5 ms·

A kill-switch seems like a bad idea as it would be an excellent target for eco-protestors or even terrorists to bring a city to a standstill. However, I've lon

A kill-switch seems like a bad idea as it would be an excellent target for eco-protestors or even terrorists to bring a city to a standstill. However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. There's also another benefit to measuring acceleration/deceleration data and that is to highlight if someone's faculties suddenly decline (e.g. illness or old age). Typically, when someone has failing eyesight, they might not be able to predict other vehicles as well and that would lead to more aggressive braking which can easily be measured. This could provide an important early warning system to the drivers that their driving has suddenly worsened and they might want to see a doctor unless they have a known temporary condition (e.g. hay fever). Also, if the aim is to detect drink-driving, then that's easy enough to do from outside the vehicle with CCTV cameras and the police already have methods to stop drunk drivers. I suspect that the aim is surveillance rather than law enforcement.

rcxdude 3y ago
>However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This already exists, at least in the UK market. A lot of insurers will give you a discount if you let them fit such a "telematics" box to your car. It's still a privacy nightmare.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  Well, I'm in the UK but not a driver (cyclist by choice). My point is that the black boxes should be almost mandatory (or at least fitted by default) in order to detect health problems which I don't think the insurance company provided boxes do. Have it be a standardised device and provide the data to the owner so that they can decide on whether or not to provide that data to third parties (probably worth having anonymised data available to the government too). It could be a very useful early warning of a number of conditions as well as providing an incentive for drivers to pay attention.
  - whatevaa 3y ago
    What sort of early warnings are you thinking about exactly? Also, lol, no, governments are not gonna bother propely anonymising the data too. Plus if it's anonymous what's the point of this data?
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Early warnings of dementia or even eyesight problems - both of those are likely to lead to a change in driving style with more pronounced braking as the driver reacts slower to events. It would make sense to anonymise the data before sending it to the government and the point of the data is to identify road congestion and problematic junctions. It could also feed into better tracking of traffic lights timings etc. None of those uses have a requirement to know whether it's Mr Jones in his red Corsa or Mrs Malaprop in her SUV.
      - rcxdude 3y ago
        location data is basically impossible to anonymise: if you have a record of someone's movements over any more than a day you can almost certainly work out where they live and work, for example. When it comes to personal data you can't just wave an anonymisation wand and say it's definitely OK now, you need to think carefully about the exact case, and especially the more data that is collected the more difficult it is to actually keep things private.
- vorticalbox 3y ago
  Reminds of when tomtom sat nav data was used to find locations where users where speeding to set up speed traps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/28/tomtom-satnav-data-police-speed-traps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/28/tomtom-sa...
- ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
  They have been doing this in the US, for some time. Fleet cars tend to have these systems, as do trucks. I have a friend that drives 18-wheelers, and often complains about getting nagged by Safety, when he does something out of bounds, or, more often, when drivers around him drive out of bounds. It’s definitely an insurance thing, with his company. They probably save millions per year, using that system. I explained to him that’s why they’ll never make an “exception” for him, because he’s skilled and experienced. The system is there for all the low-rent knuckleheads they hire.
- tolien 3y ago
  > A lot of insurers will give you a discount if you let them fit such a "telematics" box to your car. And for bonus points (pun not intended) will suspend your insurance because they think you're speeding even when you're not [0], with not a lot of recourse. Driving without insurance could get you a £300 fine and 6 points on your license - enough to cancel it in one go if qualified less than 2 years, which is usually the target audience of these boxes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67335868 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67335868
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    That's obviously a fault with that insurance company and the recourse is to show that the particular road had a 60mph maximum limit. I'd expect you could sue them for breach of contract too if they suspend your insurance for a false reason.
    - tolien 3y ago
      > When the comprehensive part of his cover was suspended on Friday for all the speeding alerts, Connor took a day off work to call the company and try to find a solution. > Sterling Insurance made Angela and her son go to the locations of his alleged speeding infractions and take pictures of the road signs next to a digital map on a phone. Yeah, just show them that their data is wrong - no big deal right? I guess in an ideal world such litigation would happen cheaply and quickly too.
      - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
        If a company doesn't react rationally, then taking them to court is the solution. Ideally you should choose to do business with a company that isn't so obstinate that you have to resort to courts to remedy issues. Certainly, if you get into legal trouble for not having valid insurance, you could easily demonstrate the facts as to why the company illegally revoked your insurance and how they had no right to do so.
martin_a 3y ago
> valuable data to insurance companies Great idea! But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. Maybe you're next. We'll just make sure that rates have already been adjusted to account for that. Also we saw that you were driving (very smoothly, congrats on that!) around some rather shady parts of town. This will lead to another rise in your fees, we just want to make sure that we got you covered in case your car gets stolen...
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I believe insurance companies already look at your location when deciding premiums, so this would just give them greater granularity on your actual driving habits.
