Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits

Is that true? The handful people I know who have/had these devices are definitely wouldn’t fit that category. And most removed it after a while because their premiums went back up (because of their driving). They just chose it because it offered cheaper rates and they all said the companies promised it would not raise rates above what they were already paying. So it was a “what do I have to lose” decision.

Obviously anecdotes aren’t data. I think it makes sense that the drivers that are egregiously unsafe (and know it) will avoid them. But it would take seeing actual data to make it clear to me that the majority of people who consent are safer drivers.



That seems to support the point you replied to. You point to a group of people who opted out of monitoring and exhibited risky driving behavior, leaving leaving lower risk people in the monitored group


They all consented, initially. The insurance companies got the data they need.


The people who stay in the plan are the low risk group, obviously there will be some percentage of churn in the first year.


The problem with this tracking nonsense is that it doesn't change anything. The business model is still the same. Unless the insurance company pays out less claims there won't be any savings.


For the members, probably not. But if the insurance companies can more accurate determine who not to cover, they can see huge savings in payouts. That’s why they already have teams of actuaries determine rates based on the data they do have. They just want more specific data.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: