mileage and it has a boatload more than your phone recorded? After you signed something that agrees you'll always (or almost always) have your phone with you?
- randlet 11y agoMy insurance company has no idea what the mileage is on my vehicles (they've never asked)...maybe they would require that info before tracking you? I don't know. A few thousand miles discrepancy should be very easy to explain away though.
- rconti 11y agoMy insurance company has had a 3rd party auditor "audit" my data every effing 6 months for about 3 years straight. I think they're REALLY suspicious that I only put 3000 miles on this vehicle or 2000 miles on that. I've taken to just pulling up my fuel fillup tracker app every time they call. "Oh, did I say 3000 miles? No, actually, let's say 2853 miles". Joke's on them, the per-vehicle mileage goes down every time they ask.
- oneJob 11y agotrackers on our phone. trackers in our cars. trackers in our web browsers. and all non-government, non-big brother. this is the definition of soft power and the panopticon, and yet, this comment will likely only annoy most folks...
- jodrellblank 11y agotrackers on your landline phone calls, CCTV face recognition in public places, trackers on your employer's door card system, roadside license plate recognition, tracked usage of payment cards, tracked usage of loyalty cards... the universe always knows where you are, it's only other people who don't. And soon, they will.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago<sarcasm>Yeah I agree that this data is totally safe from government snooping because the likes of the NSA/GCHQ have shown that they are totally unable and unwilling to grab this data as well as the stuff they personally collect...</sarcasm>
- Dirlewanger 11y agoThe worst part: people lap it up. They love it. Millienials love BigCorp as long as they can continue to check their activity feeds on their phones every hour. And government will do nothing to stop it...why would they? The lobbyists pay too well.
- FLUX-YOU 11y agoI'm betting this is going to make people drive worse. Or exacerbate the existing bad drivers into driving worse while the already-good drivers just get the benefits. Sort of like the idea behind red light cameras. But I'm sure law enforcement will appreciate another massive database.
- massysett 11y agoCool. I see people driving like maniacs. Why should I have the same high insurance premium that they do?
- akerro 11y agoWe call that privacy of location.
- rconti 11y agoBecause I drive more aggressively than you and I don't make claims or get in collisions. Or make comprehensive claims. Why should I subsidize your claims?
- Zhenya 11y agomaniac != claim
- chiph 11y agoBecause you're on the same road as they are (they could hit you).
- sandworm101 11y agoWhy the assumption that this data tracking is somehow not an issue for driverless vehicles? Autodrives will still need insurance. They will still be tracked, by google/apple and any number of other "business partners" for a start. Those issuing insurance will still want to keep tabs on vehicle location/speed/movement should the inevitable insurable event occur. The privacy concerns will be the same regardless of who is behind the wheel. Now the exception to above is perhaps a world where none of these autodrives are privately owned. One might think that in such situations a passenger's movements would be anonymous. They won't be. Even cabs/ubers today keep track of who goes where. Whenever a means of transport is not privately owned, payment will be an issue. And payment leads to individualized tracking. The further exception to above would be autodrives owned by google and paid for with untraceable cryptocurrency (or cash) ... that's one too many layers of fantasy to debate.
- maxerickson 11y agoIf you were able to pay with coins, they would just be able to tell that the goofball who always only pays with coins used the vehicle.
- jacobparker 11y agoand always leaves from this neighborhood to this office on weekday mornings... gonna need a big blockchain to hide that.
- sandworm101 11y agoLol. As if any trip will cost so little that coins are the problem. If the google cars take cash they would become unguarded ATMs full of unmarked 20s ... on wheels... driving alone through bad neighbourhoods.
- Wingman4l7 11y ago...that could phone in a distress call to a private security firm if it was attacked.
