To save money on insurance, drivers agree to intrusive monitoring technology • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by asoneth » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 8:14 PM UTC

bsder wrote: post #371

asoneth wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A car passing another at exactly 55mph while another car is going the same speed will take forever.

Why would either driver would try to pass the other if they are going the same speed? If they're not passing then they should move to the right out of courtesy. (And they're legally required to in some states.)

> 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.

If the truck driver is traveling "at half the speed limit" at any point then it should be a simple matter for even the most principled drivers to pass them quickly and safely. Whereas if the truck driver is traveling near the speed limit then the line of people "trapped for hours" are also moving near speed limit which seems fine. Plus, drivers of slower vehicles (trucks, RVs, farm equipment) are often courteous and pull over occasionally to let other drivers pass.

So that leaves cases where someone is driving a bit under the speed limit and is unwilling or unable to move to the side to let others pass. I don't begrudge someone breaking the limit by ~5mph to pass in such a case, but I also don't mind being "trapped" behind someone who scrupulously obeys every single traffic law even if it slows my journey by a few minutes. That would certainly be preferable to the unsafe behavior I see out on the roadways on a daily basis.

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

#392

Post by oatmeal1 » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 9:50 PM UTC

hakfoo wrote: post #102

oatmeal1 wrote: post #14

This is one of the least bad invasions of privacy I've seen. It shifts the burden of insurance premiums more towards those likely to cause accidents, and incentivizes people to minimize dangerous behavior behind the wheel. There are actual benefits to responsible people, and to society at large, which is not something you frequently see with invasion of privacy.

The problem is that the data is interpreted without context. At worst, it incentivizes bad behaviour. The box knows I slammed on the brakes. Does it know the schmuck in the next lane dove in front of me? If the user figures out the way to minimize beeping/penalties is to drive 45 in a 50 zone, does he now become a hazard for other drivers? Will fender-benders go up because drivers have been disincentivized against ha…

> The box knows I slammed on the brakes. Does it know the schmuck in the next lane dove in front of me?

It doesn't really matter. You are still incentivized financially by the insurance company to slam on the brakes to avoid accidents.

> Will fender-benders go up because drivers have been disincentivized against hard stops to the point where they risk tighter and tighter spacing and go too far?

The way this is being interpreted is as if people will respond to an extreme degree to any incentive whatsoever, and they will choose the worst response to that incentive automatically. Your insurance rates will not double because you slammed on the brakes once. And people are probably more likely to learn to drive with better spacing so they don't have to frequently slam on the brakes, as opposed to playing a game of chicken trying to avoid having the insurance system know they once had to press the brake pedal hard once.

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

#393

Post by bsder » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 10:04 PM UTC

asoneth wrote: post #391

bsder wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> A car passing another at exactly 55mph while another car is going the same speed will take forever. Why would either driver would try to pass the other if they are going the same speed? If they're not passing then they should move to the right out of courtesy. (And they're legally required to in some states.) > The problem is that if you get too many people stacked up behind the truck who won't pass because they wo…

> Why would either driver would try to pass the other if they are going the same speed? If they're not passing then they should move to the right out of courtesy. (And they're legally required to in some states.)

And, yet, I deal with this all the time in Texas and California. I shudder at the thought of more of these kinds of people on the roads.

> If the truck driver is traveling "at half the speed limit" at any point then it should be a simple matter for even the most principled drivers to pass them quickly and safely.

I think you don't have much driving experience with idiots on two-lane roads. I have experienced this failure mode in California, Texas, New York, and Pennsylvania--I have no reason to believe it doesn't also fail elsewhere. It doesn't take very many cars piled up behind a truck before you do not have the ability to overtake them all while your passing zone exists. See this video for what kind of zone I am talking about (sorry that it's an annoying comedy defensive driving video): https://youtu.be/Duw-c8O8Y9Y?t=104

These kinds of tracking devices will make these failure modes worse, not better.

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

#394

Post by celeritascelery » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 10:39 PM UTC

troupe wrote: post #31

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.

it saved me about $30 a month.

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

#395

Post by JohnFen » Thu, Jun 29, 2023, 11:26 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #311

zimzam wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know someone who's an actuary, and the reality is much simpler: people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits. It gives the insurance company a way to identify a lower risk group of drivers so they can charge that group lower prices.

IDK. I've declined the tracking with State Farm, and I drive pretty conservatively. I might speed by 5mph or so but I really try to watch traffic and minimize my need to accelerate/brake as it does result in better fuel economy (and saves wear on the brakes). The MPG on my cars absolutely drops by 2-3 MPG when my kids are driving. I just reject the tracking on principle. There's too much incentive for the companies t…

I'm the same.

