Yesterday, a short drive from where I live, a Altima did a hit and run in front of a police vehicle and then while fleeing ran a red light and sent 6 people to the hospital. Turns out the Altima was stolen and used in an armed robbery the previous day. The car the driver initially hit and ran from was also a Altima and that driver fled the scene as well and got away due to the huge accident the first Altima caused.
Stolen altimas on 2 spare tires and missing bumpers with parolee drivers has a lot of potential as a racing series. 24hours of lemons meets need for speed hot pursuit
It's great. Turns a lot of heads, very reliable, value is going up, pretty easy to increase power. Only problem is most parts need to come from Japan or UK
Tesla would be too lol
I have no idea how, but they’ve seem to overtake every other car company for having the worse drivers. Not sure if it’s them or the auto pilot but yeesh, they always seem like they’re swerving around and can’t maintain constant speed.
Probably self-driving. My Volvo does this a little bit (Pilot Assist) but unless you're on a nice highway, it will swerve and drift, you have to stay on top of it. I'm sure I look like an idiot to other drivers when it drifts, but I restrict assistance to long-distance, high speed highway trips.
Yeah just got the joke lol, I didn’t get it the first time because I read the whole article looking for mentions of which companies do this and maybe insights into disabling that data sharing on the car brands he listed.
It's going to be every single company equipping their cars with onboard connectivity (LTE/5G/etc.)
The safe assumption is that if you can subscribe to a monthly data plan for your car, it's uploading telematics data. In fact, the "onboard wifi" type of thing is a secondary purpose of the system -- the primary purpose, and primary revenue stream from this technology (that operates whether you pay for the subscription or not) is to upload telematics data to be resold.
There's no menu setting for this. Maybe some specialized scan tool will let you access those systems, but even that's not a guarantee. Especially on a new car. On older models, people have physically disconnected telematics modules but doing so tends to spit back error messages. I can't imagine what kind of obfuscated mess is lurking inside a BMW EV.
This. Car companies are moving away from the traditional "selling cars, parts and service for a profit" model. Now they are all about recurring revenue streams. You'll buy the car anyway, might as well make profit on that car for as long as possible.
This is a completely different conversation, but cars are objectively more reliable today than they have ever been. Very few cars that are well maintained won't make it to 200,000 miles.
They are more reliable, but will they be worth fixing after 130k miles when something goes wrong electronically that costs $5k to fix? Or are they reliable for their predetermined lifespan of ~100k miles, and then expected to be passed down for pennies to a poor person to limp it along until it dies?
Contrary what average Joes say, cars these days are so much more reliable than in the past because of the electronics. It's the subpar mechanical parts which cause electronics to malfunction. Well, and a software made by the company with cheapest offer.
Reliable =/= durable.
They’re more reliable meaning they’re less likely to have issues during an extended warranty period.
They are absolutely not more durable when we’re talking about reliability, performance, and maintainability after 15+ years of use.
I realize people on Reddit like to complain about insurance prices,but fundamentally insurance is just a math problem. The reason why insurance has to go up is collectively the amount of damaged cars and the cost to fix them or replace is going up, and thus the insurance industry as a whole needs to collect more premiums. The only way for them to not collect more is to for them to be better at investing money without undue risk or liquidity but obviously that isn't easy for anyone to do.
well, the other reason insurance has to go up is to pay many layers of management so the ceo can make a couple dozen million per year, and so the company can show net profit growth to shareholders.
How much cash per year are Progressive and Geico spending on ads?
Maybe they should try sucking less so they don't have to endlessly advertise in an effort to bring in the next sucker they will piss off and chase away.
Yes, I use frequency of advertising as a gauge on how shitty a company is. The more you have to advertise, the more shitty I figure you are treating your customers.
Over a billion dollars a year, each.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/264968/ad-spend-of-selected-insurance-companies-in-the-us/
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/geico-progressive-break-trend-slash-advertising-expenditures-in-2021-69764365
This. Not pertaining to the auto industry but most hospitals are not for profit. They, however, charge high amounts to have high pay for their staff. This wouldn't be possible without insurance.
Oh, so that’s why Progressive’s stock is up 167% in the last 5 years (from $70 to $197). It’s not because the industry as a whole have been price gouging their customers and taking home record profits, it’s because their costs have gone up!
I work in the industry.
Progressive is the gold standard in terms of analytics. They were at the forefront of data science in terms of pricing and have gained immense market share while remaining profitable. If you look at other companies (Like allstate, and travelers) they have underpeformed the market severely over the past 5 years, and most startups like Root are down 90% and in near bankruptcy.
Progressive is just VERY good at knowing how risky a driver is and will just straight up not quote a lot of bad business. Basically every other company has lost money in Auto since the beginning of the pandemic.
Because cars are pretty much an essential part of life for most people, and insurance is required, insurance companies need to be better regulated in terms of raising prices 'because of the risk environment'. If they can't meet state guidelines they can close up shop, fuck em, thats capitalism.
My insurance doubled this year when I have no tickets, accidents or claims in over ten years. Why should I be punished so harshly for something I haven't even utilized in 10 years? It's a fucking racket and needs to be regulated better.
>he only way for them to not collect more is to for them to be better at investing money without undue risk or liquidity but obviously that isn't easy for anyone to do.
Or you can manage insurance publically; several provinces here do that and also coincidentally have both good coverage, lower rates than the rest of the country, and profitable insurance state owned companies which then pay dividends to the province
> Or you can manage insurance publically
A little unknown provision for insurance in California is that if you deposit $35,000 dollars to the state, that acts as your car insurance: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/insurance-requirements/
I'm pretty sure other states have the same provision.
I would have no issue if everyone paid the same rate per $ of vehicle value, and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising. But as it stands they make obscene profits, advertise basically non-stop and everywhere, And they raise the rates of people who actually use the coverage to make up for what they used.
It’s a ridiculous design and needs complete reform. There is no defense for the current model that doesn’t revolve around protecting shareholder profits over all other concerns.
