3 ms·

I wonder how insurance mandates interact with this trend. When the state requires insurance, but insurance requires disclosure of all movements, what recourse i

• Taek 6y ago
  The state is likely to see this as a positive anyway. Insurance companies can bill this as a major boon to law enforcement, traffic regulation, parking violations, and of course think of the children.
• alach11 6y ago
  There will always likely be an option without the black box. It will get more expensive though, as drivers self-select into different groups.
• petre 6y ago
  > When the state requires insurance, but insurance requires disclosure of all movements Not necessarily. We do some driver behaviour analisys and it accounts for harsh acceleration/deceleration on some speed intervals and harsh cornering. No other tracking is nedded. One could standardize a set of metrics and give the driver a mark. But it's still discrimination by algorithm without any kind of appeal in the end. If you analyse the data from the GPS for instance, any GPS reflection (eg. tall buldings) could cause a jump in speed and trigger false alarms. Same with the accelerometer but on a lesser extent.
  • ultrarunner 6y ago
    Point well taken, but it’s still another case of “we’ll only use these data, not those, trust us.” Even if the insurance corps are truly trustworthy, it only takes one mistake to have stored data leak. After the last experience I had with USAA after a drunk hit my parked car, I would personally very much like to opt out of trusting in this way. I hope that remains an option.