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

[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?

 

[Scouzer]

No.

 

[DurocShark]

no

 

[Specop 007]

No.
Reason: I speed like meth head with a bag and a lighter.

 

[tbike06]

no

 

[altonb1]

Ummm...No.

 

[chuckywang]

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?

No, everybody should pay the same.

 

[mugs]

Depends on what criteria the insurance company uses. I rarely if ever drive more than 10 mph over the limit, which is pretty typical. On surface streets I drive at most 5 over, which is also typical. I do accelerate like I stole something though. If I could continue to drive like that and pay lower insurance rates, hell yeah I'd allow it.

 

[Lonyo]

They trialled it in the UK.
Driving at night is apparently riskier, so your driving habits can greatly reduce premiums if you are "good" (i.e don't drive at night).
It reduces premiums, at least for people who supposedly drive at low risk times.

 

[Rubycon]

Don't worry, Professor Norman Bytes says this is the voluntary trial stage. In the next decade, it will be mandatory for all motorcars. :laugh:

 

[theknight571]

My immeadiate reaction is to say no.

But alot would depend on how much savings could be had.

 

[Sukhoi]

Hah, no way.

 

[Vic]

No.

The lower cost argument is a myth. The cost of the GPS monitoring system would have to be added to policyholders' premiums, which would means increased costs overall. This common sense fact is hidden by rhetoric regarding so-called benefits of cost redistribution.

To translate the OP from public-relations speak, a company called Applied Location has developed a new GPS product and is trying to force open a market for this product that would otherwise have little to no appeal to the average consumer.

 

[Kadarin]

Absolutely not.

One thing that would very likely hold true: Few people would find their insurance premiums going down by much, but they would probably find a lot of excuses to raise premiums by quite a bit for many (most?) drivers.

 

[K1052]

My insurance would rise about 300%, so no I'm not all that interested.

 

[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.

 

[OutHouse]

Hell no

 

[spaceman]

no way.

 

[DivideBYZero]

I will, then I'll lead line it.

 

[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?

 

[Insomniator]

No.

Driving habits do not determine the chances of getting into an accident. A good driver going 100 on the highway has less of a chance of getting
into an accident then a soccer mom doing 60 but screaming at her kids with her head turned towards them half the time. If the driving tests America were composed of more then driving backwards in a straight line and a K turn, insurance would be much cheaper for everyone.

 

[Otaking]

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?

:thumbsup:

 

[chambersc]

Yes and I would follow the rules of the road.

 

[Insomniator]

Yeah, I want my car monitored by the gov at all times. Yeah, screw privacy.

 

[TrueBlueLS]

I'd love to see one of those freak out during an autocross event.