Live data from Hacker News

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

money.com

161–170 of 414 posts

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

#161

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…

> This is why I advocate for a gross vehicle weight rating and vehicle miles traveled tax

The problem is, while that works out on highways and other federally owned road, the distribution on state or county/city level is almost impossible. Say you have a trucking company doing regional service and one doing interstate transport - both their fleets will have similar driven miles because economically, companies want their many-hundred-thousand-dollar assets to be on the road as long as traffic safety laws allow. Now, assuming they both pay the same mile tax to the state... the state makes an insane profit on the interstate trucking company given that only a low percentage of the miles driven were happening on that state's roads, with the clear majority being on federal highways and other states' roads.

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

#162

I've both worked on systems like that professionally and built some myself just for fun to play with GPS/geospatial data/streaming etc (fun tech). I'd _never_ want something like that installed in my vehicle. First off, you're usually relying on ODB-2 + GPS + usually some type of streaming backend, which means you're looking at 2 unreliable (or, at least, hard to _interpret_) sources of data delivered and presumably…

How is this different from the phone in your pocket?

Well we can build a startup that offer cheaper health/life insurance based on phone data tracking and see how people would react.

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

#163

I've both worked on systems like that professionally and built some myself just for fun to play with GPS/geospatial data/streaming etc (fun tech). I'd _never_ want something like that installed in my vehicle. First off, you're usually relying on ODB-2 + GPS + usually some type of streaming backend, which means you're looking at 2 unreliable (or, at least, hard to _interpret_) sources of data delivered and presumably…

My sister had an insurance tracker fitted in her car, and it was awful - it kept sending her emails saying "we detected you going 70mph on a 20mph road, if this keeps happening we'll cancel your insurance altogether" - we'd contact them asking for proof, they would send us a GPS trace and of course she was driving on the motorway going legal 70mph going ABOVE a 20mph street but the system was dumb enough to just check "what's the speed limit at those exact coordinates" and issued automatic warning letter. It would also frequently show her negative driver scores for "smoothness" of driving every time she would go over a speedbump. Absolute travesty of a system.

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

#164
post #35
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…

Taxes on EV are just starting. A lot of taxes come from gas in the first place and once the market for EV is ripe the goverment will unleash the tax whip on the EV category before you know it. It is inevitable.

Taxes on EVs will be at a maximum just before around 20% if the market is EV, as they’re seen as a way to soak/punish people who are weird (ie early adopters). Once people actually see how disproportionate the fees are and if significant numbers of voters have to pay them, support will drop.

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

#165
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…

Why do you think a few hundred dollars is "exorbitant"?

Greater than the equivalent state gas tax.

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

#166
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually kinda makes sense. EVs should pay their share to use the roads too.

(Gas taxes are a relatively small fraction of roads funding, for what it's worth.)

Indeed, gas taxes act as a sort of carbon tax, so taxing EVs to compensate is like getting rid of a carbon tax.

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

#167
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try living in California. My $42K EV was closer to $600 for the registration.

My non-plugin hybrid is charged the EV registration fee in WA. They say it's to support adding more EV chargers, but I can't even use them. It's not terrible, but an additional $75/yr is stupid IMHO...this is more expensive that my gas guzzling truck (which is higher than a car because of it's weight). https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/was...

Well it kinda makes sense - eventually you will have to use EV chargers because ICE cars will get phased out entirely(maybe not in 10 but in 30 years for sure) so we're all paying forward for the infrastructure that we're all going to need.

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

#168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is this different from the phone in your pocket?

Value proposition. What are you going to do, _not_ walk around with a phone in your pocket?

Why not?

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you can charge from every single outlet.

Sounds like tax evasion. You still need a charger/adapter between the outlet and the vehicle. Perhaps build the meter into the vehicles charging port.

You have got to be kidding me. Next you’ll say that properly inflating your tires is “tax evasion” because you’ll burn less gas.

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

#170
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?

They do that in AU / VIC for the EV road use tax, you have to upload a photo. I don't see the problem, just make it illegal to lie and fine the ones you catch.
Post reply on HN