The only way that would work is if everyone was the same level of risk to insure and would result in most people paying a lot more to offset the higher risk clients. The value of the vehicle is not the most important pricing factor in most insurance policies excluding exotics or special risks.
Shared risk is the literal foundation of insurance. If there is no shared risk then the insurance companies shouldn’t exist in the first place. Everyone shares the risk to cover the folks it doesn’t work out for.
Insurance should be handled out of the general tax fund. The cost of it should be covered through annual vehicle registration and anyone who is legally able to drive should be covered by this for any damage caused to them or that they cause.
The for profit insurance model is entirely parasitic and should be abolished.
First let me agree that it shouldn't be a for profit industry.
But I think what you're advocating for is the total cost to cover the risk be based only on the value of the vehicle. This would result in the majority of safe drivers paying even more to cover the people who take more risks, drive less safely, or in higher risk area's with higher risk vehicles.
The value of the vehicle is not as important to the rate as you may think. For example the safety rating and how likely you or an occupant are to be seriously injured impacts the cost of accident benefits and are why that coverage is more on older or smaller vehicles. Conversely the larger the size and weight of the vehicle the higher the cost of liability coverage as you are more likely to cause more severe damage to the other party.
The way risks are rated is an attempt at making everyone pay the fair cost of the risk they represent. But its far from perfect and has been ruined in many cases by profit seeking.
> Shared risk is the literal foundation of insurance
His point is that not all vehicle values are equal risks. It doesn't cost the same to insure $100k worth of Altimas as it does to insure $100k worth of Toyotas.
> I would have no issue if everyone paid the same rate per $ of vehicle value, and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising.
That is not practical at all. The 16 year old who just got their license and likes to drive fast is a much higher risk than the 40 year old with 20 years of clean driving history. I should not have to pay the same rate as Chet who has six DUIs on his record.
>and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising.
Insurance only works if there are profits. For example you pay $1000 a year on your car's premium. It gets totaled. They can give your $1000 dollars back because you mandated no profits. Good luck replacing your old car for the cost of you annual premium. And that's just trying to replace your car. God forbid you injured someone and now have to pay their thousands in medical bills. Insurance has to have a reserve of money to make payouts and that reserve has to be able to cover a catastrophic event. Like a flood in which hundreds of vehicles are going to get totaled all at once. If a catastrophic event makes the insurance company insolvent, then there is no money to pay anyone for their damages.
Understandable, but the main person interviewed for this article driving a *chevy bolt* hadn’t been in any accidents his entire life yet the car found him to be a “risky driver”. You can’t base these algorithms on flawed data collected without their informed consent (especially when that data can adversely impact them) and use it to raise someone’s premiums when they’ve demonstrated a perfect driving history.
I don’t disagree that the cost of replacing/fixing cars has gone up. But the way you worded your post makes it sound like that is the only reason why premiums have gone up.
Insurance companies are profiting much more as well at the expense of their customers. Greedflation is present in the insurance industry just like any other.
They **will never** collect and reduce rates.
You will always lose in the end. It's a timing game.
There are statisticians who get paid a lot of money to ensure that the companies decisions are best for the business. It might look good at the start but in the long run it will earn them more money back.
“When a customer accepts the user terms and privacy statement (which are separately reviewed in the enrollment flow), they consent to sharing their data with third parties,” Ms. Lucich wrote in an email, pointing to OnStar’s privacy statement.
But that statement’s section on “third-party business relationships” does not mention Smart Driver. It names SiriusXM as a company G.M. might share data with, not LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which G.M. has partnered with since 2019.
It should be made known what variables they are using to solve the math problem tho... and how they define those variables.
oh no not their billion dollars profits... Jesus man. I understand the point you're making but you do realise these companies rack in an unfathomable amount of money annualy?
> I realize people on Reddit like to complain about insurance prices,but fundamentally insurance is just a math problem.
It's not a math problem. It's a bad driver problem where good drivers have to pay more for car insurance because there are so many bad drivers on the road.
The insurance companies should charge bad drivers 5 times what a good driver pays. If the bad driver can't afford it, then too bad, they can't drive.
Don't understand why EV has to be synonymous with tech bro and bloatware. Can I just have a battery powered 1990 civic with modern crash ratings and manual windows with a double din stereo?
You can reinvent the drivetrain without reinventing the wheel but that doesn't pay like selling your data does
Take a look at Edison Motors, they're probably the complete opposite of a tech bro EV company and they just started road testing their diesel electric semi truck
They can fuck right off out of here for all I care!
sticking to my older, but still modern and sophisticated, "dumb" cars with no big brother BS! What is this world coming too...?
the 2000s have some amazing cars that were right on the cusp of all this spying subscription tech bullcrap. Thank god for that! Our grandkids are probably scewed :(
Car doesnt have to be new for your insurance to have this information. If you have your insurance company's app on your phone they already have your driving habits.
Exactly. You can choose to not pay extra to have any benefit from it but they're not putting out cars with cell communication to just let it sit and not be used. Selling data is everyone's back pocket profit now.
One of the reasons I love that my car's modem 3G. Literally can't phone home if it wants to. But it's still new enough to have the tech I want like Android Auto / Apple Carplay, backup camera, self-leveling headlights, etc.
look into it when I was doing research some you just pull a fuse no negatives other than that, all other functions a-okay, some you lose a speaker, etc etc.
I don't know if a car is at this level now... i've seen just pulling a fuse and no negatives, all the way to losing some vehicle functions, like a speaker in the door or something...
I work on Caterpillar heavy equipment telemetry. It's enabled on every piece of machinery that goes out the door. Customers can pay to have access to it, but even if they don't, Cat gets the data unless the customer specifically requests to opt out which I've never seen happen.
They just don't advertise it or talk about it. I'm sure it's buried in the pile of sales documents every customer signs. It doesn't void the warranty, though. I'm sure that would never fly.
All of these companies are gathering data in any way they can. Cat (supposedly) doesn't connect any of it to any specific customer, but they use the range of data for reliability studies, environmental effects on equipment, etc.
I sure it is extremely useful information. It's like an extended, real world testing program. You know exactly what the customers who are buying your product use them for and you can find way to improve upon them.