  - isoprophlex 3y ago
    In the limit of perfect knowledge being transferred to your insurer, will an insurance stop being one, instead turning into an obligation to pay a middleman for all your claims?
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      Only if that perfect knowledge includes knowledge of future events such as a tree falling on your car or it being struck by lightning etc.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  > But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. These types of statistical analyses are exactly why insurance is as cheap as it is. I'm no fan of all the discounts insurance companies hand out for handing over private data like driving behaviour or healthcare stuff, but insurance companies with no risk management can't compete in any kind of open market. I would argue that in terms of broader accessibility of insurance, these microtargeting approaches may actually be an improvement for many. If you live in a troublesome neighbourhood you may be paying through the nose for getting categorised as "one of the bad ones", but these individual data points can help prove you're a responsible driver and escape some of the cost of having a shitty start in life. I'm still against these data collection practises ("you want privacy? Live in a rich neighbourhood and get a college degree!", plus a lack of any kind of law preventing these companies from sharing or selling that data) but there are solid arguments in favour of feeding insurance companies more data.
matsemann 3y ago
What you describe is actually becoming common. What I want is something in cars that makes it impossible to go over X inside city bounds etc. The tech for knowing the speed limit isn't good enough yet to be used for limiting, but some kind of max limit in an area a bit over the highest speed limit would help a lot. Electric scooters have geofencing and speed limiters. My drone has gps zones it wont fly. Electric bikes have speed limiters. But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. In reality it's a political problem. Here in the UK, certain right-wing media outlets and personalities are often complaining about the "War on Motorists" which is ironic as when you look at RTC data, it's the motorists that are massacring pedestrians and other road users.
- mrighele 3y ago
  > But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. There are already a solutions, it is called police, speed traps, fines, and license revocation. Not everything has to be done with preventative measures by a nanny state.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    And how well has that worked so far, you feel? Having limits on things doesn't automatically make things a "nanny state". Don't argue like that. Is it a nanny-state that there are speed limits?
    - giantg2 3y ago
      You're still going to need traditional enforcement. The people doing those sorts of speeds modify their cars will just push a new tune to remove it (remember, most cars today are limited by the factory well before that to match tire speed ratings). So there's already evidence that limits set today do nothing to prevent this sort of abuse.
chronicsonic 3y ago
This unfortunately already exist in europe. Young drivers can get a black box installed in return for a discount on their insurance. This is because those costs for young drivers can be astronomical. I would never trust a private for profit company with this much data.
b112 3y ago
Fully against all remote monitoring, especially having insurance companies having access, along with no kill switches. Remote monitoring, aside from the incredible security risks, provides no context as to why. Frankly, I think it should be illegal for cars to have any form of wireless networked access. I personally disable all of that in any car I buy, typically by removing antennas and replacing with resistors.
matrss 3y ago
> However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". Unfortunately, it also already exists.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". I think that highlights the stupidity of a privatised health insurance system. Not wanting to know about health problems due to a financial disincentive is not a sensible way of managing a populations' health, when typically prevention is much cheaper and more effective than waiting until obvious symptoms show up. I suppose it depends on whether profit is more important than the population's health.
HtmlProgrammer 3y ago
This already exists and has stopped people I know personally from driving like idiots. https://www.boxymo.ie https://www.boxymo.ie
giantg2 3y ago
Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. They already have data readers that plug into your OBD2 port for insurance purposes.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  > Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. Those events will be much rarer than the type of late braking that poor drivers will make due to lack of observation. It'd be trivial to separate out the emergency stops from the everyday driving data.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    I highly doubt it will be trivial. I rarely have to brake hard. But when I do, it's usuallynin an area where the other drivers are terrible and hard braking is simply more common (as are running lights and stop signs, eg Philly and parts of Jersey). So yes, in a population of good drivers it would be simple to select people with higher rates of hard braking. But punishing them without context could lead to false punishment (similar to the cases of nurses that just happened to have higher rates of patient deaths - the prosecutor fallacy I think). Once you surpass a threshold of bad drivers in the population, it's more likely in my mind that the hard braking people may actually be the good drivers avoiding the ones running lights.
Aurornis 3y ago
> However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This has been available for years from some insurance companies. There’s no reason it needs to be built into the car or to automatically report it against the driver’s will. It’s an opt-in thing. My coworker got it when they first came out because she thought she was a safe driver and wanted a discount. She got a monthly report of how many sudden stops it recorded and the number was much higher than she would have guessed. She never could figure out what was triggering it, but began to suspect it was the stop signs between her house and the office. So instead of coming to a complete stop she started slowing down and then rolling through (which isn’t legal in our state). Unintended consequences strike again.

