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

181–190 of 414 posts

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

#181

Post by danielheath »

mschuster91 wrote: post #160
danielheath wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible source, yes, but it happens to be at least roughly on point in this instance; if my dim recall of the relevant engineering is correct, road damage grows quadratically to the pressure exerted on the road by tires, and EVs are typically nearly twice as heavy as ICE vehicles.

> and EVs are typically nearly twice as heavy as ICE vehicles. A 3-series BMW clocks in at 1700-2255 kg. A comparable Tesla Model Y clocks in at 1778-2003 kg (from empty to fully loaded).

2255kg is the maximum load, and 1700kg is not at all an ordinary car weight; hatchbacks are often closer to 650 and my sedan is barely over 1000.

You could argue that those aren’t luxury vehicles, but downmarket EVs need to be heavy too, because batteries do not match the energy density of petrol.

Myself, I’m replacing nearly every car trip with biking where feasible (young kids make that challenging, admittedly, but the car doesn’t see a ton of use these days).

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

#182

Post by seper8 »

gambiting wrote: post #163
otter-in-a-suit wrote: post #137

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 chec…

What in the actual FUCK am I reading

1984 aint got nothing on that insurance company. Do you remember the name so we can all collectively try to avoid it?

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

#183

Post by dghughes »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #95
Kye wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diesel is already taxed at a higher rate than gasoline.

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…

I used to have a Dodge 2500 diesel it weighed 4,000kg. For comparison an EV Tesla Model X is 2,500kg. a non-EV Toyota Camry is 1,500kg.

I still have the dents in my driveway pavement!

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

#184

Post by gambiting »

seper8 wrote: post #182
gambiting wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 chec…

What in the actual FUCK am I reading 1984 aint got nothing on that insurance company. Do you remember the name so we can all collectively try to avoid it?

It was just Volkswagen insurance(I think it was really underwritten by AXA?). She got a deal where any new VW got a year of free insurance, but because she was under 25 the tracker was mandatory, and getting insurance elsewhere would have been super expensive at her age, so financially it made a lot of sense, but after the first year we paid extra specifically so she could have insurance without the tracker.

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

#185

Post by luma »

timbre1234 wrote: post #179
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…

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".

That still doesn't pay for roads. I love EVs and think their use should be more broadly encouraged, but the gas tax made for a very simple use tax and it's not obvious how one would replace it to do the same thing for EVs.

Simply saying EVs are so much better for the environment that they don't need to pay for roads at all seems a little short sighted.

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

#186

Post by luma »

AnAnonymousDude wrote: post #5

Recently were shopping insurance providers for our brick and mortar business that has a few delivery vehicles, and MANY of the commercial insurers are requiring that their apps be used to monitor employee driving behavior. I hadn't shopped for insurance in quite awhile and was shocked at how prevalent this requirement seemed to be.

Nearly all CDLs in the US are operating with an ELB of some sort and have been for a while now. Trucking is a different world.

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

#188

Post by johnnymorgan »

gambiting wrote: post #184
seper8 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What in the actual FUCK am I reading 1984 aint got nothing on that insurance company. Do you remember the name so we can all collectively try to avoid it?

It was just Volkswagen insurance(I think it was really underwritten by AXA?). She got a deal where any new VW got a year of free insurance, but because she was under 25 the tracker was mandatory, and getting insurance elsewhere would have been super expensive at her age, so financially it made a lot of sense, but after the first year we paid extra specifically so she could have insurance without the tracker.

That's called extortion....

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

#189

Post by johnnymorgan »

louwrentius wrote: post #153
otter-in-a-suit wrote: post #137

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?

I can, and do, leave it at home

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

#190

Post by thecopy »

switch007 wrote: post #175
thecopy wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is not an honest comparison.

Cars are inherently dangerous; to the people inside, people outside, and to infrastructure and buildings around them. The faster they go the more dangerous they are. They drive on publically funded infrastructure in a public setting.

Post reply on HN