Automakers are sharing consumers' driving behavior with insurance companies

Post by mykehunt » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 3:49 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #291

mykehunt wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When in doubt try the "God" opt-out. I have found they usually either do not have a scripted rebuttal to this or they are legally not allowed to go against one's religious views. This can also be useful when feeling pressured to make an immediate decision by asking for a moment to "pray". Examples: 1- "God told me to..." While canceling Time Warner Cable I tried cancelling a few times prior. Always met with rebuttals…

Sounds like prompt injection

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 3:55 AM UTC

654wak654 wrote: post #86

techdmn wrote: post #82

My biggest concern is that rather than comparing difficult to identify behavior against claim rates, they will penalize behavior that is easy to identify. For example, yesterday I was traveling 15 MPH over the speed limit on a multi-line highway where traffic is often traveling 10+ MPH over the limit (the limit is objectively wrong for a divided, grade separated, access controlled highway). I typically drive as far r…

Making it easier to determine who's at fault in cases like you mentioned would involve more sensors, radars, cameras etc. So we either 1984-ify everyones car or we just don't do any monitoring at all (since half-assing it can lead to false positives). I have a feeling insurance companies (and therefore governments) will slide more towards the 1984 side to save a couple dollars.

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 4:00 AM UTC

criddell wrote: post #255

toast0 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad credit paying more for insurance. There must be some correlation between bad credit and likelihood to be in a collision.

Post by lotsofpulp » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 4:02 AM UTC

654wak654 wrote: post #88

mancerayder wrote: post #74

My insurance went up 10 percent out of the blue. Wonder if Tesla shares?

Could've just been "inflation" (read: Opportunity to jack up prices) too. Although if one car company is going to be on the bleeding edge of data collection & sharing it'd probably be Tesla. They're the most Silicon Valley of all.

Post by mindslight » Thu, Mar 14, 2024, 4:12 AM UTC

xboxnolifes wrote: post #242

ytx wrote: post #170

> "More specifically, automakers are selling access to the data to Lexis Nexis, which is then crafting “risk scores” insurance companies then use to adjust rates. Usually upward" In an ideal world, such data-harvesting might lead to cheaper prices / a more efficient insurance market - which would make the privacy loss worth considering from a trade-off standpoint, at least in theory. Unfortunately it's instead likely…

> In an ideal world, such data-harvesting might lead to cheaper prices / a more efficient insurance market - which would make the privacy loss worth considering from a trade-off standpoint, at least in theory. In an ideal world (read: perfect information knowledge), this would lead to insurance being a bad deal for every consumer of it. In the theoretical position where insurance companies can accurately price each i…