Live data from Hacker News

To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

money.com

111–120 of 414 posts

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#111
post #75
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers, and how they slice it up (whether they're completely treating federal roads separately or using it for the total, etc), as at $0.364 per gallon in Utah, it seems like it results in a large amount to put towards funding something , so it would be interesting to track where it's going.

Utah’s cent per mile program treats all roads the same, including roads outside of the state.

That didn’t answer the question

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might want to rethink posting about committing insurance fraud.

They said "hypothetically" so they're good /s

Ah, they edited it. Must be why I'm eating downvotes now :)

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#113
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a newish BMW SUV, so both.

Sounds to me like the system is working exactly as it should.

It's kind of funny, because from my perspective I'm an old man who learned himself a trade decades ago and worked things right to the point that I don't have to drive around a shit-box anymore, but to you I'm a privileged asshole. Which one is the truth?

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#114
post #6

Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…

> Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas That's because they kind of are. Road taxes are often use-based, where gasoline is the way they extract "use" taxes. EVs also wear roads more than gas cars do, on average, because of their higher weight. And it's not linear wear per pound, either. This is going to require a significant shift about how states and cities think about their road maintenanc…

This is why I advocate for a gross vehicle weight rating and vehicle miles traveled tax, regardless of energy source (although gas should still be taxed on its own). GWVR and VMT pretty much measure how much impact a car has on road maintenance, so it makes sense to charge heavier vehicles and vehicles that drive more, more.

I think it even makes sense for semis, the cost may go up for goods slightly as they pass that cost onto customers, but we'd be paying less in federal taxes for roads, less in property taxes for roads, and if you drive less (good for health, environment, etc) you'll likely be saving money. It also more accurately taxes EVs with ICEs based on road wear and tear instead of all these haphazard ideas.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#115
post #97
post #6

Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…

It's shocking to me that it requires an OBD device and a surveillance app. Can't they just check your odometer when you go to update your registration?

That would require trusting the public. But no, we are required to trust the government and some sketchy third parties I've never heard of.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#116
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Utah’s cent per mile program treats all roads the same, including roads outside of the state.

That didn’t answer the question

I was responding to this aside, not the question:

> whether they're completely treating federal roads separately or using it for the total, etc

The tax does not distinguish types of road, much like a gas tax does not.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#117
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds to me like the system is working exactly as it should.

It's kind of funny, because from my perspective I'm an old man who learned himself a trade decades ago and worked things right to the point that I don't have to drive around a shit-box anymore, but to you I'm a privileged asshole. Which one is the truth?

There’s a big gulf between “not a shit box” and “new expensive luxury SUV” and it’s pretty reasonable to tax more expensive vehicles proportionally.

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A diesel truck that has three times the pressure on the road and easily ten to fifteen times the total weight, while getting about 1/3rd the gas mileage of the average US passenger vehicle. Given the (unsupported) claim that a EV wears the road significantly more than a gasoline car for what amounts to shouldn't we expect that a vehicle exerting three times the pressure on the road should pay more per mile than 'just…

> Given the (unsupported) claim that a EV wears the road significantly more than a gasoline car Wear on the road is a function of weight. It’s really simple and uncontroversial. An EV generally weighs more than an ICE of equivalent size. Hopefully, the federal push to install tons of charging stations will usher in useful EVs with smaller batteries, lowering weight.

I still think this is BS, considering trucks are causing 2500 times [0] more damage than gas cars and are certainly not bringing tax income proportionally to this. Why should EV then?

[0] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#119
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas That's because they kind of are. Road taxes are often use-based, where gasoline is the way they extract "use" taxes. EVs also wear roads more than gas cars do, on average, because of their higher weight. And it's not linear wear per pound, either. This is going to require a significant shift about how states and cities think about their road maintenanc…

IMO gas and diesel vehicles should pay a higher tax for all the air pollution they create that the public has to clean up or deal with (in terms of adverse health effects, health care, etc).

[flagged]

Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology

#120
My relative in the UK got a black box because insurance for beginner drivers is pretty high. Her summary is that punishing hard braking is counterproductive.

Her relative also had it for three months, but after that the insurance company said he would be better off without it.

Post reply on HN