3 ms·

>If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete mania

>If even a small subset of users did this, and insurers did something with this information, it would substantially disincentivize driving like a complete maniac. People who drive like complete maniacs aren't doing so rationally. It's called "road rage" not "road reason."

gruez 2y ago
Disagree. While "maniacs" could include road rage behavior (eg. brakechecking someone), it also arguably encompasses other risky behavior that's not obviously associated with "road rage", like speeding or aggressive weaving/lane changes.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Road rage is but one example. No one brake checking someone else is doing it rationally. If someone was being rational, they would drive reasonably. They would forgive and forget, and they wouldn't do dangerous things. If drivers were worried about their rates going up, they would not do the very activities that put them in that risk in the first place.
  - gruez 2y ago
    > If drivers were worried about their rates going up, they would not do the very activities that put them in that risk in the first place. Not if they're underestimating the risk. For instance, if they think speed limits are instituted by clueless bureaucrats, or they think they're better than the average driver and therefore can drive more aggressively.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      Interesting how none of the risks you cite are an increase into their insurance premiums. In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase. Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't better than another driver when they crash into you. Your premiums will increase the same. I appreciate you making my point for me.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase. I can't tell whether you wanted an opportunity to rant about unjust speed limits in your area, or are trying to get in a smug "well ackushally \u{1F913}" response. While it's true that speed limits can be arbitrary and driving above it doesn't magically make you a dangerous driver, it's pretty obvious when people say "driving like a complete maniac", that's not the sort of behavior they're referring to. Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about the least charitable way of interpreting that statement. >Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't better than another driver when they crash into you. Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky. Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put in the same situations. >I appreciate you making my point for me. Whatever you say, champ.
        freejazz 2y ago
        >Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about the least charitable way of interpreting that statement. I have no idea how you came up with the hypothetical of the speed limits, and then went further to assume I'm making the argument that driving 1MPH over the limit was a good example. That's a ridiculous approach to this conversation. >Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky. Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put in the same situations. But your example wasn't a professional driver, it was just someone who thinks they are a better driver. You were talking about people who were underestimating risks... how would that apply to a professional driver?
    - jrflowers 2y ago
      This is a good point. People that drive recklessly and risk personal injury, death, and imprisonment simply do so because they lack a proper disincentive. They would think twice when they envision themselves having to cut a a larger check to State Farm while lying in spinal traction.
      - gruez 2y ago
        When it comes to punishment, "swift and certain" trumps "harsh but sporadic". Having cars snitch on everyone else implements the former, "lying in spinal traction" implements the latter.
sodality2 2y ago
I disagree - people do it because they are angry, and _also_ because they're unlikely to get caught. Far less people commit hit&runs, because there's a much higher chance of getting caught.
- freejazz 2y ago
  It's not because they will get caught, it's because of the repercussions that would happen if they did.
- wil421 2y ago
  There are far less hit and runs than speeders or road ragers.
bravetraveler 2y ago
May not even have insurance, it's a coin toss
CamperBob2 2y ago
In most cases, it's a devil's brew of "Speed limits that are set too low" and "Drivers that aren't taught how to use lanes properly."
- freejazz 2y ago
  Surely you don't live in a city.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    As long as we're trading non sequiturs: when you think about why you don't want your phone to behave this way, you'll understand why I don't want my car to.
    - freejazz 2y ago
      It's not a non sequitur, it's the only context in which your comment could ever make sense. Even then, most likely is objectively wrong.
rbalicki 2y ago
My superficial understanding of research on deterring criminal behavior (so, I may be bullshitting) is that it's more effective to make the likelihood of getting caught high than making the punishment severe. So this might be an effective (and cheap, compared to fiery auto crashes and arrests) way to discourage that behavior. And if someone does not respond to the initial incentive, their insurance rates would continue to climb, so at some point in time they either end up uninsured (in which case, this sousveillance really ought to just inform the cops, but anyway, the opinion in this thread is that cops are useless, so YMMV) or fix their behavior.

gruez 2y ago

Disagree. While "maniacs" could include road rage behavior (eg. brakechecking someone), it also arguably encompasses other risky behavior that's not obviously associated with "road rage", like speeding or aggressive weaving/lane changes.