rcxdude 3y ago

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Well, I'm in the UK but not a driver (cyclist by choice). My point is that the black boxes should be almost mandatory (or at least fitted by default) in order to detect health problems which I don't think the insurance company provided boxes do. Have it be a standardised device and provide the data to the owner so that they can decide on whether or not to provide that data to third parties (probably worth having anonymised data available to the government too). It could be a very useful early warning of a number of conditions as well as providing an incentive for drivers to pay attention.
- whatevaa 3y ago
  What sort of early warnings are you thinking about exactly? Also, lol, no, governments are not gonna bother propely anonymising the data too. Plus if it's anonymous what's the point of this data?
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Early warnings of dementia or even eyesight problems - both of those are likely to lead to a change in driving style with more pronounced braking as the driver reacts slower to events. It would make sense to anonymise the data before sending it to the government and the point of the data is to identify road congestion and problematic junctions. It could also feed into better tracking of traffic lights timings etc. None of those uses have a requirement to know whether it's Mr Jones in his red Corsa or Mrs Malaprop in her SUV.
    - rcxdude 3y ago
      location data is basically impossible to anonymise: if you have a record of someone's movements over any more than a day you can almost certainly work out where they live and work, for example. When it comes to personal data you can't just wave an anonymisation wand and say it's definitely OK now, you need to think carefully about the exact case, and especially the more data that is collected the more difficult it is to actually keep things private.
vorticalbox 3y ago
Reminds of when tomtom sat nav data was used to find locations where users where speeding to set up speed traps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/28/tomtom-satnav-data-police-speed-traps https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/apr/28/tomtom-sa...
ChrisMarshallNY 3y ago
They have been doing this in the US, for some time. Fleet cars tend to have these systems, as do trucks. I have a friend that drives 18-wheelers, and often complains about getting nagged by Safety, when he does something out of bounds, or, more often, when drivers around him drive out of bounds. It’s definitely an insurance thing, with his company. They probably save millions per year, using that system. I explained to him that’s why they’ll never make an “exception” for him, because he’s skilled and experienced. The system is there for all the low-rent knuckleheads they hire.
tolien 3y ago
> A lot of insurers will give you a discount if you let them fit such a "telematics" box to your car. And for bonus points (pun not intended) will suspend your insurance because they think you're speeding even when you're not [0], with not a lot of recourse. Driving without insurance could get you a £300 fine and 6 points on your license - enough to cancel it in one go if qualified less than 2 years, which is usually the target audience of these boxes. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67335868 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-67335868
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  That's obviously a fault with that insurance company and the recourse is to show that the particular road had a 60mph maximum limit. I'd expect you could sue them for breach of contract too if they suspend your insurance for a false reason.
  - tolien 3y ago
    > When the comprehensive part of his cover was suspended on Friday for all the speeding alerts, Connor took a day off work to call the company and try to find a solution. > Sterling Insurance made Angela and her son go to the locations of his alleged speeding infractions and take pictures of the road signs next to a digital map on a phone. Yeah, just show them that their data is wrong - no big deal right? I guess in an ideal world such litigation would happen cheaply and quickly too.
    - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
      If a company doesn't react rationally, then taking them to court is the solution. Ideally you should choose to do business with a company that isn't so obstinate that you have to resort to courts to remedy issues. Certainly, if you get into legal trouble for not having valid insurance, you could easily demonstrate the facts as to why the company illegally revoked your insurance and how they had no right to do so.

martin_a 3y ago

> valuable data to insurance companies Great idea! But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. Maybe you're next. We'll just make sure that rates have already been adjusted to account for that. Also we saw that you were driving (very smoothly, congrats on that!) around some rather shady parts of town. This will lead to another rise in your fees, we just want to make sure that we got you covered in case your car gets stolen...

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
I believe insurance companies already look at your location when deciding premiums, so this would just give them greater granularity on your actual driving habits.
- isoprophlex 3y ago
  In the limit of perfect knowledge being transferred to your insurer, will an insurance stop being one, instead turning into an obligation to pay a middleman for all your claims?
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    Only if that perfect knowledge includes knowledge of future events such as a tree falling on your car or it being struck by lightning etc.
jeroenhd 3y ago
> But on the other hand I'm sorry to inform you that your insurance has gone up, because we found that drivers in your neighbourhood are in general 2498% more likely to have accidents. These types of statistical analyses are exactly why insurance is as cheap as it is. I'm no fan of all the discounts insurance companies hand out for handing over private data like driving behaviour or healthcare stuff, but insurance companies with no risk management can't compete in any kind of open market. I would argue that in terms of broader accessibility of insurance, these microtargeting approaches may actually be an improvement for many. If you live in a troublesome neighbourhood you may be paying through the nose for getting categorised as "one of the bad ones", but these individual data points can help prove you're a responsible driver and escape some of the cost of having a shitty start in life. I'm still against these data collection practises ("you want privacy? Live in a rich neighbourhood and get a college degree!", plus a lack of any kind of law preventing these companies from sharing or selling that data) but there are solid arguments in favour of feeding insurance companies more data.

