5 ms·

Nice, welcome to the era of tailored fees based on assumptions rather than facts. It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents

Nice, welcome to the era of tailored fees based on assumptions rather than facts. It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents or damage. But now not, you get to pay more if the Algo thinks that you drive shit. Minority report is one step closer.

reginold 5y ago
Trying to imagine funny examples here: "Collision imminent! Your insurance is now $500 per second for the next 1.215 seconds"
fastball 5y ago
Since when? For a long time, it's been higher fees if you're in the wrong cohort, whether or not you in particular have been in an accident is secondary.
- ausudhz 5y ago
  Not sure where you are from, but where I live is the way I described it. There are factors such as driver experience, age and precious track record (good/bad driver based on accidents) but never based on driving style.
  - fastball 5y ago
    Right. How is your age or gender less of an "assumption" than your actual driving style?
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      Gender is not even in the picture. Age is based on aggregated data which says that people with less experience are more likely to cause accident. We can argue the whole day, but this is not a tailored fee as is not build based on my personal behavior. Same reason that you can't drive a car when you are 5 years old or you can't drink before 18 (or 21).
      - meragrin 5y ago
        > We can argue the whole day, but this is not a tailored fee as is not build based on my personal behavior. You can argue all day, but it doesn't change the fact your main argument was you would no longer be charged based on facts but assumptions. The current method is largely based on assumption. Using actual data on your driving is not an assumption. It may not have been your intention but that is how you wrote it. Two statements about no longer being charged based on facts, but on assumptions. One comment linking using your actual driving data as "assumption".
  - meragrin 5y ago
    > welcome to the era of tailored fees based on assumptions rather than facts. > It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents or damage. > There are factors such as driver experience, age So making assumptions based on "driver experience" and age is not making assumptions?
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      Is not a tailored assumption. If you can't see the problem I can keep pointing you to the moon the whole day, but you will still look at the finger.
throwaway09223 5y ago
Insurance companies have been offering discounts to install tracking and hard acceleration detectors for decades. None of this is new. As a safe driver, I welcome these types of discounts based on good driving habits. If you do something associated with risk, like a sudden stop, then you should change your behavior.
- ausudhz 5y ago
  Yes but was optional this is the difference. Who does tell you that I drive dangerously in the road? Maybe I bring my car in a circuit every now and then to have fun.
  - skellera 5y ago
    It’s optional to buy this insurance.
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      Yes, until is not. We're arguing about the direction not about the current state. There will be a day when this would not be optional anymore
      - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
        Why would no insurance keep offering this option?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  To quote Warren Buffett: "If you've got a cop following you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket". When you have someone or something following you every second of every minute, with a perfect memory and no other context, your insurance is going up. And I'm sure some will say Tesla's AI can get context through other drivers actions; that's not quite right though - Tesla only knows what the other vehicles are doing, not the drivers.
p1necone 5y ago
Have you never bought insurance before? Car insurance at least has always been based on assumptions from a bunch of data about you.
- ausudhz 5y ago
  Of course I did, but apparently seems like you're the only one having bought before right? I never paid more based on the driving style, simply because they no way to check. There are overall considerations (eg. Age of the driver, cat accident history etc) but was never about how I drive my car.
  - p1necone 5y ago
    You seem to be arguing against yourself? You said "It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents or damage". I'm saying that no, Insurance cost has always been based on factors other than just accident history. And you seem to be agreeing with me.
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      Well, I was arguing about driving style. Don't read between the lines. Driving style was never (at least from where I'm from) a factor that determines the fees of the insurance
      - judge2020 5y ago
        If that's in the United States, then almost all states allow insurance to at least give you a rebate based on your driving style and the technology has existed for nearly a decade[0]. 0: https://youtu.be/NalBLhboZQU https://youtu.be/NalBLhboZQU
        ausudhz 5y ago
        I don't live in the united states, but thanks for pointing that out.
judge2020 5y ago
So what are you arguing for? A) Insurance shouldn't know how often you hard-brake or tailgate (aka privacy) B) Insurance shouldn't use the above data to "assume" how safe of a driver you are
totony 5y ago
Insurance already discriminates on age/car make based on shitty risk models, what's new
- ausudhz 5y ago
  We could do better and not worst maybe
  - totony 5y ago
    Well, this seems slightly better to me. I'd rather be discriminated against based on what I'm doing than on what I am. I'd rather not have my life dictated by unaccountable analysts/AI but I don't think this particular news is worse than the status quo. EDIT: Main thing that irks me about this is the invasion of privacy. Less data = good in my book and this is the complete opposite so I'd probably pay a premium not to use that.
    - ausudhz 5y ago
      This is your personal choice, but you've to contextualize this in a larger framework which for most people is society. So if there are lets say, 90% good driver and 10% of bad drivers, if you are happy to pay less (and you belong to the 90%) then you'd have a 10% people that either pay a lot for their insurance or don't pay it at all because it become too expensive. So lets say out of the 10% drivers that have a bad behavior, 50% of them (thus 5% or the total) go out without insurance. Now, it you are, for some reason, unlucky enough to meet one of the 5% without insurance and, unfortunately, you are on a car accident with one of them and that person run away without giving you a chance to ask for damage and, even if you can, he has nothing to repay off this damage, would you be happy?
      - fastball 5y ago
        Car insurance is required in Texas, so your hypothetical is somewhat nonsensical. If it's not required where you are from, maybe you should worry more about fixing that first?

