6 ms·

Insurance companies are very interested by your workout routine and how you drive your car, so they can adjust their offering specially for you… We can’t get l

by bobim 3y ago

Insurance companies are very interested by your workout routine and how you drive your car, so they can adjust their offering specially for you… We can’t get laws banning this soon enough.

judge2020 3y ago
They do this without the help of third parties - by offering a hundred+ dollars off your policy every 6 months (or over 6 months) for having their driving habit tracking app enabled at all, more if you actually drive like they want you to.
gausswho 3y ago
Which begs the idea: how would one successfully pollute insurance data. I am now a non-smoking vegan ironman.
- psd1 3y ago
  It's not obvious to me that working out will reduce your car premiums. I can imagine a gym rat being more likely to crash than a saggy middle-ager.
voidpepe 3y ago
Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.
- nerdponx 3y ago
  Doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Or that your car should even be sending that data without your explicit consent.
  - voidpepe 3y ago
    The upcoming Euro 6 standard requires the car manufacturer to collect all data related to emissions. The current wording is so wide that it could also include things like if you have a heater on or how loud is your music because all of those systems consume energy and contribute to the emissions. One can only imagine what is hiding behind these regulations.
  - voidpepe 3y ago
    Also, I'm aware that some car manufacturers are planning to pay users for their consent to collect more data about them from the car. However it's supposed to be a one time payment not worth more than a full tank.
- anonym29 3y ago
  >For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.
  - syndicatedjelly 3y ago
    That type of car in 20 years will become as rare as one without OBD, sadly
    - voidpepe 3y ago
      And also unusable if you live in a bigger city. Many of those are pushing to ban old cars due to pollution and noise regulations.
      - anonym29 3y ago
        Noise regulations? Yeah, my ancient 4 cylinder hybrid Prius absolutely rips, sounds like a total monster /s
- mildchalupa 3y ago
  VW
BurningFrog 3y ago
Bad drivers should pay more for car insurance.
- tristor 3y ago
  True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates. The things that actually make people bad drivers are things like driving unpredictability, failing to signal, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not paying attention / distracted driving. These are the things that cause most crashes. They also can’t be directly measured with telematics and none of the measurements we have is a good proxy. So most folks would agree that bad drivers should pay more for insurance, but it doesn’t follow that sending telematics to insurance companies is a useful or accurate way to do that. It’s certainly not worth the privacy trade off.
  - pnut 3y ago
    Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.
    - hansvm 3y ago
      It's too clumsy of a cudgel. The sensors themselves are imperfect, the thing you actually measure is probably the thing easiest to measure rather than actually pushing the tire grip toward its limits, even if you actually measure the right thing (hard acceleration/deceleration) you miss the fact that even an ordinary trip around town is often safer with more acceleration than a naive model would predict (e.g., short on ramps, or just that your speed when close to merging should probably be a bit higher than your intended merge speed in most cars), and actions like hard braking can rightly indicate appropriately slowing down for unexpected construction. Misaligned incentives aren't something to be trifled with (something something Goodhart's Law). Maybe cutting all the hard-braking at every stop sign would be worth it, but if even a few people chose to merge more slowly onto the freeway that would greatly increase accidents and have ripple effects in rush hours and traffic patterns.

by bobim 3y ago

Insurance companies are very interested by your workout routine and how you drive your car, so they can adjust their offering specially for you… We can’t get laws banning this soon enough.

judge2020 3y ago

They do this without the help of third parties - by offering a hundred+ dollars off your policy every 6 months (or over 6 months) for having their driving habit tracking app enabled at all, more if you actually drive like they want you to.

gausswho 3y ago

Which begs the idea: how would one successfully pollute insurance data. I am now a non-smoking vegan ironman.

psd1 3y ago
It's not obvious to me that working out will reduce your car premiums. I can imagine a gym rat being more likely to crash than a saggy middle-ager.

voidpepe 3y ago

Insurance companies get these information from more direct sources. For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. And they pay big time for it. I can confirm this at least for one large automotive company that I cannot mention because of legal reasons, but they were founded by one infamous failed artist.

nerdponx 3y ago
Doesn't mean they should be allowed to. Or that your car should even be sending that data without your explicit consent.
- voidpepe 3y ago
  The upcoming Euro 6 standard requires the car manufacturer to collect all data related to emissions. The current wording is so wide that it could also include things like if you have a heater on or how loud is your music because all of those systems consume energy and contribute to the emissions. One can only imagine what is hiding behind these regulations.
- voidpepe 3y ago
  Also, I'm aware that some car manufacturers are planning to pay users for their consent to collect more data about them from the car. However it's supposed to be a one time payment not worth more than a full tank.
anonym29 3y ago
>For example how you drive your car is sourced straight from the car manufacturers. This is why I do not, and never will, own a car with telemetry capabilities. I'm happy with my old dumb car. No smart crap for me.
- syndicatedjelly 3y ago
  That type of car in 20 years will become as rare as one without OBD, sadly
  - voidpepe 3y ago
    And also unusable if you live in a bigger city. Many of those are pushing to ban old cars due to pollution and noise regulations.
    - anonym29 3y ago
      Noise regulations? Yeah, my ancient 4 cylinder hybrid Prius absolutely rips, sounds like a total monster /s
mildchalupa 3y ago
VW

BurningFrog 3y ago

Bad drivers should pay more for car insurance.

tristor 3y ago
True. The problem is that telematics can’t tell you who is a bad driver and who isn’t. Instead they approximate bad driving by rate of acceleration, brake pressure, and speed. To these systems anyone who drives the way you are taught to drive in any serious course outside high school would be flagged as a bad driver, despite statistically have lower accident rates. The things that actually make people bad drivers are things like driving unpredictability, failing to signal, driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and not paying attention / distracted driving. These are the things that cause most crashes. They also can’t be directly measured with telematics and none of the measurements we have is a good proxy. So most folks would agree that bad drivers should pay more for insurance, but it doesn’t follow that sending telematics to insurance companies is a useful or accurate way to do that. It’s certainly not worth the privacy trade off.
- pnut 3y ago
  Whether due to someone being distracted, under the influence, a crappy driver, or a spirited, trained driver, I'd say someone driving fast and accelerating/decelerating hard is inappropriate behaviour on shared transportation infrastructure, and don't have a problem with the net being cast wide enough to discourage the practice.
  - hansvm 3y ago
    It's too clumsy of a cudgel. The sensors themselves are imperfect, the thing you actually measure is probably the thing easiest to measure rather than actually pushing the tire grip toward its limits, even if you actually measure the right thing (hard acceleration/deceleration) you miss the fact that even an ordinary trip around town is often safer with more acceleration than a naive model would predict (e.g., short on ramps, or just that your speed when close to merging should probably be a bit higher than your intended merge speed in most cars), and actions like hard braking can rightly indicate appropriately slowing down for unexpected construction. Misaligned incentives aren't something to be trifled with (something something Goodhart's Law). Maybe cutting all the hard-braking at every stop sign would be worth it, but if even a few people chose to merge more slowly onto the freeway that would greatly increase accidents and have ripple effects in rush hours and traffic patterns.