41–50 of 71 posts
With 90 minutes of data, they could pick out one driver out of a sample size of 15 . How meaningful is that, really?
Damn man... how many people do you let drive your car?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how this is a bad thing at all. Currently rates are set on arbitrary things that merely correlate with driving skill, like past record, age, and gender, etc. I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. Driving is also the leading cause of death of young…
>I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. The whole point of insurance is not to lump you into good driver / bad driver categories. If you make bad drivers consistently pay for accidents, then you might as well not have insurance at all, and you'll pay perfectly…
https://www.statefarm.com/insurance/auto/resources/high-risk...
The privacy concern is valid. It won't be long before all new cars are sending data from the sensors to third parties, and it would be unthinkable for the manufacturers to ask for your consent before collecting that data since they'll make money off of it. The article mentions concerns with insurance companies. One I worked for tried to get customers to agree to having their rates adjusted based on data from their ca…
What if it turns out that people who take corners faster make fewer claims?
PS: not trying to defend aggressive driving, I'm not an agresive driver, just saying it'd be interesting if a lot of our assumptions were thrown out the window with that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weight is only one dimensional though, so you'll have more collisions. If two people happen to weigh about the same, then your weight sensor is useless and your driving analysis is not.
It's far from useless, it limits the pool of candidates to two. Far easier to distinguish two drivers from each other than fifteen.
So yes, you(s) are all correct. With one sensor you get decent accuracy, with more you get improved accuracy.
Noting that these are forensic assessments, and thus useless for personalising car settings when a new driver gets into the vehicle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if it turns out that people who take corners faster make fewer claims?
Or what about if the people who take corners.faster make LESS claims? PS: not trying to defend aggressive driving, I'm not an agresive driver, just saying it'd be interesting if a lot of our assumptions were thrown out the window with that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how this is a bad thing at all. Currently rates are set on arbitrary things that merely correlate with driving skill, like past record, age, and gender, etc. I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. Driving is also the leading cause of death of young…
>I'd love to be rewarded for actually being a good driver. Rather than being lumped in with bad drivers who have a high chance of being in $50k accidents, which everyone has to collectively pay for. The whole point of insurance is not to lump you into good driver / bad driver categories. If you make bad drivers consistently pay for accidents, then you might as well not have insurance at all, and you'll pay perfectly…
That we often lump people together is just one implementation of insurance. But not a necessary feature. Otherwise, there would be no insurance for one-off events---but that happens all the time.
There's nothing inherently 'social' about insurance.
See eg http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2015/03/warr...
With 90 minutes of data, they could pick out one driver out of a sample size of 15 . How meaningful is that, really?
Agreed. A 10% false positive rate is huge. Expand the dataset to millions and I doubt you can identify individuals quite so certainly.
Modern cars will already learn about driving characteristics so they can better manage the car to match, but I don't know if they try to match individuals.
The privacy concern is valid. It won't be long before all new cars are sending data from the sensors to third parties, and it would be unthinkable for the manufacturers to ask for your consent before collecting that data since they'll make money off of it. The article mentions concerns with insurance companies. One I worked for tried to get customers to agree to having their rates adjusted based on data from their ca…
>taking curves too fast, braking too hard too often I was thinking about this the other day, people driving in San Francisco or Seattle hills would then have higher rates than people driving on flat Texas roads? People stuck in rush hours (where no matter how smoothly you try to drive, there will be more hard brakes) would have higher rates than people who can avoid it? regardless of the number of car accidents in th…
The area you are driving in is an obvious candidate. Or even the particular roads you are driving on at particular hours.
The privacy concern is valid. It won't be long before all new cars are sending data from the sensors to third parties, and it would be unthinkable for the manufacturers to ask for your consent before collecting that data since they'll make money off of it. The article mentions concerns with insurance companies. One I worked for tried to get customers to agree to having their rates adjusted based on data from their ca…
>taking curves too fast, braking too hard too often I was thinking about this the other day, people driving in San Francisco or Seattle hills would then have higher rates than people driving on flat Texas roads? People stuck in rush hours (where no matter how smoothly you try to drive, there will be more hard brakes) would have higher rates than people who can avoid it? regardless of the number of car accidents in th…
I'm surprised it took 90 minutes; I'd imagine that it'd only take two or three. The data is very rich and continuous, and the knowledge is almost entirely reflexive. I would also think that identifying typists wouldn't take much longer. Does anybody know of any papers on that? You could pull that off with javascript.