reginold 5y ago

Trying to imagine funny examples here: "Collision imminent! Your insurance is now $500 per second for the next 1.215 seconds"

fastball 5y ago

Since when? For a long time, it's been higher fees if you're in the wrong cohort, whether or not you in particular have been in an accident is secondary.

ausudhz 5y ago
Not sure where you are from, but where I live is the way I described it. There are factors such as driver experience, age and precious track record (good/bad driver based on accidents) but never based on driving style.
- fastball 5y ago
  Right. How is your age or gender less of an "assumption" than your actual driving style?
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    Gender is not even in the picture. Age is based on aggregated data which says that people with less experience are more likely to cause accident. We can argue the whole day, but this is not a tailored fee as is not build based on my personal behavior. Same reason that you can't drive a car when you are 5 years old or you can't drink before 18 (or 21).
    - meragrin 5y ago
      > We can argue the whole day, but this is not a tailored fee as is not build based on my personal behavior. You can argue all day, but it doesn't change the fact your main argument was you would no longer be charged based on facts but assumptions. The current method is largely based on assumption. Using actual data on your driving is not an assumption. It may not have been your intention but that is how you wrote it. Two statements about no longer being charged based on facts, but on assumptions. One comment linking using your actual driving data as "assumption".
- meragrin 5y ago
  > welcome to the era of tailored fees based on assumptions rather than facts. > It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents or damage. > There are factors such as driver experience, age So making assumptions based on "driver experience" and age is not making assumptions?
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    Is not a tailored assumption. If you can't see the problem I can keep pointing you to the moon the whole day, but you will still look at the finger.

throwaway09223 5y ago

Insurance companies have been offering discounts to install tracking and hard acceleration detectors for decades. None of this is new. As a safe driver, I welcome these types of discounts based on good driving habits. If you do something associated with risk, like a sudden stop, then you should change your behavior.

ausudhz 5y ago
Yes but was optional this is the difference. Who does tell you that I drive dangerously in the road? Maybe I bring my car in a circuit every now and then to have fun.
- skellera 5y ago
  It’s optional to buy this insurance.
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    Yes, until is not. We're arguing about the direction not about the current state. There will be a day when this would not be optional anymore
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
      Why would no insurance keep offering this option?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
29083011397778 5y ago
To quote Warren Buffett: "If you've got a cop following you for 500 miles, you're going to get a ticket". When you have someone or something following you every second of every minute, with a perfect memory and no other context, your insurance is going up. And I'm sure some will say Tesla's AI can get context through other drivers actions; that's not quite right though - Tesla only knows what the other vehicles are doing, not the drivers.

p1necone 5y ago

Have you never bought insurance before? Car insurance at least has always been based on assumptions from a bunch of data about you.

ausudhz 5y ago
Of course I did, but apparently seems like you're the only one having bought before right? I never paid more based on the driving style, simply because they no way to check. There are overall considerations (eg. Age of the driver, cat accident history etc) but was never about how I drive my car.
- p1necone 5y ago
  You seem to be arguing against yourself? You said "It used to be that you'd get a high insurance fee only if you cause incidents or damage". I'm saying that no, Insurance cost has always been based on factors other than just accident history. And you seem to be agreeing with me.
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    Well, I was arguing about driving style. Don't read between the lines. Driving style was never (at least from where I'm from) a factor that determines the fees of the insurance
    - judge2020 5y ago
      If that's in the United States, then almost all states allow insurance to at least give you a rebate based on your driving style and the technology has existed for nearly a decade[0]. 0: https://youtu.be/NalBLhboZQU https://youtu.be/NalBLhboZQU
      - ausudhz 5y ago
        I don't live in the united states, but thanks for pointing that out.

judge2020 5y ago

So what are you arguing for? A) Insurance shouldn't know how often you hard-brake or tailgate (aka privacy) B) Insurance shouldn't use the above data to "assume" how safe of a driver you are

totony 5y ago

Insurance already discriminates on age/car make based on shitty risk models, what's new

ausudhz 5y ago
We could do better and not worst maybe
- totony 5y ago
  Well, this seems slightly better to me. I'd rather be discriminated against based on what I'm doing than on what I am. I'd rather not have my life dictated by unaccountable analysts/AI but I don't think this particular news is worse than the status quo. EDIT: Main thing that irks me about this is the invasion of privacy. Less data = good in my book and this is the complete opposite so I'd probably pay a premium not to use that.
  - ausudhz 5y ago
    This is your personal choice, but you've to contextualize this in a larger framework which for most people is society. So if there are lets say, 90% good driver and 10% of bad drivers, if you are happy to pay less (and you belong to the 90%) then you'd have a 10% people that either pay a lot for their insurance or don't pay it at all because it become too expensive. So lets say out of the 10% drivers that have a bad behavior, 50% of them (thus 5% or the total) go out without insurance. Now, it you are, for some reason, unlucky enough to meet one of the 5% without insurance and, unfortunately, you are on a car accident with one of them and that person run away without giving you a chance to ask for damage and, even if you can, he has nothing to repay off this damage, would you be happy?
    - fastball 5y ago
      Car insurance is required in Texas, so your hypothetical is somewhat nonsensical. If it's not required where you are from, maybe you should worry more about fixing that first?