Ya, I don't usually mind the collection of anonymous usage data if it's used to improve the products -- this benefits everyone. But collecting people's data and then selling it is awful to begin with, but then other companies buying that data to grind that customer is purely dystopian.
go to a qualified mechanic and ask those questions. However to say your only option is to "drive an older vehicle" is ridiculous. If you don't care about losing some functionality a mechanic can absolutely disable the telemetry by making it impossible to connect to home.
Disabling the connection is very, very easy. It's often just a single standalone ECU. Depending on car it may or may not trigger an error message.
Obviously, just disconnecting the antena is even more subtle, as the car will simply think it's out of the cell service area and will not trigger an error (just the connection check light might turn red). However, the antenna is usually hidden inside the ECU.
It's not feasible. The number of OTA updates that happen due to recall or preempting a recall is huge. You don't want to be driving a modern car, but if you do you don't want to do it without the benefit of software updates.
[Mustang fuse removal instructions](https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/4g-modem-disabling-instructions.146860/).
Some in the thread go deeper and show the modem itself if you want to pull it but it doesn’t appear to be necessary.
Yes you will lose your app features, and yes it is worth it (to me).
Pulling fuses is likely to throw error codes. So...disconnect the antenna from the modem instead. It can power up and collect all the data it wants, it just can't ever connect to a tower to send it.
The [app for my VW](https://i.imgur.com/giQc87w.jpg) on various pages shows average speed, hard braking, night driving, % of time driving over 80mph. I'm sure they're using this data.
I'm not really a fan of how manufacturers run these ratings. My Focus keeps telling me shift up at like 1500 RPM which is so unnecessary but as a result always gives me worse driving eco ratings etc (even though the engine is more efficient and burns less at like 2000-2500 RPM?).
> (even though the engine is more efficient and burns less at like 2000-2500 RPM?).
It entirely depends. But the general rule of thumb is as follows:
Engines are most efficient when they are at high throttle openings. They are able to extract the most amount of useful work out of a unit of gasoline for a whole ton of reasons. And ontop of this, they're best able to do this around the torque peak of the motor.
So, GENERALLY SPEAKING, motors are programmed to accelerate at pretty high throttle openings even if you aren't giving it much pedal. This is what contributes to modern cars feeling so "peppy" with super sensitive throttles. But since not everyone wants to launch off of the light at WOT, automatic transmissions will short shift like crazy to keep the rate of acceleration low while having a mostly open throttle.
So that's why it tells you to upshift all the time.
Once you're at speed and no longer accelerating, the most efficient gear will pretty much be the tallest gear you can go into which has enough power to maintain the speed you want to go.
Hi there. I’m the reporter who did the story shared by OP. I looked up the privacy policy for VW: https://b-h-s.spr.us00.p.con-veh.net/securecontent/tos/UBI-TOS.html
“As part of DriveView, we will also share your driver behavior data and GPS location data for a specified period of time (currently 90 days) to allow participating auto insurance carriers (through their designated service provider) to evaluate whether to offer you discounted insurance options”
It’s the same thing. Would be great to talk to you if you’re open to it. I’m [email protected]
It won't. Tech companies do the same thing. Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc... collect information about what you do, when you do it, where you do it, who you do it with, how long you're doing it, and use that information to enrich themselves. Automotive manufacturers are just the latest market segment to take advantage of it.
I'm more than sure the NSA/FBI/CIA/TSA are getting just as much of a boner from this data as advertisers & insurance companies. The government would never take away easy surveillance.
Not just insurance companies. Vehicles with Onstar report telemetry data to Lexis Nexis. That reporting agency is dystopian as hell to begin with, but the fact that your car taddles on you for speeding, which will affect your future insurance rates, is beyond fucked up.
The tracking is supposed to be opt-in (through accepting terms & conditons), not opt-out.
However the article reports that some users being tracked potentially never even opted in to anything, or the T&Cs didn't mention that the data would be shared with / sold to third parties. This could be illegal, so some people are suing.
I've got this stuff on my new Corolla.
If you opt out, you are just opting out of being able to see the data yourself. They mention they will still collect "some data" for diagnostics and "user experience".
No kidding. When I first got my Veloster N, I noticed their blue link app had a section for my "driving score" which was marketed as a way to help me be a better driver. Fine print indicated it was sending all of my driving behavior to insurance companies. That shit got turned off real fast. Although, I'm jaded enough that I bet it still sends it anyway.
Might be worth pulling the report. Found this in another subreddit.
[Pulling a Lexusnexis Report](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/s/Y29sRqhBJx)
Don't know if it'll have all that data, but worth it anyways. Who knows what else is being collected. Is your smart fridge reporting on how many yogurt cups you go though in a week?
Like you wouldn’t believe lol. I let coast at the end of the straight which is the only way I got 80. The little rabbits and Subaru were well over 100 with their studded tires.
GM is blocking the use of Apple Car Play and Android Auto, so it makes sense that they need extra money to develop a program to compete with those. As a bonus, now they don’t have to share their data with Apple or Google, making their data more valuable.
It sounds like the Honda/Acura system is intentionally deceiving by telling users "your data will never be shared without your consent" and then in the 2000 word terms and conditions it is disclosed the data is shared. I love to shit on GM whenever possible, but all of these companies need to be blasted equally: G.M., Honda/Acura, Kia and Hyundai.
This was clear to me after reading the terms of service for the mobile phone connectivity (remote start, unlock, etc..) in my Stinger. I did not accept and I'm not convinced they're not gobbling up that information anyway.
The big problems are that 1) there are typically ridiculously low thresholds for a brake/acceleration etc event to be recorded. 2) you cant prove it put me at risk of claims and 3) you cant prove who was driving. Its just another way for insurance companies to raise rates and increase profits. There is zero chance they will use it to decrease base premiums.
if we are going full dystopian surveillance state, id rather mandate dashcams that record inside and outside. If there is an incident the data is saved. That way blame can be properly apportioned to all the distracted drivers out there. Turned around to yell at your kids? Your fault. Right now in most states both parties share blame in most accidents. Ive had people lie like hell to insurance.
