no we dont. How about insurance figures out their own stuff
To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
171–180 of 414 posts
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#172This has been extremely common in the UK for about 10 years - especially for young drivers. I warned my nephew off it but sure enough, he took the £200 (£1400 to £1200) discount on insurance. His insurance was cancelled because they say he did over 35mph in a 30 zone, so now his insurance premiums are £2000+ because he has to declare he has a history of having an insurance policy cancelled.
Damn that is shady as hell. Enticing with a small discount then boom, guaranteed increased premiums for years.
The big comparison websites are complicit too as they list those policies along the others in a table sorted by price, not making much of a deal about the risks etc and how different the policy is
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#173Earlier 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…
Instead of that, they could mandate meters on the charging stations that add a surcharge to the electricity. That would be less invasive, and be analogous to how they collect usage fees by taxing gas. There is a general legal principle that the state must use the least intrusive means to accomplish a goal. A lawsuit might force a change.
In my country you pay an anual fee for having a vehicle, like property tax but for vehicles. The larger the vehicle, more you pay, discount if you have an EV (no emissions). It's not that difficult.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#174I'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…
Often "legacy" institutions appeal to their age to tell us how they should be trusted with data. Ironically, they are the people I least want to have my data, since they seem completely incompetent in using it for anything valuable and instead just try to use it to grasp more power.
I'd rather some scrappy startup have all my data than my bank or my insurance provider. At least the startup has limited power. My bank can ruin my life by giving my a shit credit score because their model told them to, and by appealing to their trusted societal position, they'll convince themselves that it was the right thing to do.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#175It'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...
What is the problem? That you cannot break the law without consequence? Car-drivers have a strong sense of entitlement that i never have seen in other non-radical groups.
Uh I know right. Then there’s those other radicals called homeowners who don’t want government cameras in their house checking they aren’t doing anything illegal.
Homeowners have such a strong sense of entitlement
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
State Farm sends a Bluetooth beacon that you pair with your phone. Each car gets a beacon. Whichever beacon is closest is the car you’re in. The app on the phone uses gps and accelerometer data to determine driving behavior. Presumably the stream of data is sent to the insurance company at some point.
And if you don't have a phone?
I don't think this works anymore, COVID tracking apps basically said fyou if you don't have a smartphone, or even when your phone is old enough that the app doesn't work.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#177Is this considered new? In Canada I had an app on my phone for 100 days which tracked accelerations/break/speed. Sure it felt intrusive-ish, but the program was not mandatory so seems like a win-win. I got a 22% discount (got 96/100!) and now the app is off my phone. I would not recommend it if you don't live in the suburbs though. Slow and steady is the name of the game, ideally you want light traffic and mostly emp…
Thanks for contributing to the dystopia for your own minor financial gain.
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#178Earlier 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…
I disagree.
Roads are a public good.
Having a road available to use, is worth almost as much as actually using it.
Not to mention all the positive externalities of a better connected country (more trade, business, economic growth).
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#179Utah 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…
EV drivers more than make this up by not having nearly as many externalities (pollution) as gas drivers. Gas drivers seem to always conveniently forget those real societal costs when they're trying to talk about "fairness".
Re: To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology
#180This isn't new . We all agreed to be the product and give our data away for free product access .