6 ms·

At least the Chinese system is out in the open. Many private companies surveilling everyone without anyone's knowledge is terrible. Companies using these scor

At least the Chinese system is out in the open. Many private companies surveilling everyone without anyone's knowledge is terrible. Companies using these scores are really only targeting a group of people that allow the collection to happen. My car insurance company would sure love to put a tracker in my car but there is no way in hell that is going to happen. I'm sure my driving style would qualify me for higher rates, yet I've never caused an accident or made a claim where I was at fault.

icedistilled 6y ago
Yes they would, but the flip side of them not being able to price people based on actual driving behavior is by charging all men higher, all single people higher vs married people, and poor people higher based on credit score. Plus why single out insurance companies and ban them from creepily tracking you wherever you go and not all the other companies who do that with your cell phone. Also to be pedantic, the don't want to put trackers in the car, that is expensive. They want to use your cell phone like all the other apps tracking you, or they want the car manufactures to let them in on their data since most modern cars have the ability to track and broadcast location. >made a claim where I was at fault. That's a big caveat. There are plenty of accidents that are truly not one parties fault, but according to law even being judged as 49% at fault is still "not at fault". And even in cases of 0% at fault as determine by the insurance adjusters, theres a big chance one still had contributing factors. Also, there's a big chance not at fault claims will be taken into account when pricing you and raise your prices. Just right?? On the other hand, not at fault accidents do correlated with higher risk, and it's easy to see why. For example, people who get rear ended are not at fault. But following the car ahead too closely leads to needing to brake harder, increasing the chance of being rear ended. Following too closely also increases the chance of rear ending the vehicle in front.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  I was rear-ended in stop-and-go traffic. The same person was behind me for miles. He was looking at his phone and ran into me - totally and completely not my fault. He refused to give me his insurance info. I made a claim against my own insurance. I'm pretty sure the insurance company went after him and recovered costs. How exactly should that influence my rates? This is exactly why I pay for insurance, service I already pay for that is already factored into the costs. I pay extra for the zip code I live in already. I have no driving record and I've caused no accidents. If I put a tracking device in my car today my rates would go up because I accelerate quickly and brake hard when conditions allow. That is not right.
  - shuntress 6y ago
    Your insurance company would prefer to cover people who notice the reckless driver then pull over to get out of their path. You did not do that, so they raise your rates. Edit: not that you were at fault or did anything wrong. My point is that the insurance companies strongest incentive is to pay out as little as possible. This includes payments made where their client was not at fault. If it were up to them, everyone would pay all their premiums on time and never drive.
    - annoyingnoob 6y ago
      They recovered their costs. I already pay for the service. Tracking is just another excuse to raise rates, which as you note is the goal (bring money in, don't let it out). When rates have nothing to do with liability is it really insurance? To quote wikipedia: If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely that the insurance will be purchased, even if on offer. Furthermore, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, then the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance (see the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 113: "Accounting and Reporting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Yes they would, but the flip side of them not being able to price people based on actual driving behavior is by charging all men higher This is illegal in the UK and EU, fortunately. A real victory for gender equality, even if it means women paying more.
joejerryronnie 6y ago
> My car insurance company would sure love to put a tracker in my car but there is no way in hell that is going to happen. If you take your cell phone in the car with you, they are already tracking you.
- annoyingnoob 6y ago
  How so? My insurance company offers programs with apps or use of telematics. I don't use any apps and don't allow access to any telematics. After the location data scandal last year my cell phone company claims to have stopped selling location data. I don't knowing allow any access to my location data.
  - joejerryronnie 6y ago
    Ok so I was being a little hyperbolic, but I wouldn’t trust that there is not some loophole of getting to your data - if not now then in the near future. Even very basic data (if you have enough of it) can be used to derive surprisingly complex patterns of behavior.
  - kofejnik 6y ago
    A modern car very likely already has a built in gsm module and possibly gps as well. If so, this data is collected and could be subpoenaed by whoever
    - annoyingnoob 6y ago
      That is different than monitoring it over time as a way to set rates.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

