Live data from Hacker News

Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

nytimes.com

201–210 of 333 posts

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has been true for several years. An insurance agent once told me that there are life insurance companies dropping the requirement for blood draws / medical exams and are just buying prescription records to correlate with financial, educational, and other behavioral data. Edit: changed prescription “data” to “records”

Wouldn’t this violate HIPAA?

If you agree to the data being shared when signing up for insurance it wouldn’t be a violation.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#202
post #189
post #175

I have been convinced for several years now that insurance companies are likely buying up personal data from many different sources. They seem to be ideal consumers because it'll lead to better outcomes when they can increase rates on those that identify as risky.

I knew a guy who worked in Finance. Whenever he would buy alcohol, or cannabis (legal where I lived) he would only pay cash. His concern was that, if his credit card usage data were sold, it could increase his premiums.

That's why I buy my liquor at the gas station, on the same tx as the gas.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#203

The easiest way to disable this in a Chevrolet with OnStar is to pull the fuse (Fuse 38 under the dash for the Chevrolet Malibu 2024). Other options disconnecting the antenna (can still connect if strong signal), or pulling out the box/microphone (disassembly required). At least for the 2024 model CarPlay features seems to keep working, but I haven't tested Bluetooth yet. There's somebody on YouTube describing the pa…

> (can still connect if strong signal)

Wonder if that would still work if you additionally shunted the antenna with some kind of impedance matched load.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#204
I mean, Tesla has their own insurance product that they claim is better and cheaper than alternatives because of the data they track. People cheered for this.

Personally, I"m not opposed to dangerous drivers paying higher rates, but the devil is in the details.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#205

Is there any hope for something like a Privacy Bill of Rights to ever be passed? I feel like privacy is an inalienable right for all humans and the passage of something like this would be a light speed jump ahead for personal freedom in the new era we find ourselves in. Just because tech enables it doesn’t make this any creepier than someone following behind you in the woods stalking you on your horse 200 years ago.

[flagged]

Nobody? There are countries other than the USA. I've never heard of signing away rights in respect of blood as a condition of getting a licence. Is this a real thing in the USA?

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#206
post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've avoided accidents by hard breaking twice in the last two years, once from deer bounding into the road, and once from a deaf old cat walking into the street. I haven't been cited for anything in decades, and have never been in an at-fault accident. I drive the speed limit and have a dashcam. With the deer, I was actually 10 MPH under the limit. So should my rates go up for these incidents where I successfully avo…

I did pest control for a while, and my truck was equipped with a monitoring device that would beep if it detected unsafe driving. The thing was inconsistent enough to be nearly indistinguishible from random. It sometimes nagged me while driving straight at normal speeds, or going over a pot hole, or just stopping like normal at a stop light. At other times, it wouldn't go off for what should have been obvious "offens…

I drove a newer Subaru for a couple days and it had a "feature" like this with a camera pointed at the driver that would beep if it thought you weren't paying enough attention. Just like the pest control truck it was innacurate to the point of being totally useless and very annoying. The stupidest part was that it couldn't be disabled. I was a happy Subaru owner for many years but the driver camera and a few other modern owner-hostile features totally turned me off to the company.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#208

The easiest way to disable this in a Chevrolet with OnStar is to pull the fuse (Fuse 38 under the dash for the Chevrolet Malibu 2024). Other options disconnecting the antenna (can still connect if strong signal), or pulling out the box/microphone (disassembly required). At least for the 2024 model CarPlay features seems to keep working, but I haven't tested Bluetooth yet. There's somebody on YouTube describing the pa…

Many GM models used to have a bridge/jumper between the network daughter board and the rest of the car. Pretty easy and didn't affect anything else (sometimes the fuse for OnStar also covered your Bluetooth or voice commands).

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#209

There's a lot of jerk drivers who go way too fast and drive very dangerously. They should have to pay significantly more for it. For people that drive correctly, they should be charged less as well. I don't see why this is an issue.

The cars are not capable of measuring how dangerous the driving is.

Re: Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

#210
The worst thing about this is that all of their conclusions about what data constitutes "bad driving" or "risky driving" is dead wrong.

The signs they consider to be "bad driving" are high-g braking and turning.

Yet these are EXACTLY the same signs created by highly-skilled driver or racer operating at the limit, as they would to avoid an accident (thus costing the insurer $0), where the same situation would catch 90% of the low-g drivers into a wreck that totals the vehicle and causes injuries. A core element of high-performance driving for accident avoidance and racing is to understand the limits of tyre traction, and how to operate the car up to those limits — but not over them — i.e., just under the limit of sliding (sliding friction is always less than static or rolling friction), and to choose lines that maximize available traction.

Distinguishing the signs to tell a high-skilled driver from a bad driver requires more than just "is that number high?". You must look at the circumstances, the frequency, the conditions, the rate of increase and decrease of pressure, the slip angle, the grip state of all 4 tires, and more. But of course, no one bothers to do this.

It is the same kind of institutional stupidity that causes a world-class weightlifter with 4% body fat to be classed as "obese" because s/he scores high on the stupidly simplistic BMI scale(a ratio of weight to height).

Except with BMI insurance companies are not allowed to re-rate people and doctors can instantly adjust treatment when they see the person is obviously not obese but highly trained.

With auto insurance, they can secretly re-rate us on bogus numbers that actually down-rate the highly skilled.

Seems more attractive with every passing year to rebuild older nice cars than get into the new rolling spyware contraptions.

Post reply on HN