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

371–380 of 414 posts

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

#371

Post by bsder »

asoneth wrote: post #252
bsder wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> incentivizes people to minimize dangerous behavior behind the wheel. Think very carefully about whether you want to be behind a person who is scrupulously obeying every single traffic law. Especially if you get 3 of them abreast.

That seems like... a good outcome? The privacy implications troubling enough to give me pause but the idea of more people actually driving at safe and legal speeds seems like a net positive, but perhaps there's some disaster scenario I'm not considering?

Traffic flow relies on people mostly obeying the rules but being slightly flexible about breaking them to be courteous.

A car passing another at exactly 55mph while another car is going the same speed will take forever. We expect people to pull out, accelerate slightly, and then pull back in to get out of the way after passing even if that means you go above the speed limit for a bit.

Two lane roads often clog with truck traffic up hills. People pass these trucks on lanes in areas that allow it. The problem is that if you get too many people stacked up behind the truck who won't pass because they won't accelerate past a speed limit, nobody can pass and people will be trapped for hours at half the speed limit.

We call scrupulous adherence to rules "malicious compliance" for a reason.

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

#372

Post by gambiting »

loeg wrote: post #359
gambiting wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it kinda makes sense - eventually you will have to use EV chargers because ICE cars will get phased out entirely(maybe not in 10 but in 30 years for sure) so we're all paying forward for the infrastructure that we're all going to need.

No -- gas cars don't pay the EV charger fee. It makes no sense for GP's non-plugin hybrid to pay it.

Well if they don't then why is OP's car required to pay it then?

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

#373

Post by olyjohn »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #367
duffyjp wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was fooled into using one from Progressive once. For the record I'm an extremely cautious driver of a 99 horsepower Prius C, exactly the type an insurance company should love to insure. Any breaking of even moderate intensity causes the box to beep and your "safe driving score" goes down. Yellow light, run it or your insurance goes up. Someone cuts you off and you avoid an accident, your insurance goes up. The fina…

That's my understanding, also--they're hypersensitive to the realities of the road. They really need to refine their models a bit rather than simply rewarding what they consider "safe" behavior. Yes, aggressive driving is a bad thing--but it's not something easily detected by a sensor.

Trying to think of all the shitty driving I could do without triggering this device...

I could easily fly up the shoulder at 40mph in a 60 zone bypassing all the stopped traffic.

Could drive down the sidewalk at a 20mph pace.

I can still weave though traffic as long as I don't go too far over the speed limit (assuming this device tracks location and speed).

I can still tailgate the fuck out of anybody.

I can still use my phone while driving.

I can be completely wasted and probably not set the thing off.

But don't you dare hit your brakes too hard!!!

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

#374

Post by olyjohn »

astura wrote: post #366
pengaru wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

90s cars are the sweet spot where electronic fuel injection and emissions controls were mature enough to be reliable and having minimal complexity. It's mostly downhill from there.

You're more likely to be maimed or killed in a crash though https://jalopnik.com/let-s-watch-cars-from-the-90s-crash-184...

I'm less likely to get into one in the first place, because I can actually see out of the damn car.

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

#375

Post by hahamrfunnyguy »

bamfly wrote: post #314
hahamrfunnyguy wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this has a hot take. A couple weeks ago a car intentionally rammed into me from behind. I called 911 and the police took 30 minutes to arrive on the scene. The officer talked to me for about 3 minutes and then threw up their hands and said they wouldn't do anything because I didn't have a plate number and couldn't identify the driver. The police didn't even want to bother trying to get footage from nearby…

> The police didn't even want to bother trying to get footage from nearby cameras when I called back and noted the location of several nearby security cameras that might have picked up the vehicle. If it's any consolation, this is, IME, normal. Unless they stumble on a crime in progress, the cops won't do anything at all to actively attempt to catch the culprit, even when you have things like video of the car with li…

I get it, but it doesn't make it any less disappointing. And around here, a combination of defund the police and other factors have reduced the size of the police force.

Patrols are down 40% since 2020. Hit and runs and other traffic incidents are up. None of the alternate solutions to law enforcement intervention have been implemented so we're just stuck with crime increases. Like a lot of places, we're dealing with an epidemic of people stealing cars for the lulz or using the cars to commit more serious crimes.

I know there are plans to fix some of these issues and I hope our local government can stop arguing about how to do it and start getting stuff done.

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

#376

Post by thih9 »

SavageBeast wrote: post #213

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.…

> This whole thing seems like a way to possibly save a trivial amount of money in exchange for an increased likelihood of Really Bad Things happening to you.

Historically, as a XXI century society, we tend to adopt solutions like this (AirBnB, Uber, “you are the product” platforms, blindly accepting ToS, etc).

I don’t mean to be a nihilist, I just wanted to point out that this nothing new and that this is a trend. Hopefully there will be a way to balance this like the other examples, even if a little.

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

#378

Post by penguin_booze »

When I got my UK driving insurance, I was in my 30s. By that time, I had been driving for many years elsewhere. Even then, I remember the first year's rather eye-watering. IIRC, it was just under GBP 1000 - the price of a rickety used car in UK.

Soon, I discovered that Aviva had a plan for which you can signup: you download the app, and leave that active (data and location) while driving. The app monitors your driving pattern for aound 200 miles. Then it scores you out of 10. I felt smug that I scored 9.7 (IIRC). And, as promised, I got a rather neat discount on my insurance. IIRC, it came under GBP 300.

I just wanted to say that alternatives like the above exists.

Aviva continued to quote me lowest, until this year. I had to move away because, it happend to me, too, what happens to every loyal customer in the UK: deals popup elsewhere that are available only to new customers. So, exploring switching providers every now and then, is worthwhile.

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

#379

Post by duffyjp »

Insthrowaway wrote: post #369
duffyjp wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was fooled into using one from Progressive once. For the record I'm an extremely cautious driver of a 99 horsepower Prius C, exactly the type an insurance company should love to insure. Any breaking of even moderate intensity causes the box to beep and your "safe driving score" goes down. Yellow light, run it or your insurance goes up. Someone cuts you off and you avoid an accident, your insurance goes up. The fina…

While all those incidents you described weren't your fault, surely you have to agree that there's a correlation between driving in situations like that and being more likely to get in an accident? It isn't just about your driving performance, if you're driving in places or intersections where people tend to cut you off or run red lights - or hell, just places with lots of traffic and intersections in general - that's…

I don't disagree, but they already know where I live and how far my commute to work is (was, yay WFH) as those are standard questions I've answered with every company I've used.

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

#380

Post by Gordonjcp »

dacohenii wrote: post #301
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.

Believe it or not, it's proportional to the fourth power (!) of the axle load: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law

Yeah, that doesn't work, though. It makes no sense mathematically and can be shown by a simple experiment to break down in practice.
Post reply on HN