231–240 of 414 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not anymore. You just get an IFTA sticker and apportioned plates.
A former girlfriend of mine came home one day with one of these devices plugged into her car. She was the kind of person who just said "yes" to whatever was on the form and she simply picked the lowest price option. My head immediately goes to the scenario where theres been some kind of an accident. Maybe it's a fender bender or maybe a pedestrian was hit. In one case you have a couple damaged cars and a deductible.…
> Of course the data collected is going to say that as the insurance companies aren't in business to charge people LESS money. Isn't that what they did in paragraph 1?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Of course the data collected is going to say that as the insurance companies aren't in business to charge people LESS money. Isn't that what they did in paragraph 1?
It's what they insinuated might be possible. You COULD save $X with this shiny new surveillance device! Im sure the executive who proposed this scheme didn't pitch it to the rest of the staff as "Ive found a way we can cut our revenues by 30%".
I don't think I'm giving away much personal data: The insurance set up a separate legal entity that performs the ranking, with a easy-to-read EULA that rules out selling data.
My insurance is using the Cambridge Mobile Telematics modules.
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.
I still think this is BS, considering trucks are causing 2500 times [0] more damage than gas cars and are certainly not bringing tax income proportionally to this. Why should EV then? [0] https://www.insidescience.org/news/how-much-damage-do-heavy-...
Yes, some states haven't figured out what that looks like, but I really don't think the right answer is to dump all that cost on truckers. I would rather pay more for my car's operational tax, increased EV tax or existing gas tax on ICE, than disproportionately affect the price of groceries for someone living paycheck to paycheck.
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.
But at the same time, I feel like this creates opportunities for enterprising individuals. How hard could it be to feed fake data into said dongle and enjoy the lower cost? Of course, I’d much rather prefer that stuff like this didn’t exist to start with. The older I get the less patience I have for messing with this junk. All of my cars are now idiot-cars thanks to the death of 3g, and I pull antennas and SIM cards…
Not only that, but insurance companies don't cover claims when the policy was obtained by fraud.
A former girlfriend of mine came home one day with one of these devices plugged into her car. She was the kind of person who just said "yes" to whatever was on the form and she simply picked the lowest price option. My head immediately goes to the scenario where theres been some kind of an accident. Maybe it's a fender bender or maybe a pedestrian was hit. In one case you have a couple damaged cars and a deductible.…
Your insurance company pays more if you are at fault, so they'd prefer to prove you innocent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's impossible to tell if someone is driving properly based on just sensor data because if it were, we would have full self driving.
All hail AI.
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…
How much fuel-tax revenue do we think Utah is recovering from EV drivers? I would guess that we are talking about very small numbers -- certainly under 5% of drivers.[1] Whatever principle Utah is asserting to "recover" fuel taxes from EV drivers isn't making much of a difference. At the same time, the Utah policy is clearly discouraging EV adoption. > EVs also wear roads more than gas cars do, on average, because of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This exists. I saw a commercial for it on late-night TV.
At the bottom it noted that it was not available in California or Massachusetts, which is what made me curious to look into it and see why it's so bad that it's been banned in certain states.