icedistilled 6y ago

Yes they would, but the flip side of them not being able to price people based on actual driving behavior is by charging all men higher, all single people higher vs married people, and poor people higher based on credit score. Plus why single out insurance companies and ban them from creepily tracking you wherever you go and not all the other companies who do that with your cell phone. Also to be pedantic, the don't want to put trackers in the car, that is expensive. They want to use your cell phone like all the other apps tracking you, or they want the car manufactures to let them in on their data since most modern cars have the ability to track and broadcast location. >made a claim where I was at fault. That's a big caveat. There are plenty of accidents that are truly not one parties fault, but according to law even being judged as 49% at fault is still "not at fault". And even in cases of 0% at fault as determine by the insurance adjusters, theres a big chance one still had contributing factors. Also, there's a big chance not at fault claims will be taken into account when pricing you and raise your prices. Just right?? On the other hand, not at fault accidents do correlated with higher risk, and it's easy to see why. For example, people who get rear ended are not at fault. But following the car ahead too closely leads to needing to brake harder, increasing the chance of being rear ended. Following too closely also increases the chance of rear ending the vehicle in front.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
annoyingnoob 6y ago
I was rear-ended in stop-and-go traffic. The same person was behind me for miles. He was looking at his phone and ran into me - totally and completely not my fault. He refused to give me his insurance info. I made a claim against my own insurance. I'm pretty sure the insurance company went after him and recovered costs. How exactly should that influence my rates? This is exactly why I pay for insurance, service I already pay for that is already factored into the costs. I pay extra for the zip code I live in already. I have no driving record and I've caused no accidents. If I put a tracking device in my car today my rates would go up because I accelerate quickly and brake hard when conditions allow. That is not right.
- shuntress 6y ago
  Your insurance company would prefer to cover people who notice the reckless driver then pull over to get out of their path. You did not do that, so they raise your rates. Edit: not that you were at fault or did anything wrong. My point is that the insurance companies strongest incentive is to pay out as little as possible. This includes payments made where their client was not at fault. If it were up to them, everyone would pay all their premiums on time and never drive.
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    They recovered their costs. I already pay for the service. Tracking is just another excuse to raise rates, which as you note is the goal (bring money in, don't let it out). When rates have nothing to do with liability is it really insurance? To quote wikipedia: If the likelihood of an insured event is so high, or the cost of the event so large, that the resulting premium is large relative to the amount of protection offered, then it is not likely that the insurance will be purchased, even if on offer. Furthermore, as the accounting profession formally recognizes in financial accounting standards, the premium cannot be so large that there is not a reasonable chance of a significant loss to the insurer. If there is no such chance of loss, then the transaction may have the form of insurance, but not the substance (see the U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board pronouncement number 113: "Accounting and Reporting for Reinsurance of Short-Duration and Long-Duration Contracts"). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance
goatinaboat 6y ago
Yes they would, but the flip side of them not being able to price people based on actual driving behavior is by charging all men higher This is illegal in the UK and EU, fortunately. A real victory for gender equality, even if it means women paying more.

joejerryronnie 6y ago

> My car insurance company would sure love to put a tracker in my car but there is no way in hell that is going to happen. If you take your cell phone in the car with you, they are already tracking you.

annoyingnoob 6y ago
How so? My insurance company offers programs with apps or use of telematics. I don't use any apps and don't allow access to any telematics. After the location data scandal last year my cell phone company claims to have stopped selling location data. I don't knowing allow any access to my location data.
- joejerryronnie 6y ago
  Ok so I was being a little hyperbolic, but I wouldn’t trust that there is not some loophole of getting to your data - if not now then in the near future. Even very basic data (if you have enough of it) can be used to derive surprisingly complex patterns of behavior.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  A modern car very likely already has a built in gsm module and possibly gps as well. If so, this data is collected and could be subpoenaed by whoever
  - annoyingnoob 6y ago
    That is different than monitoring it over time as a way to set rates.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]