It sounds a bit like the pre-crime angle from <i>Minority Report</i>. Because aggressive drivers with accidents and citations already pay higher rates. This is, I assume, penalizing aggressive driving that hasn't yet resulted in a citation or accident.<p>Or, maybe, penalizing those that drive in riskier areas
, regardless of habits? Might be interesting if someone could push for whether anyone's rates went down as a result of data sharing.
<i>Dahl said that his insurance agent told him the price increase was based on data collected by LexisNexis, which compiled a report tracking each and every time he and his wife drove their Chevy Bolt over a six-month period.</i><p>You can request your free LexisNexis report<p><a href="https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request" rel="nofollow">https://consumer.risk.lexisnexis.com/request</a>
> Kia, Mitsubishi, Hyundai, Honda and Acura enable drivers to turn off data collection relating to on-road behavior in their apps.<p>> A Ford spokesperson told the Times that the company “does not transmit any connected vehicle data to either partner”<p>How about completely removing the connectivity hardware from my vehicle? I can apply software updates via USB.
Here in Holland, we have insurance companies that give you a smartphone app.<p>This app runs in the background and sends your driving statistics to the company.<p>This is sold as a feature with the promise that if you drive better than average, you'll pay less.<p>Source: <a href="https://www.anwb.nl/verzekeringen/autoverzekering/veilig-rijden" rel="nofollow">https://www.anwb.nl/verzekeringen/autoverzekering/veilig-rij...</a>
This seems reasonable to me: if you do things that statistically correlate to being more likely to cause an accident, why shouldn't the insurance company charge you more? And since it's a relatively small group of drivers who cause the most accidents, if we could identify them the majority would see their rates drop.<p>It's an interesting topic, and it would be nice to see more details on the accuracy of the algorithm, but as a conservative driver likely to benefit, I like the idea. If everyone pays the same for insurance regardless of risk it's a terrible deal for those less likely to make a claim. The debate should be about the accuracy of the approach, not the concept.
I think its a good thing in principle to align driving behavior with insurance policies.<p>The issue for me is that this agreement has been made between the car company and the insurance company instead of me and the insurance company. And I'm disheartened to think that the average person is unlikely to care about this kind of B2B data agreement.<p>Until one day, they go to apply for a mortgage and discover that their credit score has evolved into a complete picture of every aspect of their lives.
Tony Soprano has the right idea when he "pulled out the global positioning shit" from his new Escalade<p><a href="https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/86d0f030-05fd-47d3-b301-44b22bd48dee" rel="nofollow">https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/86d0f030-05fd-47d3-b301-44b22bd...</a>
So now it's location streaming to the highest bidder from apps on your phone, the os of your phone, the service provider to your phone, and your car physically moving the phone. Turtles all the way down.
Hot take: rapid acceleration and braking are symptoms of bad driving, and bad driving should come with barriers to being on the road with us and landing in our insurance pools.<p>Driving information is fine to collect on public roads, and it should be ubiquitous rather than something collected in secret.<p>Meanwhile in Texas, red light cameras can’t even be used to give tickets anymore.