freejazz 2y ago
Road rage is but one example. No one brake checking someone else is doing it rationally. If someone was being rational, they would drive reasonably. They would forgive and forget, and they wouldn't do dangerous things. If drivers were worried about their rates going up, they would not do the very activities that put them in that risk in the first place.
- gruez 2y ago
  > If drivers were worried about their rates going up, they would not do the very activities that put them in that risk in the first place. Not if they're underestimating the risk. For instance, if they think speed limits are instituted by clueless bureaucrats, or they think they're better than the average driver and therefore can drive more aggressively.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    Interesting how none of the risks you cite are an increase into their insurance premiums. In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase. Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't better than another driver when they crash into you. Your premiums will increase the same. I appreciate you making my point for me.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >In fact, what you point to are completely irrational thoughts that have nothing to do with the risks presented by undertaking those activities. It doesn't matter if speeds are set low or irrationally, the fee for a ticket is the same as is the insurance premium increase. I can't tell whether you wanted an opportunity to rant about unjust speed limits in your area, or are trying to get in a smug "well ackushally \u{1F913}" response. While it's true that speed limits can be arbitrary and driving above it doesn't magically make you a dangerous driver, it's pretty obvious when people say "driving like a complete maniac", that's not the sort of behavior they're referring to. Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about the least charitable way of interpreting that statement. >Same with being better than another driver, it doesn't matter if you are or aren't better than another driver when they crash into you. Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky. Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put in the same situations. >I appreciate you making my point for me. Whatever you say, champ.
      - freejazz 2y ago
        >Thinking "speeding" and "driving like a complete maniac" means driving 1 mile over the speed limit in an artificially low speed limit zone is about the least charitable way of interpreting that statement. I have no idea how you came up with the hypothetical of the speed limits, and then went further to assume I'm making the argument that driving 1MPH over the limit was a good example. That's a ridiculous approach to this conversation. >Again, I can't tell whether you're trying to be snarky. Being a better driver (however it's defined) might not fix your car when it gets into a crash, but I don't think anyone doubts that a professional driver is going to be able to avoid more accidents than the 90 year old granny that only drives every sunday to go to church, when put in the same situations. But your example wasn't a professional driver, it was just someone who thinks they are a better driver. You were talking about people who were underestimating risks... how would that apply to a professional driver?
  - jrflowers 2y ago
    This is a good point. People that drive recklessly and risk personal injury, death, and imprisonment simply do so because they lack a proper disincentive. They would think twice when they envision themselves having to cut a a larger check to State Farm while lying in spinal traction.
    - gruez 2y ago
      When it comes to punishment, "swift and certain" trumps "harsh but sporadic". Having cars snitch on everyone else implements the former, "lying in spinal traction" implements the latter.

sodality2 2y ago

I disagree - people do it because they are angry, and _also_ because they're unlikely to get caught. Far less people commit hit&runs, because there's a much higher chance of getting caught.

freejazz 2y ago
It's not because they will get caught, it's because of the repercussions that would happen if they did.
wil421 2y ago
There are far less hit and runs than speeders or road ragers.

bravetraveler 2y ago

May not even have insurance, it's a coin toss

CamperBob2 2y ago

In most cases, it's a devil's brew of "Speed limits that are set too low" and "Drivers that aren't taught how to use lanes properly."

freejazz 2y ago
Surely you don't live in a city.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  As long as we're trading non sequiturs: when you think about why you don't want your phone to behave this way, you'll understand why I don't want my car to.
  - freejazz 2y ago
    It's not a non sequitur, it's the only context in which your comment could ever make sense. Even then, most likely is objectively wrong.

rbalicki 2y ago

My superficial understanding of research on deterring criminal behavior (so, I may be bullshitting) is that it's more effective to make the likelihood of getting caught high than making the punishment severe. So this might be an effective (and cheap, compared to fiery auto crashes and arrests) way to discourage that behavior. And if someone does not respond to the initial incentive, their insurance rates would continue to climb, so at some point in time they either end up uninsured (in which case, this sousveillance really ought to just inform the cops, but anyway, the opinion in this thread is that cops are useless, so YMMV) or fix their behavior.