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

31–40 of 414 posts

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

#31

Post by troupe »

celeritascelery wrote: post #12

A few years ago our insurance would give us a discount if we added a small monitoring device to the car for 2 months. We agreed and at the end of the time we mailed it back to them. Now we have switched companies and the new one doesn’t have a discreet device, but instead want me to install an app that has 24 hour access to my location on my phone. That was too much for me. So instead a bought the cheapest android ph…

Did it give you any significant discount? A few people I know that did something similar ended up saving $2 per year. If you bought a phone I'm guessing your discount was much higher.

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

#32

Post by Hermitian909 »

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.

It's true, and it's not great, but I think the flip side of this is that as I get older I find myself increasingly paying for the anti-social behavior of others.

There are lot of nice customer service things that are only possible if people don't abuse them: solid warranty/return programs, high quality phone reps, etc. But you need people who adhere to the social contract, the kind of people who don't, say, buy a $3,000 TV for a single super bowl party and then return it.

I actually desperately want some way to tell many of these companies "I am a responsible human being who respects social contracts" - all solutions I can think of violate my privacy but we'll find out what's worse...

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

#33

Post by rgmerk »

monksy wrote: post #19
mholt wrote: post #6

Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…

It's amazing how nosey Utah is. They want to scan your DL to find out who's buying alcohol, they're demanding id based age verification for watching porn online, and apparently they want to enforce monitoring on your phone+car.

Amazing? Maybe. Surprising? Hardly.

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

#35

Post by ekianjo »

mholt wrote: post #6

Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas. So they have a "deal" for EV drivers: pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) or install an OBD device in your car and carry a surveillance app to be charged for how much your vehicle is driven [0]. The measurement route requires 2 separate accounts with 3rd parties, one of which has your payment information on file. Given…

Taxes on EV are just starting. A lot of taxes come from gas in the first place and once the market for EV is ripe the goverment will unleash the tax whip on the EV category before you know it. It is inevitable.

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

#36

Post by renewiltord »

aidenn0 wrote: post #21
renewiltord wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No you can just get a cheaper car. You can get one for like $5k and the insurance won't be a lot. Just get minimums.

Do cheaper cars really lead to lower liability premiums?

No, you have to pay those anyway. But it will lower the total spend and so you'll have money available to pay them. You don't have to be rich or anything. I live in San Francisco, and insurance for my Subaru Forester costs me $1.2k/yr and I have comprehensive coverage.

So if someone were to buy a $10k car and instead chose a $5k car, it'll be as if insurance were cut to $700/year for the next 10 years!

If you value your privacy, that's a solution.

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

#37

Post by RajT88 »

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.

I think for the most part, you can't really monetize your own data. You can just trade it away for "free" services.

Unless I've missed something...

Sidebar: The government is buying all your data from data brokers. We should all collectively submit FOIA requests to get copies of it, to create an undue burden on them doing so. Maybe they'll scale it back.

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

#38

Post by 13of40 »

greesil wrote: post #30
mholt wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, mine was over $340. The fee for my Civic was ~$100.

Try living in California. My $42K EV was closer to $600 for the registration.

Seattle suburbs here. I pay about $500 a year to register my (gas) car so someday I can ride the train they broke ground on 25 years ago.

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

#39

Post by menus »

I cannot find the source but I recall reading that telematics insurance causes more incidents as it makes drivers afraid of braking hard, knowing that any maneuver by you to avoid a deranged driver is counted against you.

I can only find anecdotal references https://www.quora.com/Does-Progressive-Auto-insurance-actual...

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

#40

Post by kbenson »

loeg wrote: post #18
throwaway1777 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That actually kinda makes sense. EVs should pay their share to use the roads too.

(Gas taxes are a relatively small fraction of roads funding, for what it's worth.)

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers, and how they slice it up (whether they're completely treating federal roads separately or using it for the total, etc), as at $0.364 per gallon in Utah, it seems like it results in a large amount to put towards funding something, so it would be interesting to track where it's going.
Post reply on HN