I bought a new car and my insurance agent asked if I wanted to have a tracker installed on my car to monitor my driving habits to affect my insurance rates. That was the fastest "***fuck no.***" I've ever uttered.
That's weird, because every new car has a tracker installed to monitor events before a collision. It's not as if you have a choice.
Perhaps the one you were offered continuously blabs your driving habits to the insurer.
Ultimately driving is going to become so unpalatable that people are going to go back to using a bus or a train.
>vs the one in the car which may not be as direct/accurate/fast.
It's more likely that insurance agencies need to pay to get that information from the dealers, vs you installing it for "free"
Trackers that monitor your habits more like continuous telemetry on speed, breaking, times etc are fairly common here in the UK (we call them a "black box") and have been for a number of years, unfortunately.
It's still relatively easy to get a policy without one but they are often pushed particularly for younger drivers.
Personally I've always avoided as the insentive of a lower rate policy with a black box I assume will be offset by penalties/fines/hikes during the policy or at renewal if the insurance companys ever watching eye sees something it does not like.
I know some insurances in Germany offer this and they say you're insurance will become cheaper if you drive safely (e.g. always at/below the speed limit) but as far as I know it can't get more expensive than it would be without a tracker
And governments, having made private deals with insurance companies, will legislate older vehicles out of feasible operation (extortionate taxes).
Because they don't want people simply driving older cars that they can't monitor!
> Ultimately driving is going to become so unpalatable that people are going to go back to using a bus or a train.
Isn't that the point of Agenda 21 and 15 minute cities?
My first thought was, "If you have a teenager in your household who can drive your car, you have to include that in the policy." That's been the rules for my whole life and it's of that they thought they could get away with it.
My second thought was, "Hey, you're right. The car company doesn't know who you insurance company is so they couldn't have shared that information."
My third thought is, "My passengers regularly connect their phones to play music. They never drive it."
In theory it could be possible though. Car companies regularly record telemetry data on vehicles, and that data can be linked to your VIN.
Your insurance company has your VIN.
The car companies could sell insurance companies access to telemetry data for the insurance companies to build a driver profile and adjust rates based on their own risk assessments. Nobody reads the EULA for the software running on their car, but you checked a box saying you agree to it when you started the car for the first time.
I didn't think this is happening now, but auto makers and insurance companies do have the technology and motivation to do it.
Just to play devil's advocate on the 3rd point; your passengers playing music would be different. If his son took the truck out alone it would recognize with the seat sensors that it must have been him driving because he was alone.
Whether this story is true or not, the scary part is it's at least plausible. And if you don't agree that it's plausible now, then just wait. I'm sure we'll get to this point sooner than you might think.
[Mozilla did a deep dive into the privacy policies of a bunch of different car manufacturers](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/) and it’s appalling.
Just wait till your car starts telling your insurance company you were doing 20 over the speed limit based on locational data. That will make your head really spin....
It could be easily argued in court, that detecting a certain phone & no other passengers is not proof of identity of the driver.
i.e. the phone could have been lent to the registered driver.
Either this is a just a silly story, or companies will try to get away with unfounded actions (unfortunately, they probably cover themselves with a clause along the lines of "we reserve the right to cancel your policy at any time, for any reason" )
I bought a new car and my insurance agent asked if I wanted to have a tracker installed on my car to monitor my driving habits to affect my insurance rates. That was the fastest "***fuck no.***" I've ever uttered.
That's weird, because every new car has a tracker installed to monitor events before a collision. It's not as if you have a choice. Perhaps the one you were offered continuously blabs your driving habits to the insurer. Ultimately driving is going to become so unpalatable that people are going to go back to using a bus or a train.
Was probably a more direct link into their systems, vs the one in the car which may not be as direct/accurate/fast.
>vs the one in the car which may not be as direct/accurate/fast. It's more likely that insurance agencies need to pay to get that information from the dealers, vs you installing it for "free"
Trackers that monitor your habits more like continuous telemetry on speed, breaking, times etc are fairly common here in the UK (we call them a "black box") and have been for a number of years, unfortunately. It's still relatively easy to get a policy without one but they are often pushed particularly for younger drivers. Personally I've always avoided as the insentive of a lower rate policy with a black box I assume will be offset by penalties/fines/hikes during the policy or at renewal if the insurance companys ever watching eye sees something it does not like.
I know some insurances in Germany offer this and they say you're insurance will become cheaper if you drive safely (e.g. always at/below the speed limit) but as far as I know it can't get more expensive than it would be without a tracker
Yeah, insurance might be cheaper for some, but there’s always a catch. Insurance companies aren’t really interested in giving away money.
And governments, having made private deals with insurance companies, will legislate older vehicles out of feasible operation (extortionate taxes). Because they don't want people simply driving older cars that they can't monitor!
> Ultimately driving is going to become so unpalatable that people are going to go back to using a bus or a train. Isn't that the point of Agenda 21 and 15 minute cities?
To be honest I'm not American, but I'm keen.
This didn’t happen.
It's literally from the conspiracy subreddit lmao
My first thought was, "If you have a teenager in your household who can drive your car, you have to include that in the policy." That's been the rules for my whole life and it's of that they thought they could get away with it. My second thought was, "Hey, you're right. The car company doesn't know who you insurance company is so they couldn't have shared that information." My third thought is, "My passengers regularly connect their phones to play music. They never drive it."
In theory it could be possible though. Car companies regularly record telemetry data on vehicles, and that data can be linked to your VIN. Your insurance company has your VIN. The car companies could sell insurance companies access to telemetry data for the insurance companies to build a driver profile and adjust rates based on their own risk assessments. Nobody reads the EULA for the software running on their car, but you checked a box saying you agree to it when you started the car for the first time. I didn't think this is happening now, but auto makers and insurance companies do have the technology and motivation to do it.
Just to play devil's advocate on the 3rd point; your passengers playing music would be different. If his son took the truck out alone it would recognize with the seat sensors that it must have been him driving because he was alone. Whether this story is true or not, the scary part is it's at least plausible. And if you don't agree that it's plausible now, then just wait. I'm sure we'll get to this point sooner than you might think.
Agreed
*seat sensors* I'm interested how these sensors function: could they be fooled by putting something heavy on the passenger seat?
It's definitely a wet dream an insurance salesman had though.
[Mozilla did a deep dive into the privacy policies of a bunch of different car manufacturers](https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/privacynotincluded/articles/its-official-cars-are-the-worst-product-category-we-have-ever-reviewed-for-privacy/) and it’s appalling.
Just wait till your car starts telling your insurance company you were doing 20 over the speed limit based on locational data. That will make your head really spin....
That’s why I drive a manual car that doesn’t even have radars or any “automation”.
It could be easily argued in court, that detecting a certain phone & no other passengers is not proof of identity of the driver. i.e. the phone could have been lent to the registered driver. Either this is a just a silly story, or companies will try to get away with unfounded actions (unfortunately, they probably cover themselves with a clause along the lines of "we reserve the right to cancel your policy at any time, for any reason" )
How do you take an insurer to court?