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

191–200 of 414 posts

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

#191

Post by mensetmanusman »

ffgjgf1 wrote: post #129
Kon-Peki wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Semis aren't typically driving down suburbia or in left lanes on highways.

Noting the increased road damage isn't an attack on EVs, it's a call to be smarter about infrastructure:.

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

#192

Post by dontlaugh »

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).

Those are both massive cars. Under a ton is more typical and reasonable.

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

#193

Post by asoneth »

Tarball10 wrote: post #69
oatmeal1 wrote: post #14

This is one of the least bad invasions of privacy I've seen. It shifts the burden of insurance premiums more towards those likely to cause accidents, and incentivizes people to minimize dangerous behavior behind the wheel. There are actual benefits to responsible people, and to society at large, which is not something you frequently see with invasion of privacy.

I find it dubious that people who get good scores on these telematics are actually better drivers or less likely to cause accidents. I've been stuck behind people doing 40 mph on the entrance ramp trying to merge into a 70 mph interstate. It's terrifying. They get a great rating for their leisurely acceleration, while vehicles on the interstate have to slam on their brakes and swerve to avoid them.

I am also skeptical of the accuracy of the initial rules but this seems like a domain that should be fairly easy to refine with a large enough corpus of data. Once an insurance company has a sufficient number of claims from telematics users I would wager that they will be able to find strong signals in the telematics data to identify customers who are likely to be expensive.

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

#194

Post by mschuster91 »

dontlaugh wrote: post #192
mschuster91 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Those are both massive cars. Under a ton is more typical and reasonable.

Here in Germany, a 3-series BMW is the standard middle class sedan. Certainly less weight than most SUVs.

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

#195

Post by bmj »

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.

My auto insurance provider (in the US) has never even offered such a tracking program to me (and I know my current rates are pretty reasonable/in line with other companies). Maybe it's because of my history with the provider (I'm 50 and they've been covering me since I was 16)?

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

#196

Post by jocaal »

Etrnl_President wrote: post #126
milkytron wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

where are those damn flying cars they promised

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

#197

Post by midasuni »

jbritton wrote: post #47
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…

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.

Tax the semi trucks and it makes it more economical to use rail freight.

Hiding the externalities is somewhat communist.

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

#198

Post by midasuni »

tomp wrote: post #178
milkytron wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I use a road in my 1100kg car, you use it in your 2200kg car. You cause 8 times the damage. Do you generate 8 times the positive externalities?

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

#199

Post by midasuni »

otherme123 wrote: post #173
tomohawk wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Which is crazy. Use a car for 500 miles a year you pay the same as someone using it for 50,000 miles a year

Just charge on the odometer reading each year. 3p a mile or whatever. Maybe charge more based on weight.

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

#200

Post by cudgy »

mholt wrote: post #115
xur17 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

State probably gets a kickback from the third parties for the information they get about the drivers.
Post reply on HN