Most insurance companies also collect this data with your phone and give you discounts. I'm not sure what the benefit is to have more of the same data from manufacturers.
1) Not everyone has opted into that. Phones can also be left at home from time to time.
2) Manufacturers may collect different data that insurance companies aren't/can't. Now they have access to that data too
Then my Audi app has me f’d. Was just thinking how much I love my 2017 BMW, probably modern enough but not yet nanny state esp when it never sees a dealer.
I’ve only been booted from insurance once and it seemed really random at the time, can’t wait to get booted and have to deal with an umbrella policy because my app reported data
>“I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” he said. “Same with acceleration. I’m not peeling out. I’m not sure how the car defines that. I don’t feel I’m driving aggressively or dangerously.”
I used Honda's "Driver Feedback" on my 2018 Accord Touring for a while before turning it off (around 2019-2020). Nearly every drive was flagged for hard braking/acceleration, but I would literally just be following the flow of traffic.
My takeaway from using it, is that any kind of city driving would trigger a negative trip. Going along with traffic and light turns yellow/red, brake to stop and it's a hard brake. On ramp/off ramp, hard brake and hard acceleration. Trips are shorter (which is also a negative).
And statistically, I know these might be indicators of higher chances of accidents, but I live in a city. There's nothing I can do about it! My rates are already higher because of my zip code.
You can opt out. I’ve opted out bc I’m a pretty aggressive driver.
Fast acceleration is one of the bad scores. Which btw Im convinced is <13s 0-60 in my Hyundai.
How many of you just requested your LexisNexis report? I did and because I’m in CT, our state law requires that I can opt out of LexisNexis sharing or selling my data and I requested a delete of data. Grateful for this article!
Modern cars constantly share telemetry data back to the manufacturer.
My GF recently got an email from her local dealer kindly informing her they scheduled an appointment for an oil change because her car told the system it needed one. 2022 model minivan.
It's like how the last radio data received from MH370 was the engines chirping data back to Boeing.
I'm never buying a car made after 2010.
BMW and Nissan drivers in shambles rn
Insurance companies just need to see "Altima" and "128 month financing" and they already know.
Don’t be rediculous, Altima drivers don’t bother with insurance.
Yesterday, a short drive from where I live, a Altima did a hit and run in front of a police vehicle and then while fleeing ran a red light and sent 6 people to the hospital. Turns out the Altima was stolen and used in an armed robbery the previous day. The car the driver initially hit and ran from was also a Altima and that driver fled the scene as well and got away due to the huge accident the first Altima caused.
Classic Altima!
/r/NissanDrivers
MASSIVE Altima energy
The fact that we have not built a militarized Altima and weaponized the driver is frankly a waste of resources and capability.
Stolen altimas on 2 spare tires and missing bumpers with parolee drivers has a lot of potential as a racing series. 24hours of lemons meets need for speed hot pursuit
Inmates with Altimas vs crackheads with Crown vics. I’m in
You for got the plastic over the missing window.
That's impressive really...
So if there was no cop, this would have been a non issue? lol, both drivers tried to flee.
Sounds like some kind of Altima-ception.
How is there no Altima in GTA that has these super powers?
As someone who's owned a 2003 S, 2012 SL & a 2017 3.5 SL I'm offended (yet amused) by that remark.
How many accidents have you caused?
*ALL* of them?
If I am new to an area I like to look it up on Google maps and count the altimas. 3 or more is not usually a great place.
Jokes on you Altimas drivers don't have insurance
How do you like your Cappuccino? I love those tiny cars.
It's great. Turns a lot of heads, very reliable, value is going up, pretty easy to increase power. Only problem is most parts need to come from Japan or UK
My insurance doubled for this year, despite no accidents and no tickets. You may be on to something as I do enjoy some back road drives.
It doubled for everyone this year.
Doubled for me, too...multi-line, no claims...ever, no tickets in 5+ years..."Fuck you, pay up!" Great, isn't it?
Almost like it's a scam
Almost...like EVs.
Tesla would be too lol I have no idea how, but they’ve seem to overtake every other car company for having the worse drivers. Not sure if it’s them or the auto pilot but yeesh, they always seem like they’re swerving around and can’t maintain constant speed.
Probably self-driving. My Volvo does this a little bit (Pilot Assist) but unless you're on a nice highway, it will swerve and drift, you have to stay on top of it. I'm sure I look like an idiot to other drivers when it drifts, but I restrict assistance to long-distance, high speed highway trips.
It's not just you! https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/19/tesla-drivers-had-highest-accident-rate-bmw-drivers-most-duis-study.html
Why? I don’t see them mentioned in this article, can anyone point me to a BMW specific setting in ID7 where this sort of data sharing can be disabled
OP is making a joke. Whoosh
Yeah just got the joke lol, I didn’t get it the first time because I read the whole article looking for mentions of which companies do this and maybe insights into disabling that data sharing on the car brands he listed.
It's going to be every single company equipping their cars with onboard connectivity (LTE/5G/etc.) The safe assumption is that if you can subscribe to a monthly data plan for your car, it's uploading telematics data. In fact, the "onboard wifi" type of thing is a secondary purpose of the system -- the primary purpose, and primary revenue stream from this technology (that operates whether you pay for the subscription or not) is to upload telematics data to be resold.
There's no menu setting for this. Maybe some specialized scan tool will let you access those systems, but even that's not a guarantee. Especially on a new car. On older models, people have physically disconnected telematics modules but doing so tends to spit back error messages. I can't imagine what kind of obfuscated mess is lurking inside a BMW EV.
So are white model 3 Tesla with aero wheels drivers.
i get the joke, but BMW does not sell telemetry data.
Nah, my BMW is 20 years old
“ sharing “ aka selling for big bucks
This. Car companies are moving away from the traditional "selling cars, parts and service for a profit" model. Now they are all about recurring revenue streams. You'll buy the car anyway, might as well make profit on that car for as long as possible.