- deleted 11y ago
- logicallee 11y agoI don't know anything special about this subject, someone correct me if I'm wrong. so I thought the actual role of insurance is to cover the case where the difference from the arithmetic average cost (i.e. average of all cases, consisting overwhelmingly of neutral cases, but with some rare negative possibilities) and the negative event is so large that the rare negative event would be life-changing but the average case is trivial. for example, it might make total sense for a tiny startup to take out a policy against a total, multi-day AWS outage. This is because that event is basically impossible to occur, but if it did it might bankrupt them immediately. (You can use your imagination as to why this might be.) So the basic role of insurance is to reduce the variation - get things closer to the arithmetic average case. But does this work if people don't know the average case? It is easy to find nationwide accident rates, one could make an educated guess about it. But if insurance companies are tracking your every turn and coming up with a unique offer - what is to say it is remotely fair? How can anyone tell if their insurance comapny, "You, personally, have driving habits that give you a 10% chance of having an accident this year, and it's remarkable that you haven't had any in the past 8 years you've been driving. You've simply been lucky." If they're a big-data insurance company, who are you to argue? After all, your friends have been in accidents, you know it's risky. What I'm getting at is there is huge information-asymmetry if the insurance company has access to a lot more information than the person buying the insurance does! What's to keep them from selling you tsunami-insurance at Japanese or Californian rates, even though you live in Minnesota? In the status quo, it's because you KNOW that you live in Minnesota. But if your every choice is being tracked, doesn't that assumption go out the window? Of course, some kind of a legal requirement to share their actuarial calculations with you would never work, because there is not a company in the world that wouldn't figure out how to lie - you can't get companies to share their profit margins or to keep to a certain profit margin, it's just literally impossible. (It would be like getting your SO not to think of anyone else during sex, no matter how fleetingly. That is just not a possible goal, and I use this analogy because companies' internal calculations are similar to what is going on in someone's head.) So if private companies can't be held to a profit margin, is the answer state-issued insurance? This would be beneficial in many ways: for example, if someone's behavior is so risky that their average case is pretty bad, then perhaps the state can still choose to subsidize them from less risky customers. A private company might choose to fire them as a customer (or offer them an unaffordable rate.) The difference is, when prices are close to unaffordable, can insurance companies mislead customers into thinking that it is because they, personally, really are that risky? How do we stop this? I think the answer is to simply not allow this level of personalization.
- roymurdock 11y agoOne way to get around this if you're not crazy about the idea would be to put together a peer-to-peer insurance pool. (Discussed on HN here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10311357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10311357) The problem would be finding the right size and composition of people that you can somewhat trust to be reliable drivers and that use their car around the same amount as you so that the risk profiles are all roughly the same.
- rconti 11y agoI'd be interested in hearing more from insurance companies on how they calculate "safe" driving. Are they applying a simple model where speed, acceleration, and braking are the only inputs considered? Or are they actively gathering data on many different inputs and correlating them with accident data? Also, of course, the insurance companies have different incentives than I do as a driver, or, indeed, society as a whole. The the stereotypical clueless/passive/elderly/(dare I say Prius) driver who accelerates incredibly slowly, brakes incredibly slowly, vaguely lists from lane to lane (without signaling) is a terrible driver, and is arguably dangerous to everyone around them. However, they might move so slowly that other drivers are able to anticipate and avoid them, so the accident claims data might not show them as high risk. (although they might tend to make lots of parking lot claims as they 'feel' their way into a parking spot). As a society we don't want to encourage clueless driving; on the other hand (if they can avoid parking lot scrapes), the insurance company might well prefer this driver. The insurance claims-based model absolutely incentivizes attentiveness, as you can avoid both your own accidents, as those that others attempt to cause. It's certainly not perfect (particularly when paired with things like credit checks), but I'd hate to see drone-like driving preferred over attentive driving. Another thing to note is that folks with an active interest in driving (engaged, sometimes drive fast, have advanced training, etc) will absolutely avoid these technologies because they're all convinced they'll be punished in the model -- so even if the insurance companies are actively collecting data in an attempt to refine their models, it will have a selection bias. The main thing these data will be lacking is context. Did I brake hard because I was texting and almost hit the car in front of me? Or did I brake hard because I goddamned felt like it? Were there cars behind me at the time, or was I driving in such a manner that there was no risk of collision? Can it separate inputs that are likely to cause two vehicles to collide, versus inputs that might cause a single-vehicle collision (in which case context doesn't matter)? Hell, just last week I unexpectedly threw my brand-new car into a full ABS panic stop to avoid some deer. Then again, I guess the insurance company doesn't care why. It's better than a collision, but they'd prefer that I never drive anywhere I might ever get in an accident. Actually, they'd just prefer I don't drive anywhere at all.
- foobarian 11y agoIt would be so fascinating to have access to a large set of this kind of data. What speed correlates with the lowest accident rate? And in which locales? Would probably see surprising numbers, either far above or below speed limits corresponding to empty roads or bumper-to-bumper traffic.
