> Maybe someone with a lot of hard braking should drive differently, but if they haven't had any collisions and have a long history, it smells of 'pre-crime' to

> Maybe someone with a lot of hard braking should drive differently, but if they haven't had any collisions and have a long history, it smells of 'pre-crime' to charge them more for something they didn't do. I agree that it smells terrible. But insurance is full of this kind of thing -- it's about predicting possible outcomes, identifying the random component that goes into it, and charging based on likelihood. Consider the example of life insurance companies charging smokers more, even if they don't have emphysema or lung cancer yet. Maybe they should quit smoking but we understand the connection between risk factors and outcomes well enough that it's not unreasonable to charge more. (Not exactly comparable, of course: it's hard to argue "well, I've smoked for 30 years and so far so good!" in the same way as "I brake hard a lot but I've been doing it for 30 years without an accident so clearly it's not a problem".)