Insurance monitoring

[Swordsmith]

I've seen commercials for Progressive for a while now, explaining that they will monitor your car and bill you according to how you drive.

Just got a letter from my carrier, State Farm, suggesting that they want to do basically the same thing. Drive Safe and Save puts some sort of technology in the car that tells them about my driving habits, and, as they put it, how I drive determines how much I pay.

Here's how I look at it, with the spin removed. First, they offer a 5% discount for signing up. That means they are overcharging me 5% at least, since they can afford to just throw that away. Second, lets say driving "perfectly" would save me another 20%... that means they are really overcharging 25% total.

But worst of all, they can't really see how safely I drive. They can't tell if I'm tailgating, for example, they can't tell if I'm running red lights, they can't tell if I'm driving too fast for conditions, if I'm pulling over for passing emergency vehicles, when and where I pass the frequent amish buggies in my area.

I doubt they can even tell if I'm speeding, although that's possible, if they monitor my GPS position and correlate it with my speed and the posted limits.

What can they tell, then? How hard I accelerate, how hard I brake, maybe how fast I take turns?

I have to tell you, I do all those things, with the exception of braking hard, when conditions permit and there's nobody around I might endanger. I'm not careless, but I'm also not entirely bound by the posted limits which are for worst case scenarios of poorly built, poorly maintained cars and poor drivers.

Do I want "big brother" in the form of my insurance company sticking their noses in, and in particular doing so in an uninformed manner such as this? No, no I do not.

Now, if what's really going on is strictly a discount situation, if the very most I would ever pay would be what I currently pay without the setup, but I could potentially pay less if they happen to approve of how I drive, then I guess at first glance, this seems like a no-lose proposition.

But it is my contention that instead, they are doing what people selling things always do; they are jacking up the price and then offering a "discount" down to what I should be paying in the first place, and I'm supposed to think it's a gift.

Also, it sounds like a slippery slope; maybe NOW it's all discount, and voluntary, but maybe in the future it will be penalties and mandatory.

And maybe the government will get on board and start issuing tickets for going over the posted speed limit based on subpoenaed insurance company records.

It happened so gradually nobody even noticed when FOX turned into a hardcore porn channel.

 

[seanp1]

Here's how it works for Progressive. I would venture a guess that State Farms setup would be similar. I initially thought that it was a one time thing where you plug it in, drive for a period of time/miles and send the device into the ins company, but it looks like it is continuously transmitting data. Definetely doesn't sound like a good thing unless you drive to the grocery store 2 miles from your house once every two weeks.

 

[whitnith]

I was looking around on State Farm last time I payed my bill.

You can sign up, but they first question they ask is if your car has OnStar. So it seems like they use that to see what you're up to.

I just looked again. You have to be a paid with OnStar. They also have the right to *raise* your bill based on your driving.

I'll pass.

 

[gdideric]

Say there are two people, one smokes and one doesn't. Say that, on average, a smoker runs up 3 million dollars of health bills lifetime and anon smoker runs up 1 million lifetime. If the insurance company can't tell which of you is which, then they charge you both 2 million just to cover the 4 million total between the two of you.

Now let's say they have a device that can determine if you are a smoker....well, they can charge the smoker 3 million and the non smoker 1 million. So, you, the non smoker take the device and get a 50% discount...and they jack up everybody else's rates, because that means they are probably smokers..

It's not like they were charging you 50% too much to begin with..with better information they can charge more appropriately to the actual risks...

Likewise, if I was an insurance company, I would charge less to the person who never accelerated quickly and rarely braked hard or changed lanes hard. In the insurance companies calculation, you are 25% less likely to wad your car if you never do those things...

If they are wrong, they lose millions...I'll bet they are right...

 

[firstorbit84]

Can you unplug the progressive device at all during the 6 month period?

What happens if I take my car to the track?

 

[Eric Smit]

it's all about when and how much you drive.


