Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

money.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 414 posts

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

#121

Post by henry2023 »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #92
parl_match wrote: post #17

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…

> Road taxes are often use-based, where gasoline is the way they extract "use" taxes. 26% of road funds come from gas taxes; 11 percent from tolls, another 25% from the federal government: https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative... Now, about those "paying their fair share of 25% of the cost of the roads" gas taxes: In Utah, the gas tax was $0.245 in 1997. Today it's $0.34, when adjusting for inf…

>> Does Utah give people with small 3000lb gas cars a tax break, and penalize 5,000lb pickup truck owners?

Yes, if your car has less weight you use less gas and therefore have a “tax break” compared to the guy on the 5,000lb truck.

>> EVs start to get popular and suddenly now everyone's very concerned about...road wear?

Would it be better to ignore the problem?

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

#122

Post by topposter32 »

Hermitian909 wrote: post #32
aidenn0 wrote: post #2

It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.

It's true, and it's not great, but I think the flip side of this is that as I get older I find myself increasingly paying for the anti-social behavior of others. There are lot of nice customer service things that are only possible if people don't abuse them: solid warranty/return programs, high quality phone reps, etc. But you need people who adhere to the social contract, the kind of people who don't, say, buy a $3,…

> want some way to tell many of these companies "I am a responsible human being who respects social contracts"

Cultural background + class would be the strongest indicator of this behavior. It describes the norms and expectations to which you are accustomed. Unfortunately it's illegal to discriminate based on most signifiers of this trait.

The alternative to shared trust is costly and intrusive enforcement mechanisms.

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

#123

Post by Etrnl_President »

parl_match wrote: post #53
jbritton wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I figure it’s semi trucks that do almost all the road damage. We could just tax the trucks, but that would just get passed along in higher prices for everything. So might as well pay for road repair out of the general fund than have special taxes.

They do, but it's priced in. Many states have weigh stations as part of enforcing the existing taxation through diesel and licensing.

They also have to go through 3x the registration effort, and do it in every state they drive in.

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

#124

Post by tpxl »

parl_match wrote: post #104
KennyBlanken wrote: post #95

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 This is an unambiguously, heavily supported claim. By states, car makers, the federal government, and third party analysis firms. It's incredibly uncontroversial. It's even got a name, and associated math: it's called the Fourth Power Law https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-... > shouldn't we expect…

> This is an unambiguously, heavily supported claim.

Your source claims no such thing. EVs may be heavier than equivalent ICE cars, but an electric Smart (the brand) is going to do less damage than a loaded Ford F150.

Tax the weight, not a shitty proxy for weight.

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

#125

Post by topposter32 »

abhayhegde wrote: post #59
aidenn0 wrote: post #2

It feels to me more and more like you need to be rich to afford living without bartering away your personal information. I'm getting to be middle aged now, and have noticed a fatalistic attitude towards this by gen Z; kind of "it's impossible to maintain privacy, so I might as well milk my loss of privacy for all it's worth." And I'm wondering now if that's not completely correct.

I hate how true this is! A case in point is also apps like Ibotta or Fetch which reward you based on your shopping data. Sell your shopping patterns, earn money! Rich can protect their privacy.

You are also describing credit cards. That's the trade you made to get a 1-2% reward.

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

#126

Post by Etrnl_President »

milkytron wrote: post #114
parl_match wrote: post #17

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…

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 tha…

Just tax the roads themselves. Wear is the problem after all, disincentivise it.

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

#127

Post by throwbadubadu »

parl_match wrote: post #104
KennyBlanken wrote: post #95

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 This is an unambiguously, heavily supported claim. By states, car makers, the federal government, and third party analysis firms. It's incredibly uncontroversial. It's even got a name, and associated math: it's called the Fourth Power Law https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-... > shouldn't we expect…

> This is an unambiguously, heavily supported claim.

It is pretty much insignificant increase on road wear vs what trucks put on it?

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

#128

Post by rpodraza »

WirelessGigabit wrote: post #72

It's starting to feel like Europe. In Belgium you couldn't drive a miles without being recorded on some ALPR camera. Speed cameras everywhere. And the current rage is average speed cameras. So they take your photo on an on-ramp and when you take the exit they'll calculate the average. Above the speed limit: ticket. With no way of facing your accuser in court. The machine said so...

So you're claiming these are inaccurate? Do you have any other solutions for speeding? I think these are still much better solution than a device that tracks your location all the time.

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

#129

Post by ffgjgf1 »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #103
KennyBlanken wrote: post #95

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.

The increase in damage due to the higher weight is insignificant if semis and other heavy vehicles are allowed on that road.

Also you could just get a slightly smaller cars since EVs tend to be a bit more space efficient.

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

#130

Post by swores »

13of40 wrote: post #113
KennyBlanken wrote: post #110

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?

Nobody called you an asshole, that's you projecting what you assume people think of you. They suggested that your being owning a luxury vehicle means you can afford and should contribute slightly more to society than somebody who doesn't, which is a lot more reasonable than calling you an asshole who needs to be punished.
Post reply on HN