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

401–410 of 414 posts

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

#401

Post by tangjurine »

lm28469 wrote: post #269
midasuni wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use a road in my 1100kg car, you use it in your 2200kg car. You cause 8 times the damage. Do you generate 8 times the positive externalities?

Do you eat red meat ? sugary drinks ? do you exercise ? Do you have XYZ gene ? You're costing X times more to the system because you're diabetic/obese/predisposed ? You should pay more! That's how it sounds, and if we want to live like that we can go back to cavemen times, because we didn't built societies to play this silly game

Maybe we should go back to having private roads then, and have people who own the roads decide.

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

#402

Post by ngc248 »

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.…

>>> save a trivial amount of money in exchange for an increased likelihood of Really Bad Things happening to you

Nowadays, everything they come up with is like this.

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

#403

Post by etskinner »

lm28469 wrote: post #267
timbre1234 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EV drivers more than make this up by not having nearly as many externalities (pollution) as gas drivers. Gas drivers seem to always conveniently forget those real societal costs when they're trying to talk about "fairness".

> by not having nearly as many externalities (pollution) as gas drivers Depend where you get your electricity from. Also most of car pollution comes from tires and brake dust, which EV create more of given their weight and torque https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyre... See, we can play this silly game all day long or just all chip in.

The article you linked is specifically talking about particle emissions, not anything gaseous. If it included the negative externalities of all emissions (CO2, NOx's too), it might paint a different picture.

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

#404

Post by jabradoodle »

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…

If it's not about the drivers performance perhaps the box shouldn't consistently beep at them to let them know about how they are driving, to the point of distraction.

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

#405

Post by jabradoodle »

SoftTalker wrote: post #309
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…

More and more people have dashcams now for this reason. Of course those can be used against you as well. Honestly if there's no injury, the police aren't going to care too much about damage to your car. They figure you're insured, so you'll be taken care of. In most cities they have bigger fish to fry and a car accident with no injuries is just not that important. I don't think they're entirely wrong.

Deliberately running someone over is not a car accident.

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

#406

Post by P_I_Staker »

MajimasEyepatch wrote: post #324
bamfly wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Even for murders, this is the case. The US significantly underperforms other developed countries in the "clearance" rate for murder cases, i.e. the number of murder cases resulting in at least one arrest. In 2020 the clearance rate reached a record low of slightly less than 50% nationally, and much worse in some cities. https://www.npr.org/2023/04/29/1172775448/people-murder-unso...

Not a fan of the police from either a performance or ethics standpoint, but it's harder to make a case in the USA. There are a ton of cases where there's no arrest, despite some evidence.

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

#407

Post by P_I_Staker »

iamatworknow wrote: post #332
SoftTalker wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More and more people have dashcams now for this reason. Of course those can be used against you as well. Honestly if there's no injury, the police aren't going to care too much about damage to your car. They figure you're insured, so you'll be taken care of. In most cities they have bigger fish to fry and a car accident with no injuries is just not that important. I don't think they're entirely wrong.

I had a situation a few years ago driving down a highway at night when all of a sudden I noticed a weird "thing" in the sky in front of me. It got closer and I swerved, but not enough to avoid it hitting the side of my car, taking off the side mirror and gouging up the front half of the drivers' side. Then I realized it was the plastic bed liner of the pickup truck in front of me that became unattached at highway spe…

I don't know what you expected the cam to do, lol. It seems your insurance paid out? If so, how does getting a good picture help at all? The guys a deadbeat with no insurance either way (assuming the apposing driver can be held responsible for damages, not the case in all states).

Assuming you have fault based accidents and can sue for the full cost, again the guys a deadbeat. I don't think this is the money saving idea that it seems. I'm not sure what you're hoping to accomplish, honestly.

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

#408

Post by DropInIn »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #327
throwaway2056 wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely listened in a legal podcast that somehow juries award lower sentences to road accident deaths as compared to others. Seems strange.

And you’re using a throw away to make unsubstantiated claims without reference. You’ve given no reasons to take your comments as made in good faith.

Roflmao... Okay, I've only been here a wee bit but even I recognized the username despite having memory issues (ironically here, caused by being hit no less than 5 times as a pedestrian and cyclist)....

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

#409

Post by danielheath »

Gordonjcp wrote: post #380
dacohenii wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is “nah I don’t think so” really a powerful counterargument to a page with a list of academic and government citations offering support of its claims?

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

#410

Post by ekianjo »

Robotbeat wrote: post #164
ekianjo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Taxes on EVs will be at a maximum just before around 20% if the market is EV, as they’re seen as a way to soak/punish people who are weird (ie early adopters). Once people actually see how disproportionate the fees are and if significant numbers of voters have to pay them, support will drop.

They will forbid combustion engines anyway so you wont have a choice
Post reply on HN