- pierre 11y agoIf you have interest in this suggest AXA have distribute a data set of ~2600 drivers telematics records for a kaggle competition : https://www.kaggle.com/c/axa-driver-telematics-analysis https://www.kaggle.com/c/axa-driver-telematics-analysis
- sremani 11y agoThis is one of the steps needed for autonomous cars. At this moment I support it (am open to changing my views). If state laws and regulation are the biggest obstacle against Autonomous cars. Insurance companies are the similar force for them, insuring an autonomous car will be cheap, but if you want to drive your car, the insurance premium is going to be high. In future, manual cars, just like most sports cars today are the dominion of the rich.
- s_q_b 11y agoI agree, until "Affluenza" type teens start causing fatal accidents with manually operated cars, at which point the legislature will outlaw them entirely.
- gambiting 11y agoRight now "affluenza" type teens cause plenty of accidents in both shitty cars and super sports cars, and no one is banning them from driving - as long as they can afford ridiculous insurance premiums they bring on themselves. Don't see that happening later either.
- s_q_b 11y agoSelf-driving cars will shift that equilibrium. We outlaw types of insurance all the time.
- alyandon 11y agoYeah, I won't be signing up for something like this precisely because this is nothing more than a gimmick that insurance companies will use to maximize their profits. How does the insurance company know you are hard braking because you are an an inattentive jackass that is texting while driving that suddenly has to brake to avoid a collision vs a safe driver that had to suddenly account for someone in front of them making an improper lane change? The short answer is they can't but you can bet that they'll use that data to justify raising your rates.
- munin 11y agoin some ways it probably doesn't matter - if you are an otherwise safe driver that lives in a county full of side-swiping jerks then your rates will go up because you're a higher risk to the insurance company than a safe driver that lives in a county full of other safe drivers. they already do this by considering where you live and work when calculating your rate. you are a higher risk, because you live around a bunch of jerks. is it your fault? not really, but the insurer isn't there to assign fault, they mitigate risk.
- alyandon 11y agoTrue, I already pay a higher premium due to living in a large city. However, my point is I believe insurance companies will intentional use the data they gather about one's moment to moment driving habits in order to justify premium increases they otherwise couldn't - even for safe drivers.
- TulliusCicero 11y ago> this is nothing more than a gimmick that insurance companies will use to maximize their profits. As opposed to all the other things companies do in order to...?
- mplewis 11y agoSure. But I'm not volunteering to give them my data in this case.
- whack 11y agoDiscriminating against insurance customers on the basis of things they cannot control, like their age or gender, is not good. Discriminating against customers on the basis of driving habits that they have control over, like how fast they drive, or how hard they swerve, is completely fine. If driver A drives safely at the speed limit, and driver B constantly pulls stunts at speeds well over the speed limit, B is much more likely to get into an accident than A. Why should A have his premiums raised just to subsidize B's voluntary driving habits? By making B pay for the costs of his unsafe driving habits, and rewarding A for his safe driving habits, this feels like a great marketplace improvement.
- dustingetz 11y agoGenerally i think companies leverage data to ratchet rates upwards, not offer unsolicited discounts. Why invest in infrastructure that will reduce profit? That's why when I drive through an ez-pass-only onramp without an ez-pass, they know exactly where my car entered and exited, but they still charge me the max-fare for not having a ticket.
- theseatoms 11y agoI agree that insurers will not offer unprovoked discounts. But the accessibility of this data will allow competitors to more accurately estimate accident likelihoods at the individual level, price the insured risks, and undercut the incumbents for a subset of the population. Unless, of course, the federal government mandates that insurers cover all drivers at the same rates, regardless of pre-existing reckless driving habits.
- afarrell 11y agoThere is massive competition in the auto insurance industry. I was about to say that this would imply that profits wouldn't go up because folks would save 10% by switching to GEICO. However, I realized a problem. Currently, all insurers are looking at the same demographic data. If this scheme is put into practice, then insurers will have a proprietary information on an individuals' driving habits, letting them offer discounts to good drivers. This leads to a situation where to switch to a different insurer will always cost more for a good driver, so few drivers will switch. This means that trying to switch insurers will become a signal of bad driving, so insurers will charge more to new customers. This leads to fewer and fewer people switching insurance companies, leading to decreased competition.