-Eric Smit

 

[mitdr774]

I do not approve of an insurance company putting anything in my car that can look at a very few select things without getting the whole picture. I do not want the insurance company to see anything through a monitoring device anyways, but to look at a few things with no regards to actual conditions thatcalled for specific driving instances is a very unscientific way to raise or lower rates. Also, I tend to have some fun from time to time. Why should I be punished for having some fun in a "safe and prudent" manner? Back some years ago when I did a "High Performance Drivers Education Course" at Waterford Hill and if I had done that with some device installed in mycar, I am sure my rates would have gone up. Driving on a race track should have no affect on my rates, but ihighly doubt any device installed would be able to differentiate between street and track. Any damage I ever caused to one of my vehicles when screwing around was always fixed with money from my own pocket and not through an insurance claim.

 

[14T6MT]

People who drive "softly" are not necessarily safe drivers, and people who drive "hard" aren't necessarily dangerous ones.
The worst and most dangerous drivers I've ever encountered are those who drive softly, have no understanding of how their vehicle works, and are utterly ignorant of their surroundings. They would probably save a bundle with these devices while they're merging onto the freeway without looking, driving the speed limit in the left lane, backing out of parking spots using only their rear view mirror, etc.
I think the reasoning behind these devices is thoroughly flawed.

 

[gdideric]

People who drive "softly" are not necessarily safe drivers, and people who drive "hard" aren't necessarily dangerous ones.
The worst and most dangerous drivers I've ever encountered are those who drive softly, have no understanding of how their vehicle works, and are utterly ignorant of their surroundings. They would probably save a bundle with these devices while they're merging onto the freeway without looking, driving the speed limit in the left lane, backing out of parking spots using only their rear view mirror, etc.
I think the reasoning behind these devices is thoroughly flawed.

The insurance companies are betting millions you are wrong. Care to wager your millions?

 

[gsxr1000]

we need a hacker to design a box to go in between the OBDII port and the device to skew the data into positive ways

 

[seanp1]

Can you unplug the progressive device at all during the 6 month period?

What happens if I take my car to the track?

YOU plug it in, so I don't see why YOU couldn't unplug it.
No telling how that would impact any discount you received as they probably have something in the contract that states, it must remain plugged in at all times. All speculation as I don't have progressive. Call them up.

 

[seanp1]

we need a hacker to design a box to go in between the OBDII port and the device to skew the data into positive ways

All in time.......

 

[chrisennis7]

I had the progressive snapshot and it beeps whenever you brake hard or do anything abrupt. The damn thing would beep every time I backed out of my driveway. When I went from my 1.8 to my 1.4 I never reinstalled it and the emailed me to reset it because it must not be working. So yes you can take it out for the track, drive to the track turn your car off, remove the snapshot, raise hell on the track, turn car off and reinstall snapshot

 

[14T6MT]

The insurance companies are betting millions you are wrong. Care to wager your millions?

I would certainly wager that the MOST dangerous drivers, where I live, tend to also be "soft" drivers. That's not to say that people who drive hard are always safe and never dangerous, of course overly aggressive driving can be insanely dangerous.
By most dangerous I mean the most likely to cause major accidents where one driver is clearly at fault.
In my experience the drivers who are the least aware of their surrounding are almost always "soft" drivers.
It also has to do with where you live. I used to live in Boston and I often saw aggressive drivers make a mess on the Boston streets and highways. Now I live in NH and almost all the destruction I see is caused by DWI and by non-aggressive drivers. For instance: elderly people who aren't capable of driving but still do, people who are simply not aware of their surroundings, soccer moms and dads who never turn their heads when they back up or switch lanes, people who go the speed limit or less in highway passing lanes, people who merge onto a 65mph highway, using only their drivers side mirror, going 35mph.
DWI causes the most traffic deaths and injuries around here and these other things are a close second, way ahead of aggressive drivers.
Nationwide I'm sure the trends differ greatly and clearly the insurance companies have much more data about other parts of the country than I do.

