
Lower Your Car Insurance Bill, at the Price of Some Privacy - plg
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/16/your-money/auto-insurance/tracking-gadgets-could-lower-your-car-insurance-at-the-price-of-some-privacy.html
======
BrandonMarc
When they installed license-plate scanners on bridges, government buildings,
and roaming police cars, there was initially the claim that this system
wouldn't be used to create a giant centralized database tracking everybody's
movement.

We all know how that turned out.

And now with these airplane-style black boxes inside cars (the manufacturers
have their own black boxes, too) ... I'm sure the NSA, FBI, CIA, etc would
_never_ start drinking from this firehose of data, and mis-use it.

I'm sure Google, Yahoo, Bing, Amazon, etc would find this info useful, too ...
although with the installed user base of Android phones, Google / Apple pretty
likely already have quite a bit of this info.

~~~
jimmaswell
Can you give me one example of the government "misusing" the data from
license-plate scanners? I know how it "turned out"; it turned out to be an
effective means of tracking people on the run.

~~~
chatmasta
Who has access to the database? Probably hundreds of people/engineers. What if
one of them is stalking someone? What if he wants to know where his wife was
last night?

~~~
jamesaguilar
I think he was asking for actual incidents, not hypotheticals. Its not hard to
think of bad things that _could_ happen. But whether anything has actually
happened is a completely different question.

------
kator
This seems interesting but they recorder is missing a lot of context. If you
drive Los Angeles freeways you'll be hitting the breaks a lot for random
people who cut you off in bumper-to-bumper traffic, but the data will only
show you stomping on the breaks all the time and the insurance company might
conclude you're a bad driver because you're not paying attention.

Also how does it distinguish between drivers? My kids often "borrow" the car
and I'd like to be able to "advise" them when they're causing our insurance to
go up by driving poorly.. :-)

~~~
morgante
> If you drive Los Angeles freeways you'll be hitting the breaks a lot for
> random people who cut you off in bumper-to-bumper traffic, but the data will
> only show you stomping on the breaks all the time and the insurance company
> might conclude you're a bad driver because you're not paying attention.

That is the correct conclusion though. The insurance company could care less
whether you're a bad driver—what they really care is how much of an accident
risk are you.

Even a good driver frequently caught in LA traffic is a higher risk than a
good driver elsewhere. Hence the device is reporting exactly what the company
needs.

~~~
jdjb
I've used one of these devices in my car for the last couple of years and have
enjoyed really cheap car insurance as a result (variable based on my driving
but usually $30-$35 CAD/month).

It is very true that if you are driving in rush hour traffic you have no
choice but to appear to be a bad driver. The irony of this is that the
accident happening in rush hour is probably minor, yet when I'm barrelling
down the highway at a steady pace I appear to be a great driver whereas an
accident would be very costly (fatal perhaps).

Also they normalize your infractions (sharp breaking, sharp acceleration,
speeding, etc) by distance driven so long highway driving is even more
beneficial (few infractions, long distances) than traffic jams (many
infractions, short distances).

~~~
TeMPOraL
Insurance companies have a strong financial incentive to have their models be
well calibrated with reality, so you should expect it more and more with time
that when an insurance company thinks you're a bad driver then it really means
that your driving sucks.

~~~
arjie
True, but they'll happily take 10 horrendous accidents over 1100 minor bumps
if the bumps cost them a thousand each and the bad accidents cost them a
hundred thousand each.

Our incentives are different. We would rather have many tiny incidents (up to
a limit) than a few life threatening incidents.

Therefore, while an insurance company would happily put into place a process
that turns a small number of drivers into maniacs and everyone else into
placid sheep they'd take it.

Not that they are, and it sounds unlikely that such a process can even exist,
but it's important to know that our incentives aren't aligned.

------
tomjen3
Now people will optimize for whatever this meassure, at the cost of driving
safely. Don't take the route that has slow driving traffic, take the one with
fast moving traffic even though you are going to cause far more damage. Don't
stop for a red light, it will cost breaking points.

You are an insurance company your job is to pay when people cause accidents -
if people don't cause accidents there is no reason to have it.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Now people will optimize for whatever this meassure, at the cost of driving
> safely._

The point is, insurance company has a strong financial incentive make the
measure be as much an accurate proxy for driving safely as possible. If people
start ignoring red lights to avoid braking points, insurance companies will
try to get to that data (by offering you discounts for providing it). This is
a good scheme; the best way to "outsmart" insurance is to drive safely. This
can be a textbook example of [http://xkcd.com/810/](http://xkcd.com/810/).

Thinking about it, I'm starting to believe that speeding tickets should be
sent to insurance companies directly. I.e. keep driving like a moron, and soon
you won't be able to afford to drive. (also, it would be helpful to replace
point&click speeding cameras with average-speed computing ALPRs)

> _You are an insurance company your job is to pay when people cause accidents
> - if people don 't cause accidents there is no reason to have it._

No, if people don't cause accidents then insurance company gets free money.