- gmisra 11y ago(Source; I have been working on the next generation of auto insurance risk models for the United States) Car (really, driving) insurance is heavily regulated by the government, each state has agency over what information insurers are allowed to include in their risk models, as well as actually auditing the risk models themselves. Insurance nomenclature will refer to these inputs as risk factors. You can get an overview of the rules in California from the Insurance Commissioner's office here [1], and you should be able to find similar overview for your state by googling "auto insurance risk factors <state>" Usage-based insurance (UBI) is the most recent innovation to be approved for widespread use. It's actually been around for a few years (at least 2012), this article's relevance is mostly about the incorporation of UBI data-gathering sensors directly into new vehicles. The key risk factors UBI focuses on are miles driven, and extreme acceleration/deceleration events. These factors were chosen because they can be easily measured using existing data ports on older vehicles [2], amongst other reasons. The San Francisco-based start-up Metromile [3] is one of the industry leaders. Ultimately, UBI is limited in that it focuses exclusively on factors specific to the vehicle. As many commenters have identified, "risky" driving behavior is a both a function of how you drive, and how the people around you are driving. The latter effect is much, much harder to capture, but the US Department of Transportation is already engaged in R&D to identify potential risk factors that could be used within the existing regulatory framework. With the rise in "semi-professional" drivers via on demand ride-sharing services, changes in ownership models via car sharing services, and the rise of semi-autonomous and eventually autonomous vehicles, the mechanics of automotive insurance are going to change a lot in the next few years. Happy to answer questions as best I can if people are curious. [1] http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0200-studies-reports/0600-research-studies/auto-policy-studies/executive-summary.cfm http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/0200-studies-reports/0... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics [3] https://www.metromile.com/ https://www.metromile.com/
- EdSharkey 11y agoIt must be very profitable to be in control of people and to regulate their behavior. If you can convince people to regulate their own behavior the way you want, all the better. This total surveillance society we're building means more people are looking over their shoulders and not wanting to "get caught" doing something someone else doesn't like. It's pure profits for the plutocrats.
- tempVariable 11y agoInsurance is business. According to province, state etc. law, clients must pay to said business to 'eventually' be able to use it to cover partial costs, deductibles aside. Business is not mandated by law to any standard which says client must get a good deal. Business is allowed to use any input variable in the whole scheme to jack up prices. Business is not mandated to lower them for any reason. Well, lets give them more input on how to jack up more prices. This conversation has been had in Ontario, Canada for so long where the insurance rates are the highest in all of Canada. It is not unheard of to pay 5000 to 7000 in Brampton, Ontario. If you move over just to the west, your rates will drop by 2000. Laws need to change, as usual.
- mschuster91 11y agoIMHO the biggest problem on roads is not speeding, it's drunk/drugged driving (most often caused by a lack of adequate public transit at nighttime and cabs being more expensive than the drinks of the night)... and morons who didn't drive for 10 years, are afraid of driving, don't seek help and then fuck up big time when they have to drive (like a distant relative, who hadn't driven for a decade and then had to drive her husband to the doctor. Nearly caused three accidents on the way due to panic). With pilots we have minimum flight time per year as well as medical requirements. I suggest similar but for cars because people physically unable to drive or people just being morons driving 10 km/h under the speed limit are a risk to everyone else, not just them. The problem is that the trend to data-driven insurances and other bullshit like this won't help for these cases because computers and especially deep learning models are inherently fallible. A skilled mathematician may look at a risk calculation and check if the premium is adequate (and in case of old people needing their cars to not lose their entire freedom, also "close his eyes")... no way to do so with a neural network. Not to mention that all that data IS going to be abused. If you want to check for public acceptance of government snooping, look at the fan reactions for NCIS episodes. No one ever objects to the portrait that surveillance and hacking is neccessary for law enforcement...
- djaychela 11y agoI've just spent a week here in the UK driving with an insurance company's app which tracks your driving. I got 9.3/10 after the mandatory 200 miles of driving, and wild generally consider myself to be a safe driver on the road - I've done a fair amount of rally driving, and ridden motorbikes for nearly 30 years so I'm reasonably aware of the risks and what can go wrong, plus I drive a van as my daily driver. What I was aware of during the tracking process was how little the app was aware of - if was sensing acceleration and GPS position, but nothing else, and given there were plenty of times that it wasn't aware of the on road situation (such as someone pulling out in front of me, a road blockage, traffic, etc), I was thinking that it really can't tell everything it needs to - or indeed if I put my indicators on when I change lane, etc. Even if you had a system that connected to this CAN bus to sense such things, the picture would be incomplete. However, I'm sure that it will be useful to a degree, but there will be plenty of outliers in the data where there are safe drivers who are marked as unsafe and vice versa.