3 ms·

I'm not generally for hyper analyzed metrics gathering in this case (I don't like the privacy implications), but I'm generally for riskier drivers paying signif

I'm not generally for hyper analyzed metrics gathering in this case (I don't like the privacy implications), but I'm generally for riskier drivers paying significantly more. Individuals should feel the costs of their driving more in the US IMO. I don't like heavily subsidizing people who drive so recklessly. Maybe then they'd realize overly building car dependent cities isn't that great in the end. Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me. I'd be happy if a huge chunk of drivers couldn't drive anymore. It would make everyone safer and save a ton of lives.

jajko 2y ago
Some optimization yes, but this has been already achieved decades ago by simply using driving/accident history that insurances shared among themselves probably since they went digital. All the consistently bad drivers will easily fall into this. What I talk about is anticipation/prediction, possibly wrong conclusions from data (since we all know data can be pretty bad or incorrectly analyzed), also no way to correct any incorrectly derived bad rating. There are no consumers winning in this scenario, even if it may feel intuitively as such if you are a stellar safe driver. Also there are many second-order effects, ie poor risky people pushed out of insurances, still driving since in US you can't do anything without a car in rural places, still causing accidents but no way in hell to pay back, ever. So we move the losses from private corporations to random citizens caught in some bad luck. I'd say keep the risk at those corporations, they anyhow still manage to earn billions annually, no need to make their life even easier.
Amezarak 2y ago
That just makes people drive without insurance. And yeah, you can fine them and take their license away. Then they drive without a license.
mrguyorama 2y ago
>Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me This is the US. WHAT option?
- vel0city 2y ago
  We won't end up actually adopting other forms of transportation if we keep subsidizing cars for everyone.

jajko 2y ago

Some optimization yes, but this has been already achieved decades ago by simply using driving/accident history that insurances shared among themselves probably since they went digital. All the consistently bad drivers will easily fall into this. What I talk about is anticipation/prediction, possibly wrong conclusions from data (since we all know data can be pretty bad or incorrectly analyzed), also no way to correct any incorrectly derived bad rating. There are no consumers winning in this scenario, even if it may feel intuitively as such if you are a stellar safe driver. Also there are many second-order effects, ie poor risky people pushed out of insurances, still driving since in US you can't do anything without a car in rural places, still causing accidents but no way in hell to pay back, ever. So we move the losses from private corporations to random citizens caught in some bad luck. I'd say keep the risk at those corporations, they anyhow still manage to earn billions annually, no need to make their life even easier.

Amezarak 2y ago

That just makes people drive without insurance. And yeah, you can fine them and take their license away. Then they drive without a license.

mrguyorama 2y ago

>Convincing risky drivers to pick an option other than driving seems great to me This is the US. WHAT option?

vel0city 2y ago
We won't end up actually adopting other forms of transportation if we keep subsidizing cars for everyone.