5 ms·

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 highe

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
    - shuntress 6y ago
      You pay either way. It's not about covering costs to provide a needed service. That would be a public service This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates.
      - annoyingnoob 6y ago
        What you are talking about would no longer be considered insurance. > 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 The vast majority of automobiles do not hold their value, they depreciate over time. If I've had my car for say 5 years and I've paid the premiums for 5 years, I may have already paid the full value of my car as it is today due to depreciation. I probably pay for one minor incident per year in premiums. Unless I total my within the first 5 years I'm not really getting insurance what I'm really getting is a payment plan for a payout I most likely will never get.
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.

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
  - shuntress 6y ago
    You pay either way. It's not about covering costs to provide a needed service. That would be a public service This is a private company looking for profit. They want to raise your rates.
    - annoyingnoob 6y ago
      What you are talking about would no longer be considered insurance. > 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 The vast majority of automobiles do not hold their value, they depreciate over time. If I've had my car for say 5 years and I've paid the premiums for 5 years, I may have already paid the full value of my car as it is today due to depreciation. I probably pay for one minor incident per year in premiums. Unless I total my within the first 5 years I'm not really getting insurance what I'm really getting is a payment plan for a payout I most likely will never get.

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.