matsemann 3y ago

What you describe is actually becoming common. What I want is something in cars that makes it impossible to go over X inside city bounds etc. The tech for knowing the speed limit isn't good enough yet to be used for limiting, but some kind of max limit in an area a bit over the highest speed limit would help a lot. Electric scooters have geofencing and speed limiters. My drone has gps zones it wont fly. Electric bikes have speed limiters. But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. In reality it's a political problem. Here in the UK, certain right-wing media outlets and personalities are often complaining about the "War on Motorists" which is ironic as when you look at RTC data, it's the motorists that are massacring pedestrians and other road users.
mrighele 3y ago
> But you can just take your car and blast 150+ down a residential street if you'd like. Just insane. It's a solved problem, just need enforcement. There are already a solutions, it is called police, speed traps, fines, and license revocation. Not everything has to be done with preventative measures by a nanny state.
- matsemann 3y ago
  And how well has that worked so far, you feel? Having limits on things doesn't automatically make things a "nanny state". Don't argue like that. Is it a nanny-state that there are speed limits?
  - giantg2 3y ago
    You're still going to need traditional enforcement. The people doing those sorts of speeds modify their cars will just push a new tune to remove it (remember, most cars today are limited by the factory well before that to match tire speed ratings). So there's already evidence that limits set today do nothing to prevent this sort of abuse.

chronicsonic 3y ago

This unfortunately already exist in europe. Young drivers can get a black box installed in return for a discount on their insurance. This is because those costs for young drivers can be astronomical. I would never trust a private for profit company with this much data.

b112 3y ago

Fully against all remote monitoring, especially having insurance companies having access, along with no kill switches. Remote monitoring, aside from the incredible security risks, provides no context as to why. Frankly, I think it should be illegal for cars to have any form of wireless networked access. I personally disable all of that in any car I buy, typically by removing antennas and replacing with resistors.

matrss 3y ago

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> That just opens the door to the driving version of "your grandma had cancer, so you won't get health insurance". I think that highlights the stupidity of a privatised health insurance system. Not wanting to know about health problems due to a financial disincentive is not a sensible way of managing a populations' health, when typically prevention is much cheaper and more effective than waiting until obvious symptoms show up. I suppose it depends on whether profit is more important than the population's health.

HtmlProgrammer 3y ago

This already exists and has stopped people I know personally from driving like idiots. https://www.boxymo.ie https://www.boxymo.ie

giantg2 3y ago

Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. They already have data readers that plug into your OBD2 port for insurance purposes.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
> Sometimes sudden braking is due to other drivers, animals, etc. Those events will be much rarer than the type of late braking that poor drivers will make due to lack of observation. It'd be trivial to separate out the emergency stops from the everyday driving data.
- giantg2 3y ago
  I highly doubt it will be trivial. I rarely have to brake hard. But when I do, it's usuallynin an area where the other drivers are terrible and hard braking is simply more common (as are running lights and stop signs, eg Philly and parts of Jersey). So yes, in a population of good drivers it would be simple to select people with higher rates of hard braking. But punishing them without context could lead to false punishment (similar to the cases of nurses that just happened to have higher rates of patient deaths - the prosecutor fallacy I think). Once you surpass a threshold of bad drivers in the population, it's more likely in my mind that the hard braking people may actually be the good drivers avoiding the ones running lights.

Aurornis 3y ago

> However, I've long thought that motor vehicles should have some kind of black box that monitors various driving metrics such as how "smooth" the driving is. This could provide valuable data to insurance companies and they should provide a sizable discount for drivers who agree to provide that data and have good driving scores. This has been available for years from some insurance companies. There’s no reason it needs to be built into the car or to automatically report it against the driver’s will. It’s an opt-in thing. My coworker got it when they first came out because she thought she was a safe driver and wanted a discount. She got a monthly report of how many sudden stops it recorded and the number was much higher than she would have guessed. She never could figure out what was triggering it, but began to suspect it was the stop signs between her house and the office. So instead of coming to a complete stop she started slowing down and then rolling through (which isn’t legal in our state). Unintended consequences strike again.