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

411–414 of 414 posts

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

#411

Post by Gordonjcp »

danielheath wrote: post #409
Gordonjcp wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, it's very very simple.

Does a sharp pointy thing poke a hole in a surface more easily or less easily than a big flat thing?

The "list of academic and government citations" is all just finger-in-the-air unscientific "we think it works like this because it fits our primary school child view of the world".

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

#412

Post by Gordonjcp »

Chaosvex wrote: post #220
danielheath wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2255kg is the maximum load, and 1700kg is not at all an ordinary car weight; hatchbacks are often closer to 650 and my sedan is barely over 1000. You could argue that those aren’t luxury vehicles, but downmarket EVs need to be heavy too, because batteries do not match the energy density of petrol. Myself, I’m replacing nearly every car trip with biking where feasible (young kids make that challenging, admittedly, but…

I think your figures are off. What hatchback only weighs 600kg? What sedan only weighs 1000kg?

Kei cars? The Citroën AX was about 700kg.

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

#413

Post by iamatworknow »

P_I_Staker wrote: post #407
iamatworknow wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I don't know what you expect this comment to do, lol.

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

#414

Post by P_I_Staker »

iamatworknow wrote: post #413
P_I_Staker wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I don't know what you expect this comment to do, lol.

> Long story short, even if you have a dash cam, sometimes you're SOL

Quite simple: Explain how you would have benefited at all, or why you were SOL. It sounds like the outcome could not have been improved... I guess maybe you think that there's a better chance of the person getting caught.

Are you just sad they weren't able to put someone in a cage, even though there's no financial impact on you whatsoever.

Post reply on HN