4 ms·

I can't see how this is a bad thing at all. Currently rates are set on arbitrary things that merely correlate with driving skill, like past record, age, and gen

I can't see how this is a bad thing at all. Currently rates are set on arbitrary things that merely correlate with driving skill, like past record, age, and gender, etc. I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. Driving is also the leading cause of death of young people, so anything that encourages people to drive safer is a huge net good for society. What's more effective, a sticker that says "buckle up" or "drive slower", or knowing that your insurance company is keeping track of it? Of course it should be voluntary and opt out. But there could be a huge gain for people who opt in.

Retra 10y ago
>I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. The whole point of insurance is not to lump you into good driver / bad driver categories. If you make bad drivers consistently pay for accidents, then you might as well not have insurance at all, and you'll pay perfectly in direct proportion to the accidents you are involved in. Insurance adds fuzziness to the otherwise "perfectly rational" outcome because people that do not behave rationally with respect to accident avoidance and financial planning will be at a severe survival and status disadvantage to those who do. It's like putting safeties on guns to prevent careless people from shooting people or getting shot. It makes the world more forgiving of individual mistakes at public cost.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  In the US, car insurance gives discounts for all sorts of things and charges bad (really, high risk) drivers more. For example: https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/resources/high-risk-auto-insurance https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/resources/high-risk...
- eru 10y ago
  The whole point of insurance is to make you pay for the risks you take, and not for when you get lucky/unlucky. That we often lump people together is just one implementation of insurance. But not a necessary feature. Otherwise, there would be no insurance for one-off events---but that happens all the time. There's nothing inherently 'social' about insurance. See eg http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/03/warren_buffett_s_billion_dollar_bracket_challenge_the_legal_feud_that_killed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/03/warr...
- Houshalter 10y ago
  The entire point of insurance is to pay based on risk. Someone with a bad driving record should, and does pay much more for insurance than a normal person. An old person should and does pay more for health or life insurance. A wooden house costs more to get fire insured than a brick building. The point of insurance is not to let bad drivers get away with their bad driving. It's to make sure you aren't punished for bad luck. But if we can exactly predict the probability you will get in an accident, there is no luck involved, you are just a bad driver.
  - Retra 10y ago
    You already pay based on risk without insurance. You pay insurance to reduce your risk -- to reduce the costs associated with an accident.
seanp2k2 10y ago
I habitually exceed the speed limit, drive very aggressively, take turns very quickly, regularly drive on canyon roads pushing my vehicle close to the limits, and have never caused an accident. What should my insurance rate be? It's currently very low as I'm a safe driver according to the records (no accidents, no points, no tickets in the past few years). If the insurance company tracked my driving, I'd be paying much much more, even though I'm not actually costing them any more, while "safe" drivers (who regularly impede traffic and push others to make more risky maneuvers; consider the Prius in the left lane on 101 going 5 under) would get cheaper rates. This would also kill the sports car industry. A very small number of sports car buyers ever drive their car on the track. Most have fun away from cops, on the streets. If you knew that you couldn't exceed the speed limit, corner with more than 0.2g of force, etc without getting a ticket in the mail or otherwise penalized, it would surely keep people in compliance for the most part, but utterly destroy any demand for vehicles capable of exceeding those limits. I don't doubt that these types of changes are coming, which is why I choose to have fun now. Back in my day, they used to let us actually pilot our own vehicles!

Retra 10y ago

>I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. The whole point of insurance is not to lump you into good driver / bad driver categories. If you make bad drivers consistently pay for accidents, then you might as well not have insurance at all, and you'll pay perfectly in direct proportion to the accidents you are involved in. Insurance adds fuzziness to the otherwise "perfectly rational" outcome because people that do not behave rationally with respect to accident avoidance and financial planning will be at a severe survival and status disadvantage to those who do. It's like putting safeties on guns to prevent careless people from shooting people or getting shot. It makes the world more forgiving of individual mistakes at public cost.

maxerickson 10y ago
In the US, car insurance gives discounts for all sorts of things and charges bad (really, high risk) drivers more. For example: https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/resources/high-risk-auto-insurance https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/resources/high-risk...
eru 10y ago
The whole point of insurance is to make you pay for the risks you take, and not for when you get lucky/unlucky. That we often lump people together is just one implementation of insurance. But not a necessary feature. Otherwise, there would be no insurance for one-off events---but that happens all the time. There's nothing inherently 'social' about insurance. See eg http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/03/warren_buffett_s_billion_dollar_bracket_challenge_the_legal_feud_that_killed.html http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/03/warr...
Houshalter 10y ago
The entire point of insurance is to pay based on risk. Someone with a bad driving record should, and does pay much more for insurance than a normal person. An old person should and does pay more for health or life insurance. A wooden house costs more to get fire insured than a brick building. The point of insurance is not to let bad drivers get away with their bad driving. It's to make sure you aren't punished for bad luck. But if we can exactly predict the probability you will get in an accident, there is no luck involved, you are just a bad driver.
- Retra 10y ago
  You already pay based on risk without insurance. You pay insurance to reduce your risk -- to reduce the costs associated with an accident.

seanp2k2 10y ago

I habitually exceed the speed limit, drive very aggressively, take turns very quickly, regularly drive on canyon roads pushing my vehicle close to the limits, and have never caused an accident. What should my insurance rate be? It's currently very low as I'm a safe driver according to the records (no accidents, no points, no tickets in the past few years). If the insurance company tracked my driving, I'd be paying much much more, even though I'm not actually costing them any more, while "safe" drivers (who regularly impede traffic and push others to make more risky maneuvers; consider the Prius in the left lane on 101 going 5 under) would get cheaper rates. This would also kill the sports car industry. A very small number of sports car buyers ever drive their car on the track. Most have fun away from cops, on the streets. If you knew that you couldn't exceed the speed limit, corner with more than 0.2g of force, etc without getting a ticket in the mail or otherwise penalized, it would surely keep people in compliance for the most part, but utterly destroy any demand for vehicles capable of exceeding those limits. I don't doubt that these types of changes are coming, which is why I choose to have fun now. Back in my day, they used to let us actually pilot our own vehicles!