~~~
tomjen3
If I don't cause accidents, why should I have insurance in the first place?

~~~
TeMPOraL
There's always a chance that you will. Thinking otherwise is very naive. No
human is a perfect driver, everyone can get distracted, or have health
problems, or somehow end up in a situation where only superhuman reflexes
could help.

The only way to be sure you don't cause accident is for you to never drive, at
which point you don't need car insurance, and rightly so. As you can see, the
system works well - if you can't cause a car accident, you don't need a car
insurance.

------
wallflower
One of my siblings had one of these. It constantly squawked/beeped at them
when they went too fast/they braked too hard (which is actually a lot more
often that you might think - the deacceleration threshold ).

It got to be a point of humor in their family. "Mommy, you're driving too
fast!"

It did lower their car insurance considerably. Thankfully, it was a temporary
deal to have it installed, not a permanent commitment.

------
Spooky23
This is the future.

Electric cars and hybrids are breaking the fuel tax methodology of funding
highways. Solutions using GPS mileage logging devices are already being
piloted in Oregon to implement a tax per mile model.

Also by 2020 wireless broadband will be mandatory in vehicles, and studies are
being conducted re feasibility of providing remote management of vehicles from
state traffic management centers.

[http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2014/USDOT+t...](http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2014/USDOT+to+Move+Forward+with+Vehicle-
to-Vehicle+Communication+Technology+for+Light+Vehicles)

"The safety applications currently being developed provide warnings to drivers
so that they can prevent imminent collisions, but do not automatically operate
any vehicle systems, such as braking or steering. NHTSA is also considering
future actions on active safety technologies that rely on on-board sensors.
Those technologies are eventually expected to blend with the V2V technology."

~~~
BrandonMarc
_providing remote management of vehicles from state traffic management
centers_

This was the land of the free. I'd rather control my own steering wheel,
acceleration and brakes, thank you very much.

Welcome to the future.

~~~
Spooky23
I think there will be a very robust market for 1950-1980 cars in the coming
years.

------
Niezgoda
1) Concerning privacy: I imagine that with systems like eCall in Europe
drivers privacy is/will be a fiction (eCall is intended to bring rapid
assistance to motorists involved in a collision).

2) Methodology for calculating premiums: in my opinion one of the most
interested technology for premium calculation was introduced by UK-based
company [http://mydrivesolutions.com](http://mydrivesolutions.com). The basic
difference between this one and most of US solution I've seen so far is about
getting context information from the environment to better calculate the risk
for the insurer. They extract information from road attributes and build
behavioral map to better understand driving behavior in a certain context
(events are more complex than braking and accelerating).

------
throwaway0010
Interestingly these programs are currently disallowed in California, I believe
due mostly to Prop 103:
[http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/focusarea/prop-103-californi...](http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/focusarea/prop-103-california-
insurance-reform)

------
hendzen
And again, Evgeny Morozov is shown to be uncannily prescient about how
technology is affecting our society.

------
blackaspen
I don't think that braking slower, or accelerating less (or even limiting
turning g-forces) is really an indicator of "Safe Driving". Yes, it is
definitely a signal, and obviously a good one otherwise insurance companies
wouldn't be using it. But I think that the mark of good driving is knowing
what you and your car can do, and actively paying attention to the road around
you (several hundred feet behind and in front), and _thinking_ about piloting
the 2 ton piece of metal you're in as opposed to blindly doing it. A better,
more strict drivers licensure program is the number one way to increase safety
on roads and thus lower the cost of insurance -- but it has to be all in or
nothing.

On the flip side, I would find it somewhat amusing to put one of the trackers
in my track car and see what they think of that...

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I don 't think that braking slower, or accelerating less (or even limiting
> turning g-forces) is really an indicator of "Safe Driving". Yes, it is
> definitely a signal, and obviously a good one otherwise insurance companies
> wouldn't be using it. But I think that the mark of good driving is knowing
> what you and your car can do, and actively paying attention to the road
> around you (several hundred feet behind and in front), and thinking about
> piloting the 2 ton piece of metal you're in as opposed to blindly doing it._

If it is a "good signal" then it's an indicator pretty much by definition. The
thing is, it doesn't matter what is the poetic mark of "good driving"; what
counts are accident statistics going down. One constant about all humans is
that you can't ask them to think, or care, or be nice, and expect them to
change behaviour. You need to make them change, by changing their habits
and/or incentive structures around them, of which, in the case of cars, the
insurance bill is a very important part. People behave in a deterministic way,
especially when you look at big groups (such as drivers). You don't yell at a
river and expect it to change it's way, you force it to do it.

> _A better, more strict drivers licensure program is the number one way to
> increase safety on roads and thus lower the cost of insurance_

That would most certainly help, but I wouldn't call it the number one thing
(the number one thing would be banning human drivers and replacing them with
self-driving cars). I'd love to see driving licenses requiring training
comparable to pilot licenses.

