- driver C who drives fast yet safe (over the speed limit like most drivers) but has to deal with:
- driver D who drives the speed limit in the fast lane, changes lanes without signaling, is essentially clueless, and forces C drivers to navigate around them.
Stunts at any speed is bad, sure, but speed can't automatically be assumed to be stunts. That's the flaw.
If the behavior is not predictively relate increased claims activity, then it wouldn't be penalized. They won't just say "driving 5 mph over the speed limit on the highways raises rates" for no reason. The reality is probably though, at some speed increase above the posted limits there is a relationship with claims activity. If that limit is 4 mph or 10 mph, I think it's fair to charge more.
And can car computers tell if blinkers are on? At some point, changing without signaling is likely to be trackable if it isn't already. Ultimately, clueless driving will leave trackable indicators. This is driving, it's behavior based, and the outcomes are observable.
At any rate, I hope this makes usage-based insurance more common. I currently use MetroMile as my car insurer, which charges per mile of car usage. I'm a city-driver, my miles are insanely low. I'm glad to be benefiting from smarter, behavior-based insurance even if it is in its infancy.
> If the behavior is not predictively relate increased claims activity, then it wouldn't be penalized. They won't just say "driving 5 mph over the speed limit on the highways raises rates" for no reason.
You're assuming the insurance company has perfect information.
That's the problem with all of this. The insurance company isn't in the car. They don't know why you're doing what you're doing.
And the problem is you get what you measure. Changing lanes without signalling will make an accident more likely 85% of the time but make it less likely 15% of the time. If you're penalized 100% of the time then all the people who were doing the right thing in every case will now, in order to keep their insurance rates low, start doing the wrong thing 15% of the time.
Perhaps the insurance companies' models would (with enough data) learn to use 85% as the optimal value, and penalise deviation from that, rather than deviation from 100%
So then people will look at their statistics and start making unnecessary lane changes and so on for the sole purpose of fixing their numbers.
Unless you don't actually tell them what you expect them to do. Then you end up creating a whole new class of crazy folklore about what to do to lower your insurance rates that people follow religiously even when it's obviously irrational.
If you want a computer to decide how to drive then get a self-driving car.
If that limit is 4 mph or 10 mph, I think it's fair to charge more.
The problem is, speed limits in the US are often underposted to raise revenue and/or give the police an excuse to stop almost any driver. Certain studies have shown that drivers doing 4-to-10 MPH over the speed limit are among the safest. The slower ones are often either not paying attention, actively obstructing traffic, or impaired.
I'd be more likely to accept behavior-based insurance rates if they're based on sound traffic engineering principles rather than politics.
> If that limit is 4 mph or 10 mph, I think it's fair to charge more.
But there's already telltales for that: if a driver consistently drives more than 10 mph over the speed limit, they'll eventually get caught and ticketed.
That's where age & experience come into play. If a driver has 20 years of experience with no tickets nor accidents, does any of the other stuff really matter? It's not just observable, it's proof - instead of assumption.
Those telltales are reactive, not predictive. If someone is consistently driving over 10 mph then they should be charged higher rates even if they themselves have not had an accident because they are engaging in quantifiably riskier (to themselves, others, and the claims department) behavior. I'm sure there's people out there that drive like maniacs 90%+ of the time and haven't had an accident, but that doesn't mean they aren't significantly more likely to do so in the future.
Knowing people engage in behavior objectively quantifiable as more risky is also strong evidence of increased level of risk for that driver, not an assumption that the given individual will have a given outcome.
200 people a year die from nuts and peanuts in the US, therefore eating nuts and bringing them to social situations is "quantifiably [risky] (to themselves, others, and the claims department) behavior."
There is a subtlety here in correlation and causation.
>I'm sure there's people out there that drive like maniacs 90%+ of the time and haven't had an accident, but that doesn't mean they aren't significantly more likely to do so in the future.
It's not 'they', it's 'their cohort', and the apparent risk can be very sensitive to the level of detail and factors accounted for - such as nut allergies.
As long as we know the ruler IS bent - because we need some way to charge people appropriately for insurance.
I would argue it is both: the "drive like a maniac" cohort is likely to see a higher incident rate across the population, and that a given individual exhibiting "drive like a maniac" behavior is more likely to have an incident themselves vs. a given individual that does not "drive like a maniac."
This is driving in the open world, not art you create in your basement. Drivers are not fully in control of their environment, and riskier driving behaviors are risky even for fantastic drivers because they cannot account for how others will react to their "mania", to keep the vocabulary consistent.
Mania is quite subjective and increasing the difficulty of this conversation :) Yes, someone I'd call a 100% maniac very likely would have poor individual outcomes as well.
You could chart the relationship between levels of mania and some of the unaccounted factors, like driving skill or restraint. Slippery slope ends up in a trap of having to account for everything for the sake of fairness.
Yes, because there are many people with 20 years of experience with no tickets nor accidents, and they are not all equally likely to file a claim next year. It's not proof or assumption. It's actuarial science.
> If the behavior is not predictively relate increased claims activity, then it wouldn't be penalized
yeah, sure. i totally believe that. ever actually deal with an insurance company? they pretty much do whatever the hell they want unless there's enough people willing to sue in a class action suit. this goes for consumer, business, financial, whatever.
when this becomes mainstream i will go with alternative insurance providers that do not track my driving habits even if it comes at a huge premium.
> they pretty much do whatever the hell they want unless there's enough people willing to sue in a class action suit. this goes for consumer, business, financial, whatever.
Okay fine, please explain to me how you think they would be worse with behavior-based rates than they are today. If they're just looking to bump rates for everyone on a flimsy pretext, there is nothing stopping them from pushing the price envelope as high as they can right now. Well, except the competitive environment they operate in, of course, which isn't going away even with behavior-based rates. They already do whatever they want, so this lets them do it more? It seems unlikely to me, and my early experience is incredibly positive.
Behavior-based rates can at least remove some of the mystery behind rates rather than add to it. Behavior is personally trackable, shareable, and demonstrable. Ultimately, it's a way to increase price discrimination, something I'm a fan of.
Yep, it would penalize those who have high risk markers but are nonetheless actually safer. Seems to be the same problem as charging more to an individual 16 year old who is actually a safe driver.
They already do in the UK, lots of young drivers can only afford to drive if they have a "black box" fitted to their car by the insurer to track their driving behaviour.
I recall that one of the benchmarks used for one of the car-tracking-fob-based insurance policies was how "hard" they were braking and how often, and possibly high acceleration. Repeated hard braking would imply tailgating and distracted driving, and repeated high acceleration would imply generally reckless driving.
- driver C who drives fast yet safe (over the speed limit like most drivers) but has to deal with:
- driver D who drives the speed limit in the fast lane, changes lanes without signaling, is essentially clueless, and forces C drivers to navigate around them.
Stunts at any speed is bad, sure, but speed can't automatically be assumed to be stunts. That's the flaw.