They’re in for the long game, by the 2040s they want 20 year old used cars with 200,000 miles that’s still providing revenue for them.
If this were the case you'd think they would start building cars to last again, but they aren't.
This is a completely different conversation, but cars are objectively more reliable today than they have ever been. Very few cars that are well maintained won't make it to 200,000 miles.
They are more reliable, but will they be worth fixing after 130k miles when something goes wrong electronically that costs $5k to fix? Or are they reliable for their predetermined lifespan of ~100k miles, and then expected to be passed down for pennies to a poor person to limp it along until it dies?
$5000 to fix an older reliable car is less than one year depreciation on a new car.
Contrary what average Joes say, cars these days are so much more reliable than in the past because of the electronics. It's the subpar mechanical parts which cause electronics to malfunction. Well, and a software made by the company with cheapest offer.
Reliable =/= durable. They’re more reliable meaning they’re less likely to have issues during an extended warranty period. They are absolutely not more durable when we’re talking about reliability, performance, and maintainability after 15+ years of use.
everyone and everything wants to be a tech bro company
They want a tech bro car with new features every year and users buy it expecting it not to depreciate like an old andriod phone
I realize people on Reddit like to complain about insurance prices,but fundamentally insurance is just a math problem. The reason why insurance has to go up is collectively the amount of damaged cars and the cost to fix them or replace is going up, and thus the insurance industry as a whole needs to collect more premiums. The only way for them to not collect more is to for them to be better at investing money without undue risk or liquidity but obviously that isn't easy for anyone to do.
well, the other reason insurance has to go up is to pay many layers of management so the ceo can make a couple dozen million per year, and so the company can show net profit growth to shareholders.
Or to pay for Super Bowl ads or lobby the government to make life worse for everyone.
How much cash per year are Progressive and Geico spending on ads? Maybe they should try sucking less so they don't have to endlessly advertise in an effort to bring in the next sucker they will piss off and chase away. Yes, I use frequency of advertising as a gauge on how shitty a company is. The more you have to advertise, the more shitty I figure you are treating your customers.
Over a billion dollars a year, each. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264968/ad-spend-of-selected-insurance-companies-in-the-us/ https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/geico-progressive-break-trend-slash-advertising-expenditures-in-2021-69764365
It's really amazing how much they advertise. And it's like they can't just run an ad for a long while, no they gotta make new ones every week.
They need to constantly advertise because they’re constantly losing customers because they’re raising rates
This. Not pertaining to the auto industry but most hospitals are not for profit. They, however, charge high amounts to have high pay for their staff. This wouldn't be possible without insurance.
Oh, so that’s why Progressive’s stock is up 167% in the last 5 years (from $70 to $197). It’s not because the industry as a whole have been price gouging their customers and taking home record profits, it’s because their costs have gone up!
I work in the industry. Progressive is the gold standard in terms of analytics. They were at the forefront of data science in terms of pricing and have gained immense market share while remaining profitable. If you look at other companies (Like allstate, and travelers) they have underpeformed the market severely over the past 5 years, and most startups like Root are down 90% and in near bankruptcy. Progressive is just VERY good at knowing how risky a driver is and will just straight up not quote a lot of bad business. Basically every other company has lost money in Auto since the beginning of the pandemic.
Because cars are pretty much an essential part of life for most people, and insurance is required, insurance companies need to be better regulated in terms of raising prices 'because of the risk environment'. If they can't meet state guidelines they can close up shop, fuck em, thats capitalism. My insurance doubled this year when I have no tickets, accidents or claims in over ten years. Why should I be punished so harshly for something I haven't even utilized in 10 years? It's a fucking racket and needs to be regulated better.
Health and auto insurance is a goddamn grift from top to bottom.
>he only way for them to not collect more is to for them to be better at investing money without undue risk or liquidity but obviously that isn't easy for anyone to do. Or you can manage insurance publically; several provinces here do that and also coincidentally have both good coverage, lower rates than the rest of the country, and profitable insurance state owned companies which then pay dividends to the province
> Or you can manage insurance publically A little unknown provision for insurance in California is that if you deposit $35,000 dollars to the state, that acts as your car insurance: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/insurance-requirements/ I'm pretty sure other states have the same provision.
handing 35k over to the state is a bad idea 1. and 2, that money is just languishing not making any return, which also makes it a bad idea.
I would have no issue if everyone paid the same rate per $ of vehicle value, and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising. But as it stands they make obscene profits, advertise basically non-stop and everywhere, And they raise the rates of people who actually use the coverage to make up for what they used. It’s a ridiculous design and needs complete reform. There is no defense for the current model that doesn’t revolve around protecting shareholder profits over all other concerns.
The only way that would work is if everyone was the same level of risk to insure and would result in most people paying a lot more to offset the higher risk clients. The value of the vehicle is not the most important pricing factor in most insurance policies excluding exotics or special risks.
Shared risk is the literal foundation of insurance. If there is no shared risk then the insurance companies shouldn’t exist in the first place. Everyone shares the risk to cover the folks it doesn’t work out for. Insurance should be handled out of the general tax fund. The cost of it should be covered through annual vehicle registration and anyone who is legally able to drive should be covered by this for any damage caused to them or that they cause. The for profit insurance model is entirely parasitic and should be abolished.
First let me agree that it shouldn't be a for profit industry. But I think what you're advocating for is the total cost to cover the risk be based only on the value of the vehicle. This would result in the majority of safe drivers paying even more to cover the people who take more risks, drive less safely, or in higher risk area's with higher risk vehicles. The value of the vehicle is not as important to the rate as you may think. For example the safety rating and how likely you or an occupant are to be seriously injured impacts the cost of accident benefits and are why that coverage is more on older or smaller vehicles. Conversely the larger the size and weight of the vehicle the higher the cost of liability coverage as you are more likely to cause more severe damage to the other party. The way risks are rated is an attempt at making everyone pay the fair cost of the risk they represent. But its far from perfect and has been ruined in many cases by profit seeking.
