251–260 of 333 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I get a new car I'm just taking the modem out.
If an insurance company can’t find data on you when they expect it, won’t they just charge you the high risk premium?
When I got my last car, it had a sticker instructing me to press the SOS button to opt out of data collection. The gentleman that answered acted confused when I made the request, taking the stance that he wasn't aware of data collection from the car and maybe I should contact the manufacturer. It was only after I read him the sticker text verbatim that he went into a scripted response and confirmed the opt out. Shady…
The confusion was likely a scripted response too. I had a friend who worked with call centers, taking orders over the phone. they had a script for everything, and after they quickly took your order, they started with a scripted upsell. If the person balked, they had responses for everything so they could continue. The only way out of the script was if the customer said "I will cancel my order". The call center person…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Brand?
Toyota. I still had the sticker- I peeled it off and put it in the manual. The exact text is: VEHICLE DATA TRANSMISSION IS ON! Your vehicle wirelessly transmits location, driving and vehicle health data to deliver your services and for internal research and data analysis. See www.toyota[.]com/privacyvts. To disable, press vehicle's SOS button.
As a safe driver, I like the idea of dangerous drivers paying more. There's no good reason the participants should not be aware they are under surveillance though. Sidenote: I wonder if they've considered close follow distance or frequent lane changes as a risk factor.
The idea of dangerous drivers paying more for insurance is fine. It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad credit paying more for insurance. The problem is in how is dangerous driving assessed. Simple to apply rules lack the understanding of conditions. Telematics are going to be low bandwidth data, almost certainly without enough data to form an understanding of conditions.
There must be some correlation between bad credit and likelihood to be in a collision.
When I got my last car, it had a sticker instructing me to press the SOS button to opt out of data collection. The gentleman that answered acted confused when I made the request, taking the stance that he wasn't aware of data collection from the car and maybe I should contact the manufacturer. It was only after I read him the sticker text verbatim that he went into a scripted response and confirmed the opt out. Shady…
I‘m a huge fan of s telemetry insurance. I have I personally and it saves me around 300€/year on my cars insurance because I am a very defensive driver. However, this being integrated into the vehicle in an absolutely intransparent way is a huge step up and a really unsettling privacy violation. For this to be ethically viable imho, there need to be a few prerequisites - it’s transparent what has been transmitted - y…
No, that should definitely be opt-in, with explicit consent to data collection and process purposes.
I think there are a few reasons to be mad about this, but some are better than others: 1) People don't understand they're being monitored. I think this is a good reason to be mad. People should have some understanding of the agreements they make. It's part of being a functional adult in the world. It's also annoying that the companies keep spinning this as a tool to improve your driving, when it's clearly an attempt…
> It looks like the shared data at least tries to be anonymous One of the main points of the article is that insurance companies are using the data to raise drivers' rates. How can they do that if the data is anonymous?
Then the insurance company grabs the vehicle registration number when you ask for a quote and looks up the VIN on their side based on a security database to prevent resale of stolen cars or similar.
Anonymous data becomes identifiable data...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s also difficult to determine if someone is speeding from data. For example the road I live off of according to the speed limit the car thinks goes from 40 to 65 to 25 to 65 to 40 in about a 4 mile span. Spoiler it does not. It is 40 the whole way. But according to the car I am either going 25 under, 15 over, or exactly the right speed. (And the 65 section in the middle? Blind corner. Idk where it’s getting its da…
Indeed, the usual garbage in garbage out issue. Iirc, though, I think I read something about this and they were more interested in average speed (regardless of posted speed), and the rate/frequency of acceleration/deceleration (especially deceleration). The idea being that speed increases accident severity, regardless of posted speeds. Rapid deceleration is indicative of reacting late to something you should have see…
The terrible drivers are often those with the most timid inputs, especially with regards to acceleration. It is perfectly normal here to need to merge into heavy, 60mph+ traffic from a dead stop, or to need to quickly match speed and identify an appropriate merge spot to not wind up stuck at the end of a ramp.
And it's not like they sit there for 15 minutes waiting for some exceptionally large gap to match their acceleration habits - that would be very annoying to other drivers, but theoretically "safe". They enter in the same length gap as someone that actually uses their gas pedal - but rely on oncoming traffic to hit their brakes/evade, as they fail to get up to speed quickly enough for the small gap they've entered in.
-----
Hard braking is something with fewer reasons it should happen regularly - but I'm still reminded of the usual adage about metrics. Do you really want people to be mentally reluctant to hit their brakes as hard because of the insurance hit? That seems like a recipe for increasing decision time and accidents.