But it's not hard to see how nearly 100% of people who drive recklessly would avoid such programs, but less than 100% of good drivers would.

The statistical skew makes sense to me. I doubt that insurance companies are assuming that every driver who doesn't take part in such program are bad drivers, but insurance is purely a game of statistics.

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

#396

Post by danShumway » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 12:28 AM UTC

oatmeal1 wrote: post #392

hakfoo wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that the data is interpreted without context. At worst, it incentivizes bad behaviour. The box knows I slammed on the brakes. Does it know the schmuck in the next lane dove in front of me? If the user figures out the way to minimize beeping/penalties is to drive 45 in a 50 zone, does he now become a hazard for other drivers? Will fender-benders go up because drivers have been disincentivized against ha…

> The box knows I slammed on the brakes. Does it know the schmuck in the next lane dove in front of me? It doesn't really matter. You are still incentivized financially by the insurance company to slam on the brakes to avoid accidents. > Will fender-benders go up because drivers have been disincentivized against hard stops to the point where they risk tighter and tighter spacing and go too far? The way this is being…

> The way this is being interpreted is as if people will respond to an extreme degree to any incentive whatsoever, and they will choose the worst response to that incentive automatically.

The interpretation is that (for most people) regular and consistent incentives/punishments at frequent intervals are more habit forming than irregular incentives/punishments that occur rarely and randomly.

If people were capable of internalizing that they had to drive safely to avoid having their insurance go up, then what would be the point of these boxes? Why introduce the reward/punishment structure at all if insurance premiums on their own are enough to influence behavior?

Frequency/predictability are hugely important for habit forming. A box that beeps at you every single time you brake too hard is a more effective punishment than a random insurance premium increase. Honestly, the premium risks are kind of irrelevant in both cases -- getting immediate negative feedback every time you brake is the problem.

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

#397

Post by tzs » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 12:32 AM UTC

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #134

13of40 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kind of funny, because from my perspective I'm an old man who learned himself a trade decades ago and worked things right to the point that I don't have to drive around a shit-box anymore, but to you I'm a privileged asshole. Which one is the truth?

You aren't taxed more on larger, more expensive vehicles because the powers that be (or the poster you were responding to) think you're a privileged asshole. You're taxed more because heavier vehicles cause more road wear, and because Washington has no income tax (which are typically progressive in nature), so the rest of their tax system needs to lean more progressive to make up for that. Thus, more expensive vehicl…

The effect of weight on Washington state vehicle registration cost is small. It is probably only contributing less than $40 to his registration cost.

What is pushing his cost way up by hundreds of dollars is the regional transit excise tax that some Washington counties have. That tax is based on the value of the vehicle, which is the MSRP discounted by a depreciation factor. The tax is 1.1% of depreciated value.

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

#398

Post by dang » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 4:01 AM UTC

frankfrankfrank wrote: post #152

Analemma_ wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WA state is also ridiculous about this: I can understand a road usage tax to replace the gas tax we're not paying, but they also charge an additional fee on top of that for a state fund to add more EV charging stations, even though logically it should be ICE drivers who are paying this to help incentivize the transition! People who already bought EVs clearly aren't concerned with the number of charging stations which…

It strikes me just how detached and ignorant your perspective is, largely not because it bothers me that people like you exist, but how it seems practically impossible for such detached and decadent perspectives to proliferate without collapse being imminent. So you, member of the spoiled rotten, pilfering upper strata, parasitizing the larger society while at the same time degenerating it, want the regular people yo…

We've banned this account for egregiously breaking the site guidelines. You can't do that here, regardless of how right your views are or you feel they are.

Normally I'd just post a warning but your account has a pattern of breaking the site guidelines repeatedly. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

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

#399

Post by illiac786 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:28 AM UTC

autoexecdotbat wrote: post #235

illiac786 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

This seems like a weird argument to make. We either pay collectively more for taxes for the roads we use, or collectively we pay WAY more for food, materials, and basically everything else if we tax trucks proportionally. Large trucks are carrying stuff, and the cost of that stuff is going to be directly associated with the cost of logistics. Yes, some states haven't figured out what that looks like, but I really don…

I think you misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying vehicles should be taxed proportionally to road usage, on this I don't have an opinion. I'm saying either you do this for all vehicles or none. You cannot say "EV vehicles pay proportionally but trucks not" without clearly being biased against EV (whatever the reasons).

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

#400

Post by l1tany11 » Fri, Jun 30, 2023, 5:41 AM UTC

olyjohn wrote: post #373

LorenPechtel wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 us…

Practice braking at a stop sign with no one around? Bad driver!