Live data from Hacker News

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

money.com

41–50 of 414 posts

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

#41
This has been extremely common in the UK for about 10 years - especially for young drivers.

I warned my nephew off it but sure enough, he took the £200 (£1400 to £1200) discount on insurance. His insurance was cancelled because they say he did over 35mph in a 30 zone, so now his insurance premiums are £2000+ because he has to declare he has a history of having an insurance policy cancelled.

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

#42
post #30
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.

My non-plugin hybrid is charged the EV registration fee in WA. They say it's to support adding more EV chargers, but I can't even use them. It's not terrible, but an additional $75/yr is stupid IMHO...this is more expensive that my gas guzzling truck (which is higher than a car because of it's weight).

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/transportation/was...

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

#43
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

> I live in San Francisco, and insurance for my Subaru Forester costs me $1.2k/yr and I have comprehensive coverage

Wow, that’s crazy high. In the UK my Porsche 911 (992) is cheaper to insure than that! (Without an insurance tracker)

Anyone know if US insurance generally much higher (than other comparative nations)? Or is SF an anomaly?

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

#44
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…

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 exist now.

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

#45

How do these apps work, in practice? The article states: > If you’re at the wheel focused on the road, but someone in the passenger seat is changing the music on your phone, the app may think it’s observing distracted driving and count it against you. Is the app running on the car, or on the user's phone, which somehow detects that the user is driving a car? Is there some way that a paired phone (Bluetooth - or maybe…

State Farm sends a Bluetooth beacon that you pair with your phone. Each car gets a beacon. Whichever beacon is closest is the car you’re in. The app on the phone uses gps and accelerometer data to determine driving behavior. Presumably the stream of data is sent to the insurance company at some point.

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

#46
post #24
post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> pay an exorbitant registration fee (hundreds more than other vehicles) By which you mean $130 (equating to ~13,000 miles driven under the 1 cent-per-mile pricing)? https://roadusagecharge.utah.gov/faq.php#fees I agree it should be easier and more privacy-preserving to measure real usage (e.g., an odometer read once a year or something like that).

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

[deleted]

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

#47
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…

> Utah views EV drivers as tax evaders because they don't buy gas That's because they kind of are. Road taxes are often use-based, where gasoline is the way they extract "use" taxes. EVs also wear roads more than gas cars do, on average, because of their higher weight. And it's not linear wear per pound, either. This is going to require a significant shift about how states and cities think about their road maintenanc…

I figure it’s semi trucks that do almost all the road damage. We could just tax the trucks, but that would just get passed along in higher prices for everything. So might as well pay for road repair out of the general fund than have special taxes.

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

#48
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.

think of it more like the Hunger Games and all behaviors are explained

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

#49
In NC we have mandatory yearly safety inspections. To renew your registration you must pass inspection. It would be easy for them to use the odometer reading at the inspection to assess a road use tax.

We do already pay a gas tax and a yearly property tax at the state and local level for cars plus a sales tax on new cars.

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

#50

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.

> 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.

Post reply on HN