 

[gdideric]

I would certainly wager that the MOST dangerous drivers, where I live, tend to also be "soft" drivers. That's not to say that people who drive hard are always safe and never dangerous, of course overly aggressive driving can be insanely dangerous.
By most dangerous I mean the most likely to cause major accidents where one driver is clearly at fault.
In my experience the drivers who are the least aware of their surrounding are almost always "soft" drivers.
It also has to do with where you live. I used to live in Boston and I often saw aggressive drivers make a mess on the Boston streets and highways. Now I live in NH and almost all the destruction I see is caused by DWI and by non-aggressive drivers. For instance: elderly people who aren't capable of driving but still do, people who are simply not aware of their surroundings, soccer moms and dads who never turn their heads when they back up or switch lanes, people who go the speed limit or less in highway passing lanes, people who merge onto a 65mph highway, using only their drivers side mirror, going 35mph.
DWI causes the most traffic deaths and injuries around here and these other things are a close second, way ahead of aggressive drivers.
Nationwide I'm sure the trends differ greatly and clearly the insurance companies have much more data about other parts of the country than I do.

generally, the "soft", clueless, morons tally up numerous wrecks and claims, and are penalized accordingly in their insurance bills...

It's also possible that people who know they are being watched drive more safely...however, what might be a neat thing is to go kind of prius on the whole thing. Make a display that shows how "safely" you are driving, instantaneously and on average, and let people turn it into a game like the fuel economy game...

 

[laborsmith]

I would rather have OnStar monitoring me than any insurance company.

But, of course, I am the forum's most stalwart OnStar advocate.

(Sometimes I just have to do it!)


Laborsmith

 

[slitzell]

Say there are two people, one smokes and one doesn't. Say that, on average, a smoker runs up 3 million dollars of health bills lifetime and anon smoker runs up 1 million lifetime. If the insurance company can't tell which of you is which, then they charge you both 2 million just to cover the 4 million total between the two of you.

Now let's say they have a device that can determine if you are a smoker....well, they can charge the smoker 3 million and the non smoker 1 million. So, you, the non smoker take the device and get a 50% discount...and they jack up everybody else's rates, because that means they are probably smokers..

It's not like they were charging you 50% too much to begin with..with better information they can charge more appropriately to the actual risks...

Likewise, if I was an insurance company, I would charge less to the person who never accelerated quickly and rarely braked hard or changed lanes hard. In the insurance companies calculation, you are 25% less likely to wad your car if you never do those things...

If they are wrong, they lose millions...I'll bet they are right...

What you are speaking of is perfect price discrimination

 

[firstorbit84]

Do I sense an economist in the house?

 

[007CobaltLS]

Say there are two people, one smokes and one doesn't. Say that, on average, a smoker runs up 3 million dollars of health bills lifetime and anon smoker runs up 1 million lifetime. If the insurance company can't tell which of you is which, then they charge you both 2 million just to cover the 4 million total between the two of you.

Now let's say they have a device that can determine if you are a smoker....well, they can charge the smoker 3 million and the non smoker 1 million. So, you, the non smoker take the device and get a 50% discount...and they jack up everybody else's rates, because that means they are probably smokers..

It's not like they were charging you 50% too much to begin with..with better information they can charge more appropriately to the actual risks...

Likewise, if I was an insurance company, I would charge less to the person who never accelerated quickly and rarely braked hard or changed lanes hard. In the insurance companies calculation, you are 25% less likely to wad your car if you never do those things...

If they are wrong, they lose millions...I'll bet they are right...

This is a great example and very accurate, but it is also the reason why I am not a fan of such programs.

I for one am not going to participate because they will call me a risk due to my driving style. I'm a smart driver, I'm a good driver, and I have no accidents, only a few speeding tickets, and nothing else.

The data they would collect would tell them I am a risk and would raise my insurance.

On the other hand, by not using it and having other people who are "grandma's" on the road, then that will still raise my insurance (or at least keep it the same) because now that they have a number of those people accounted for that are the "non-smokers", that means I must be a "smoker" (using your example).

Either way, screw that and them.

 

[gdideric]

What you are speaking of is perfect price discrimination

Not really...you have to be selling the same good or service for that...selling high risk insurance is a different good than low risk insurance.

It's not any different than interest rates on loans...if you have bad credit you are higher risk...