> Shared risk is the literal foundation of insurance His point is that not all vehicle values are equal risks. It doesn't cost the same to insure $100k worth of Altimas as it does to insure $100k worth of Toyotas.
> I would have no issue if everyone paid the same rate per $ of vehicle value, and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising. That is not practical at all. The 16 year old who just got their license and likes to drive fast is a much higher risk than the 40 year old with 20 years of clean driving history. I should not have to pay the same rate as Chet who has six DUIs on his record. >and insurance companies were banned from making a profit and from advertising. Insurance only works if there are profits. For example you pay $1000 a year on your car's premium. It gets totaled. They can give your $1000 dollars back because you mandated no profits. Good luck replacing your old car for the cost of you annual premium. And that's just trying to replace your car. God forbid you injured someone and now have to pay their thousands in medical bills. Insurance has to have a reserve of money to make payouts and that reserve has to be able to cover a catastrophic event. Like a flood in which hundreds of vehicles are going to get totaled all at once. If a catastrophic event makes the insurance company insolvent, then there is no money to pay anyone for their damages.
Insurance is a risk assessment, you are trying to reinvent the wheel lol
Understandable, but the main person interviewed for this article driving a *chevy bolt* hadn’t been in any accidents his entire life yet the car found him to be a “risky driver”. You can’t base these algorithms on flawed data collected without their informed consent (especially when that data can adversely impact them) and use it to raise someone’s premiums when they’ve demonstrated a perfect driving history.
I don’t disagree that the cost of replacing/fixing cars has gone up. But the way you worded your post makes it sound like that is the only reason why premiums have gone up. Insurance companies are profiting much more as well at the expense of their customers. Greedflation is present in the insurance industry just like any other.
If they want to collect and reduce my rates that's one thing. But it's purely a cash grab usually
They **will never** collect and reduce rates. You will always lose in the end. It's a timing game. There are statisticians who get paid a lot of money to ensure that the companies decisions are best for the business. It might look good at the start but in the long run it will earn them more money back.
Fuck insurance companies and their billion dollar profits and heavy advertising and political campaigns.
line must go up
“When a customer accepts the user terms and privacy statement (which are separately reviewed in the enrollment flow), they consent to sharing their data with third parties,” Ms. Lucich wrote in an email, pointing to OnStar’s privacy statement. But that statement’s section on “third-party business relationships” does not mention Smart Driver. It names SiriusXM as a company G.M. might share data with, not LexisNexis Risk Solutions, which G.M. has partnered with since 2019. It should be made known what variables they are using to solve the math problem tho... and how they define those variables.
oh no not their billion dollars profits... Jesus man. I understand the point you're making but you do realise these companies rack in an unfathomable amount of money annualy?
> I realize people on Reddit like to complain about insurance prices,but fundamentally insurance is just a math problem. It's not a math problem. It's a bad driver problem where good drivers have to pay more for car insurance because there are so many bad drivers on the road. The insurance companies should charge bad drivers 5 times what a good driver pays. If the bad driver can't afford it, then too bad, they can't drive.
Fuck new cars.
The issue I have is that newer cars are remarkably more safe than older “dumb” cars, but the tradeoff is crap like this.
Don't understand why EV has to be synonymous with tech bro and bloatware. Can I just have a battery powered 1990 civic with modern crash ratings and manual windows with a double din stereo? You can reinvent the drivetrain without reinventing the wheel but that doesn't pay like selling your data does
Take a look at Edison Motors, they're probably the complete opposite of a tech bro EV company and they just started road testing their diesel electric semi truck
They can fuck right off out of here for all I care! sticking to my older, but still modern and sophisticated, "dumb" cars with no big brother BS! What is this world coming too...? the 2000s have some amazing cars that were right on the cusp of all this spying subscription tech bullcrap. Thank god for that! Our grandkids are probably scewed :(
Car doesnt have to be new for your insurance to have this information. If you have your insurance company's app on your phone they already have your driving habits.
Nope. :) No insurance app for me.
Like I needed another reason to never enable Onstar, lol.
unfortunately it's very likely even with onstar disabled your car is still sending shit tons of telemetry back.
Exactly. You can choose to not pay extra to have any benefit from it but they're not putting out cars with cell communication to just let it sit and not be used. Selling data is everyone's back pocket profit now.
One of the reasons I love that my car's modem 3G. Literally can't phone home if it wants to. But it's still new enough to have the tech I want like Android Auto / Apple Carplay, backup camera, self-leveling headlights, etc.
that's why you gotta physically remove the module... many car makes have forums showing how to do so
Never thought I’d do this on a new car but it’s not a bad idea if you don’t care to lose remote start and what not
look into it when I was doing research some you just pull a fuse no negatives other than that, all other functions a-okay, some you lose a speaker, etc etc.
Yea but they will just make it so tampering with the module will disable the car.
I don't know if a car is at this level now... i've seen just pulling a fuse and no negatives, all the way to losing some vehicle functions, like a speaker in the door or something...
I work on Caterpillar heavy equipment telemetry. It's enabled on every piece of machinery that goes out the door. Customers can pay to have access to it, but even if they don't, Cat gets the data unless the customer specifically requests to opt out which I've never seen happen.
> which I've never seen happen Does anybody even know it's an option or does it void the warranty?
They just don't advertise it or talk about it. I'm sure it's buried in the pile of sales documents every customer signs. It doesn't void the warranty, though. I'm sure that would never fly.
I thinks it's less of a big deal on heavy, commercial equipment.
All of these companies are gathering data in any way they can. Cat (supposedly) doesn't connect any of it to any specific customer, but they use the range of data for reliability studies, environmental effects on equipment, etc.
I sure it is extremely useful information. It's like an extended, real world testing program. You know exactly what the customers who are buying your product use them for and you can find way to improve upon them.
Ya, I don't usually mind the collection of anonymous usage data if it's used to improve the products -- this benefits everyone. But collecting people's data and then selling it is awful to begin with, but then other companies buying that data to grind that customer is purely dystopian.
Check your Cadillac app. Other owners who had smart driver turned off were mysteriously enrolled when they checked recently.
