Live data from Hacker News

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

money.com

51–60 of 414 posts

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

#51
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I have comprehensive insurance for my car and it's about $850/yr. I'm also in California, but not near SF.

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Diesel is already taxed at a higher rate than gasoline.

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

#53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They do, but it's priced in. Many states have weigh stations as part of enforcing the existing taxation through diesel and licensing.

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

#54
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…

Why do you think a few hundred dollars is "exorbitant"?

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

#55
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.

I’m reasonably rich and would pay good money not to be tracked. It’s not really an option.

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

#56
When I tried this a few years ago, the unit beeped when it sensed braking or lane changes it didn’t like. It beeped constantly in the course of normal New York City defensive driving. I found myself running more than one red light to avoid the “hard braking” beep.

It completely eliminated any enjoyment of the new car I sacrificed to save up for.

After 3 months I was horrified to get an email with a list of time stamped infractions and an offer for a 15% reduction in my premium.

Yeah, no. I switched to Geico, cut my premium in half, and vowed never to willingly trade surveillance for an insurance discount.

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

#57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

No, externalities should be priced in where practical otherwise the market will be more inefficient, which in this case means the public footing an unnecessarily high road repair bill.

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

#58
Yup, I saw that offer with my auto-insurance provider and despite knowing how much data they’d be harvesting, I was still tempted to do it. Insurance just costs so much. It doesn’t matter if you have a perfect driving record for almost 2 decades. Costs just slowly creep up just like everything else. It feels like we’re in a world where privacy and data ownership is a luxury reserved for the wealthy.

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

#59
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.

I hate how true this is! A case in point is also apps like Ibotta or Fetch which reward you based on your shopping data. Sell your shopping patterns, earn money! Rich can protect their privacy.

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

#60

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.

Probably safe to assume that this feed will be sold to Lexis Nexis or Acxiom, etc. From there, who know how it will be used for or against you in whatever sphere of life, at whatever time.
Post reply on HN