~~~
blackaspen
Fair... I don't yell at rivers.

But by your same logic the number one thing isn't banning drivers and
replacing them with self driving cars (have you ever written perfectly, 1000%
bug-free code?), it's banning all movement faster than walking speed -- and
even then requiring people to wear crash helmets and blinkers and "blind sport
information systems"...

There is no perfect approach. But I don't think that insurance companies doing
this is even on the 'better' spectrum. It doesn't solve people: not turning on
their lights, not merging correctly, talking on the phone, keeping their cars
in safe operating condition...

Yes, paying attention to a few numbers and alerting people helps -- but if you
want real improvements, you have to tackle the source.

Much like trying to drive on a highway of people who's sole purpose is to
"achieve the best MPG EVER!!!!" this encourages hyper-focus in the wrong
direction.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Fair... I don 't yell at rivers._

So don't yell at drivers. They won't listen, they won't change.

> _But by your same logic..._

A small digression: that's why I hate "logic". Logic is so 1200s. We have this
thing called probability theory and we really can deal with numbers other than
0 and 1.

It's all about cost-benefit analysis. Cars get people killed (random
statistics time! It's about Hiroshima + Nagasaki every two months.).
Pedestrians not wearing crash-helmets rarely so (I'm not counting idiots who
think they can go on a highway on a bike at night without any light or HV
clothing; but there it is again, they fail at basic risk/reward calculation
and you need to force them somehow to behave). Self-driving cars don't need to
be "perfectly, 1000% bug-free", they just have to _drive better than humans_ ,
which doesn't seem too high a standard and I'm confident it will be reached in
few years.

> _There is no perfect approach._

Couldn't agree more.

> _But I don 't think that insurance companies doing this is even on the
> 'better' spectrum. It doesn't solve people: not turning on their lights, not
> merging correctly, talking on the phone, keeping their cars in safe
> operating condition... (...) but if you want real improvements, you have to
> tackle the source._

Well, I honestly don't know of any better way. Education doesn't work. Most of
the drivers I know don't accept the fact that their reckless driving is a part
of the problem (I do know exceptions, but sadly, those are mostly exceptions,
and they _still_ seem to care about insurance costs more). Social expectations
are really hard to manufacture, and the current one worldwide seems to be
"driving is a right, drivers are the best, lawmakers and traffic controllers
impose bullshit restrictions on speed to make money on us". So forcing people
financially to behave seems like the only real option left.

> _this encourages hyper-focus in the wrong direction._

I think I get your point - you're afraid that our values (safety) and
insurance company's values (profit) are not well-aligned. I agree. But I
believe they're aligned enough to push us in the right direction some more in
an effective way. But I do believe that at some point those values will fall
out of alignment to the point that we might be forced to ditch dependence on
insurance for behaviour forming. The question is when.

------
rjsw
I'm surprised it has taken so long for insurance companies to start to do
this, I was working with systems that could have done this over ten years ago.

------
RexRollman
No thank you. Plus, you just know that sooner or later, this data will be used
by law enforcement.

------
BrandonMarc
Hmm.

* Old title: Safety Spies

* New title: Lower Your Car Insurance Bill, at the Price of Some Privacy

... the new title's better, but I think adding (safety spies) in parentheses
at the end would be a good compromise.

~~~
dang
The NYT changed their title, as they often do. In such cases we follow suit.

~~~
BrandonMarc
Sounds good, and I agree with the change. That said, something to convey
"spying on you to keep you safe" has a nice Orwellian ring to it, which I feel
this topic deserves. Just my two cents, that's all.

------
jksmith
Next: "Insurance companies warn against unsafe, self-driving driving cars."
Spy on me then kill the very thing that could make car insurance obsolete.
Fuck off.

~~~
eurleif
Are you really getting angry about something you're imagining?

~~~
joezydeco
Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay!