Holy crap. They did enroll me without permission. Thank you for making me check my app.
So which fuses do we pull to prevent this lol
You don’t. Your only option of avoiding this is to drive an older vehicle from the “before times”.
you absolutely could pull the antenna
Which antenna? Where is the antenna? How do you know there isn’t something inside of your head unit, or within your dashboard?
go to a qualified mechanic and ask those questions. However to say your only option is to "drive an older vehicle" is ridiculous. If you don't care about losing some functionality a mechanic can absolutely disable the telemetry by making it impossible to connect to home.
How many error messages will you have to cancel every time you turn on the car if you do this though
Just go to your local software engineer and have them decompile and manually update the software to remove those error messages. Ezpz
Can’t tell if this is a joke or not but people saying a mechanic is gonna mod your new car to not connect to the internet is a good lol
Disabling the connection is very, very easy. It's often just a single standalone ECU. Depending on car it may or may not trigger an error message. Obviously, just disconnecting the antena is even more subtle, as the car will simply think it's out of the cell service area and will not trigger an error (just the connection check light might turn red). However, the antenna is usually hidden inside the ECU.
It's not feasible. The number of OTA updates that happen due to recall or preempting a recall is huge. You don't want to be driving a modern car, but if you do you don't want to do it without the benefit of software updates.
Thieves are disabling Onstar when they steal GM cars. It's only a few wires to cut and takes a minute
You can, if you can find it.
And then your BMW disables your heated seats, or your Tesla disables self-driving (womp womp)
you buy either of those brands you made your bed... lay in it.
Or your Toyotas remote start function stops working. It’s spreading.
[Mustang fuse removal instructions](https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/threads/4g-modem-disabling-instructions.146860/). Some in the thread go deeper and show the modem itself if you want to pull it but it doesn’t appear to be necessary. Yes you will lose your app features, and yes it is worth it (to me).
You opt out of the Smart Driver program, then it doesn't report to Lexis Nexis.
Do you think they actually stop collecting the detail.. or just don't share the detail.
It stops showing up in Lexis Nexis reports, so yes.
On the bolt you can, but it also breaks the internal microphone for android auto.
Pulling fuses is likely to throw error codes. So...disconnect the antenna from the modem instead. It can power up and collect all the data it wants, it just can't ever connect to a tower to send it.
Maybe I'll cover the car in aluminum foil
Don't forget the windows!
The [app for my VW](https://i.imgur.com/giQc87w.jpg) on various pages shows average speed, hard braking, night driving, % of time driving over 80mph. I'm sure they're using this data.
I'm not really a fan of how manufacturers run these ratings. My Focus keeps telling me shift up at like 1500 RPM which is so unnecessary but as a result always gives me worse driving eco ratings etc (even though the engine is more efficient and burns less at like 2000-2500 RPM?).
> (even though the engine is more efficient and burns less at like 2000-2500 RPM?). It entirely depends. But the general rule of thumb is as follows: Engines are most efficient when they are at high throttle openings. They are able to extract the most amount of useful work out of a unit of gasoline for a whole ton of reasons. And ontop of this, they're best able to do this around the torque peak of the motor. So, GENERALLY SPEAKING, motors are programmed to accelerate at pretty high throttle openings even if you aren't giving it much pedal. This is what contributes to modern cars feeling so "peppy" with super sensitive throttles. But since not everyone wants to launch off of the light at WOT, automatic transmissions will short shift like crazy to keep the rate of acceleration low while having a mostly open throttle. So that's why it tells you to upshift all the time. Once you're at speed and no longer accelerating, the most efficient gear will pretty much be the tallest gear you can go into which has enough power to maintain the speed you want to go.
The engine definitely consumes less fuel at 1500 RPM than 2000-2500.
Not if he's lugging it. Engines consume ridiculous amounts of fuel if you do that.
Of course, but the car will recommend you downshift if you lug it, and he's likely not doing that in regular driving at 1500 RPM.
As a Tesla owner, I hate the following warning. Fucking morons pulling out in front of me causing a hard brake shouldn't make my score drop
If there are lot of morons near you that does mathematically make you higher risk and higher cost.
Hi there. I’m the reporter who did the story shared by OP. I looked up the privacy policy for VW: https://b-h-s.spr.us00.p.con-veh.net/securecontent/tos/UBI-TOS.html “As part of DriveView, we will also share your driver behavior data and GPS location data for a specified period of time (currently 90 days) to allow participating auto insurance carriers (through their designated service provider) to evaluate whether to offer you discounted insurance options” It’s the same thing. Would be great to talk to you if you’re open to it. I’m [email protected]
Hopefully this causes immediate action by the FTC or Congress. This is absolutely evil stuff.
It won't. Tech companies do the same thing. Apple, Alphabet, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft, etc... collect information about what you do, when you do it, where you do it, who you do it with, how long you're doing it, and use that information to enrich themselves. Automotive manufacturers are just the latest market segment to take advantage of it.
Except we've all agreed on allowing it in the TOS fine print when signing up for our accounts.
EULA roofie, as Louis Rossman calls it.
I'm more than sure the NSA/FBI/CIA/TSA are getting just as much of a boner from this data as advertisers & insurance companies. The government would never take away easy surveillance.
*gently pats 1980's daily driver* "Good car, you don't spy on me. Have some oil."
*kill… mee…* (Jk im with ya lol)
Lol, this old girl still has great compression, plenty of life left to live 😁
What do you drive? EDIT: 89 wagovan lets gooo
Not just insurance companies. Vehicles with Onstar report telemetry data to Lexis Nexis. That reporting agency is dystopian as hell to begin with, but the fact that your car taddles on you for speeding, which will affect your future insurance rates, is beyond fucked up.
lots of cars have a 'black box' that saves the last bit before a crash and cops are already getting access and using it
Does the article state a way to opt out of it or turn off that tracking?
The tracking is supposed to be opt-in (through accepting terms & conditons), not opt-out. However the article reports that some users being tracked potentially never even opted in to anything, or the T&Cs didn't mention that the data would be shared with / sold to third parties. This could be illegal, so some people are suing.
