Would you allow a GPS in your car if your insurance was based on your driving habits?

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dullard
If it were free, yes. I would have my costs reduced, and I like lower costs.

But the thing isn't free. Someone has to pay the costs. If the costs are directly or indirectly borne on me, then no, I don't want to pay for it. I mostly agree with Vic. However, if the device causes people to fundamentally shift their driving to safer driving, then Vic's post is overly simplistic. Costs could be lower IF there are fewer accidents. However, I doubt that there will be a significant change in driving habits. Correct me if the UK trials show that I am incorrect. And thus, for practical purposes, Vic is correct.

So I'm confused... do you agree with me or not?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Pastore
Why doesn't it just become a federal thing and put GPS on all vehicles? Cops wouldn't be pulling people over for traffic violations anymore...

That seems like where this would be heading at least. Why charge speeders higher premiums when you can just ticket them directly?

If we could do that, why not just make it so people can't speed at all?

 

[hellokeith]

I've suggested this for a *long* time. UPS and many other commerical services already monitor every aspect of a driver's habits. Everything from vehicle condition and maintenance to driving habits and even actions taken before/during an accident could be recorded and used for benefit of all.

But I doubt the insurance companies would favor this, because it'd mean lower rates for a higher percentage of supposedly high-risk drivers.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Yes, I drive within the law.

Although it would never work, too many circumstances, and everyone can accidently go 5 miles over the speed limit or something like that, or swerve badly. Too much like 1984, so I revise my answer to no. Insurance companies should just use your previous driving record like they do now.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Vic
So I'm confused... do you agree with me or not?

If my assumption is correct, then I agree with you. If not, then I do not agree with you.

Basically, I can see theoretical situations where you are wrong. I assume the practical situation will be that you are probably correct.

 

[Turin39789]

And why wouldn't I just take the gps out of my car when I drive at night etc?

 

[zebano]

Originally posted by: kranky
A company called Applied Location has developed a system called Skymeter that integrates a GPS with software. Their system supports three interesting technologies.

- Variable tolls. An EZ-Pass type of system that could charge higher tolls during high traffic periods, lower tolls at other times.
- Variable parking fees. Parking rates could be varied depending on time of day and demand.
- Most interestingly, your driving habits could be monitored and used by an auto insurance company as a basis for what to charge you. If you drive within the speed limit and/or during periods when traffic is light, you have a lower chance of an accident and could get a break. Speedy drivers and/or drivers who are out in heavy traffic frequently could pay more.

Would you voluntarily get one of their devices on your car?

#1 - This isn't an issue for me as I drive at 7 & 4 (just before rush hours) but we do not have tolls here currently so this is a stike against.
#2 - I get free parking on the city streets (paid by employer). Since I get here before everyone else, I get the premium spots. I would rather the city not jack up my employers costs (which might then be passed on to me).
#3 - I am a very safe driver. If the cost of installing this wasn't going to be passed on to me, I might go for it based on this argument.

Government mandate idea.... have you ever seen an effecient beuracracy??

 

[acemcmac]

AHAHAHAHAHA

HELLLLLL NOOOO

 

[Ramma2]

I would do it for a 50% rate drop in insurance for good driving.

Anything less = no chance.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Vic
So I'm confused... do you agree with me or not?

If my assumption is correct, then I agree with you. If not, then I do not agree with you.

Basically, I can see theoretical situations where you are wrong. I assume the practical situation will be that you are probably correct.

You know, I bet you could make something like peeling an orange overly complicated. You would go on and on on about the most efficient method, and the angle you should start peeling at.

 

[43st]

Originally posted by: Ramma2
I would do it for a 50% rate drop in insurance for good driving.

Anything less = no chance.

Exactly... drive like an a-hole, pay premium rates.

I'd drive like a granny if I knew my rates would be halved.

 

[vi edit]

My premiums are already stunningly low (because of safe driving & location). I pay around $60 a month for two fairly expensive brand new vehicles with very high end coverages.

I doubt there is much room for a discount. And even if there was, it's not worth the all seeing eye overlooking me all the time.

Now if I was going from say...a $500 a month to a $250 a month payment, we'll talk.

 

[lokiju]

Fvck no!

Never, no matter what the discount is.

I prefer not being watched in my own car that I paid for.

 

[thirdeye]

No definitely not. What if you road race/auto-x your car on the weekends? Somehow I doubt that would show up as good driving to the insurance company.

 

[Mark R]

Definitely. This seems like a good way to price according to risk.

It's a well established fact that driving habits predict risk. Drive mainly on highways, and your risk of an accident is much lower than if you did the same milage on rural lanes, or in an urban environment. Driving at night is also riskier - if you aren't tired, then the people around you may be, plus visibility isn't as good.

I drive during mainly during quiet times, mainly on safe roads (highways), where my risk of accident is low. (Not just the risk of me making a mistake, but the risk of a 3rd party making a mistake and hitting me). I generally keep to speed limits and use defensive driving techniques. I've only ever had one car accident in about 250k miles - and I was rear ended after I'd stopped at a red light where pedestrians were crossing.

Why should I pay for people who are reckless? I could understand if there was no practical way to seperate my risk from someone more dangerous - but if there is a technique for doing so, then I see no reason not to take advantage of it.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: Mark R
Definitely. This seems like a good way to price according to risk.

I drive during mainly during quiet times, mainly on safe roads (highways), where my risk of accident is low. (Not just the risk of me making a mistake, but the risk of a 3rd party making a mistake and hitting me). I generally keep to speed limits and use defensive driving techniques. I've only ever had one car accident in about 250k miles - and I was rear ended after I'd stopped at a red light where pedestrians were crossing.

Why should I pay for people who are reckless? I could understand if there was no practical way to seperate my risk from someone more dangerous - but if there is a technique for doing so, then I see no reason not to take advantage of it.

I already pay a fraction of what somebody with multiple tickets and/or accidents pays. Am I not already being rewarded for my safe habits?

 

[lagvoid]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Hell no

what I was looking to quote.

 

[PrinceofWands]

No, I will not allow any form of tracking and will do my best to resist all invasions of privacy or the giving over of power/control to government or corporations. I'll do it peacefully as long as I'm able, but I'll fight to the death over it if necessary.

 

[foghorn67]

hell no.