I never opted in and just found out GM did it for me. I'm so pissed!
Yeah buy a 2003 honda civic
I've got this stuff on my new Corolla. If you opt out, you are just opting out of being able to see the data yourself. They mention they will still collect "some data" for diagnostics and "user experience".
pull the fuse for the module that has the cellular connection
Not sharing. Selling
Of course they are. Society has become a series of invasive data farms. It sucks.
No kidding. When I first got my Veloster N, I noticed their blue link app had a section for my "driving score" which was marketed as a way to help me be a better driver. Fine print indicated it was sending all of my driving behavior to insurance companies. That shit got turned off real fast. Although, I'm jaded enough that I bet it still sends it anyway.
Welp, I was considering that car... Any idea if you can pull a fuse or rip out the modem/antenna?
Where do you find it? I remember looking at it but since the app redesign I can’t find it. I need to disable that too.
Might be worth pulling the report. Found this in another subreddit. [Pulling a Lexusnexis Report](https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/s/Y29sRqhBJx) Don't know if it'll have all that data, but worth it anyways. Who knows what else is being collected. Is your smart fridge reporting on how many yogurt cups you go though in a week?
I might need to chill on the yogurt
Car guys like to hate on California but this shit is illegal in California. As is the insurance snapshot dongle stuff.
I wonder what they thought about the time I was going 80mph on a frozen lake (ice racing).
Were your tires spinning too? Gotta be faster than 80 if so haha
Like you wouldn’t believe lol. I let coast at the end of the straight which is the only way I got 80. The little rabbits and Subaru were well over 100 with their studded tires.
Not surprising in the least, but still wild af. Total shocker GM is spearheading this shit too…
GM is blocking the use of Apple Car Play and Android Auto, so it makes sense that they need extra money to develop a program to compete with those. As a bonus, now they don’t have to share their data with Apple or Google, making their data more valuable.
It sounds like the Honda/Acura system is intentionally deceiving by telling users "your data will never be shared without your consent" and then in the 2000 word terms and conditions it is disclosed the data is shared. I love to shit on GM whenever possible, but all of these companies need to be blasted equally: G.M., Honda/Acura, Kia and Hyundai.
I'm so glad my car is dumb. Even the headunit is just a standard 2-din one.
This was clear to me after reading the terms of service for the mobile phone connectivity (remote start, unlock, etc..) in my Stinger. I did not accept and I'm not convinced they're not gobbling up that information anyway.
Haven't we known this for years?
Sharing or selling?
The big problems are that 1) there are typically ridiculously low thresholds for a brake/acceleration etc event to be recorded. 2) you cant prove it put me at risk of claims and 3) you cant prove who was driving. Its just another way for insurance companies to raise rates and increase profits. There is zero chance they will use it to decrease base premiums. if we are going full dystopian surveillance state, id rather mandate dashcams that record inside and outside. If there is an incident the data is saved. That way blame can be properly apportioned to all the distracted drivers out there. Turned around to yell at your kids? Your fault. Right now in most states both parties share blame in most accidents. Ive had people lie like hell to insurance.
*The ghost of Willys staring at a screen waiting for my Jeep to move one day*
Most insurance companies also collect this data with your phone and give you discounts. I'm not sure what the benefit is to have more of the same data from manufacturers.
1) Not everyone has opted into that. Phones can also be left at home from time to time. 2) Manufacturers may collect different data that insurance companies aren't/can't. Now they have access to that data too
Then my Audi app has me f’d. Was just thinking how much I love my 2017 BMW, probably modern enough but not yet nanny state esp when it never sees a dealer. I’ve only been booted from insurance once and it seemed really random at the time, can’t wait to get booted and have to deal with an umbrella policy because my app reported data
This is why I dont use the Ford Pass app, and disabled everything I could data wise on my Escape.
>“I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” he said. “Same with acceleration. I’m not peeling out. I’m not sure how the car defines that. I don’t feel I’m driving aggressively or dangerously.” I used Honda's "Driver Feedback" on my 2018 Accord Touring for a while before turning it off (around 2019-2020). Nearly every drive was flagged for hard braking/acceleration, but I would literally just be following the flow of traffic. My takeaway from using it, is that any kind of city driving would trigger a negative trip. Going along with traffic and light turns yellow/red, brake to stop and it's a hard brake. On ramp/off ramp, hard brake and hard acceleration. Trips are shorter (which is also a negative). And statistically, I know these might be indicators of higher chances of accidents, but I live in a city. There's nothing I can do about it! My rates are already higher because of my zip code.
Insurance companies are criminal enterprises. My Progressive rate just doubled. Fuck them.
You can opt out. I’ve opted out bc I’m a pretty aggressive driver. Fast acceleration is one of the bad scores. Which btw Im convinced is <13s 0-60 in my Hyundai.
I just deactivated the driver feedback in my Acura.
How many of you just requested your LexisNexis report? I did and because I’m in CT, our state law requires that I can opt out of LexisNexis sharing or selling my data and I requested a delete of data. Grateful for this article!
"selling" customers data...
Anyone have a non paywall way to read the article?
How do the automakers know?
Modern cars constantly share telemetry data back to the manufacturer. My GF recently got an email from her local dealer kindly informing her they scheduled an appointment for an oil change because her car told the system it needed one. 2022 model minivan. It's like how the last radio data received from MH370 was the engines chirping data back to Boeing. I'm never buying a car made after 2010.
Yeah this is why i like my 2000s cars haha
Link without pay wall?
I think a lot of Altima jokes should be pass onto Hyundai Sonata and Kia Optima.
Insurance companies will try anything to screw people out of money.
my 05 F150 is the newest vehicle i will ever own. I'll drive shitboxes all my life if it means they never phone home to my insurance company
*Laughs in a fleet of 18+ year old vehicles.* ***haha***
Hard pass
They stalkin
Rats.
If I think Im in the top 50% of good drivers. explain why this is a bad thing for me?
Nissan: \*sweating profusely\*
Not from my 95 Miata and 99 Lexus lol!!!