Turns Out Drivers Not So Interested In Big Brother Style Car Insurance
from the please-don't-spy-on-me dept
Four years ago, we wrote about the concept of "Big Brother-style car insurance," where drivers would agree to have special black boxes attached to their cars which would transmit all sorts of info to the insurance company about their driving habits, including how much, when and how fast they drove. Those drivers who drove safer (or at safer "times") were offered better rates. We were actually quite surprised in 2005 to hear the company behind the most intrusive of these programs, Norwich Union in the UK, claim that the early tests were going so well that it was expanding the program. Three years later, we now learn that the "going so well" part may have only been on the insurers' side, rather than the customers' side. In a post talking about why such surveillance insurance plans are a bad, bad idea, the EFF also points out that Norwich Union has just ditched its offering, noting that... well... almost no one signed up. Turns out that people aren't so keen to sign up for Big Brother Brand car insurance after all. The "going well" part was actually all just wishful thinking, as the company says that it thought people would sign up only to discover that they didn't.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: driving, gps, insurance, monitoring
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Way to Go Slow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the Lobbying begin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I use it... but we'll see for how long.
As long as the discount is decent, and all I see to get uploaded is when, how far, and how fast... then I will likely continue with this program.
I guess my feeling is... if when/how far etch I drove is all that private to me, I probably shouldn't drive on "public" roads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I use it... but we'll see for how long.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black boxes don't do the job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black boxes don't do the job
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black boxes don't do the job
Actually I know someone who participated in one of these.. he simply modified their data before uploading it to them ... brilliant :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let the Lobbying begin
Speeders fund terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Let the Lobbying begin
> Speeders fund terrorists.
Speeders and drunk drivers ARE terrorists! Every year, they kill more people than the 9/11 attack.
But, I think a black box on the car is not the right approach. In Germany, speeding tickets are set up with automated cameras, and they send you a bill in the mail.
Another thing Germany does is require insurance companies to refund customers if their profits were too high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let the Lobbying begin
Blackboxes, speed bumps, etc. etc. are all band-aids on the real issue which is POOR DRIVING SKILLS. You may say speeding x# of miles over a speed limit is poor driving but the truth is poor driving can take place at or below the speed limit.
We should make it much much harder to get a license AND take it away for a year from the youngest drivers if they cause an accident in their first year. A person having a car that can go 100+ mph and not knowing how to handle it properly even at 25 scares me more than someone speeding or having a beer and then driving home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let the Lobbying begin
Reminds me of a few times where it was glare ice out and I was driving 50 in a 40, passed up someone. I slowed down coming up to them incase they'd change lanes. I think they were about 15 under. Nearing the first set of lights, I started to slow down and coasted from way back. The other person started slowing down too late and slipped through a red light and almmost got hit by a big snow plow.
Seems me going 10 over was driving "safer" than the person going 15 under because I knew what I was driving in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Let the Lobbying begin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this different that other business fantacies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance companies can blame themselves...
I'm sure that driving safe and under the speed limit all year round will lower your rates with about $5 annually, and at the same time they'll use it as an excuse to jack up your rates with $150 when you're going over the speed limit once with 5mph.
Now, that might not really be the case, but probably the way everyone feels - and the reason nobody signs up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops
I said no way, that I want to know when, where, and how fast as I'm the only driver and I haven't gone even 10MPH over in years. He said he'd check and get back to me and when he did about five minutes later he said I was reinstated and that it was in error. I ask for more information and he told me that my speed was shown in excess of 1000MPH and no-one caught the "error".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To easy to game the system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you're not speeding...
While the argument by and large doesn't really apply to any behavior where there's a discrepancy between its perception as illegal by consumer and enforcement agency, it seems like it could make sense in this situation. Normally, the consumer doesn't have any reason to subscribe to a program where the sacrifice of privacy is justified by this principle, but in the case where someone stands to save money by letting the insurance company track them, I could see a lot of people making the decision to partake. Imagine parents with young kids driving, who can monitor their child's driving habits indirectly through the premiums they are paying, or drivers who habitually drive 10 below. They sacrifice a little privacy and save a couple dollars.
On the other hand, if you're prone to stepping over the line, get a different service. But its not necessarily a bad idea. The only problem arises when you consider that it might be made a requirement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you're not speeding...
There was a retired cop in Texas who attached a GPS to his teenage son's car and said, 'When it says you speed one, you're grounded from your car for a month. The next time it says you speed, you lose the car altogether.'. The GPS transmitted speed and location every thirty seconds.
Funny part was, he got pulled over for going eighty in a sixty-five zone, and his dad got him off because he showed how faulty the speed guns are compared to the GPS, which said he wasn't speeding at all...
So parents do have recourse, without setting a horrible privacy precendent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know I would rather keep my current insurance and continue to speed than save $100 a year and drive the speed limit everywhere.
Like everything there is no doubt a line where most people would sacrifice their privacy for the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by admission
Imagine if the FAA and air traffic control operated under a policy of anything goes......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by admission
I drive the speed limit. Not because I don't think I can handle a higher speed, but because I know that I wouldn't save time by doing it (and I don't like sitting in traffic). I would still never get this device even if it dropped my insurance to $5 per month (mine just dropped below $100/m). Not because my driving is "suspect", but because I like my privacy. Just because I drive on a public road doesn't mean where I go is public knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: by admission
I don't think anyone has the right to know where my vehicle goes every single second of every single day. I could care less about the speeding. There are boxes that shut a vehicle down at a certain speed, if that's all you want. I care about my privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Driving skills
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is this surprising?
You can talk all you want about how driving faster doesn't necessarily mean driving less safely, and I'd agree with you. But you can't deny that a higher speed means a higher damage potential... if you can, you need to take an intro to physics course somewhere. It doesn't matter who you are or how good a driver you think you may be, if something goes wrong - brakes fail, steering goes out, unseen road hazard, what have you - the slower you were traveling, the less it will cost the insurance company... setting aside the issue of actual safety. And so they try to account for that in deciding how much to charge people. Where's the mystery?
Now, that being said, I would never voluntarily sign up for a black box program - but I can see how plenty of people would if it saved them money. This information would inevitably be given to law enforcement from time to time, and likely other agencies, and I just don't trust the average cop enough to tell them where I'm driving to at any give time. Though in truth, I just don't trust the average PERSON, and last I checked they don't wave a magic wand to make cops any better than the rest of us before they give 'em a badge.
And that's just the potential for misuse that I can foresee, and my imagination isn't very good...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not just speed-
I actually used to work in Insurance though, and these guys aren't just looking for Speed- one of the main things your insurance co's consider regarding auto insurance is how much you drive- esentially they want you just to be driving to and from work less then 10 miles each way every day, and that is most likely how everyone here is rated. Over 10 miles jacks up your rate a good amount, believe me. Obviously they will take into consideration normal errand usage and such, but frankly, most people I know drive at least 20 minute commutes- they would all have their insurance rates jacked up if the companies knew. So even if you don't speed, but you drive a half hour to work each way every day, or take a lot of road trips or whatnot, you should think twice about agreeing to one of these in your vehicle.
Another thought is that you are rated differently depending on where you live- I only know about NY, not other areas of the country, but in NY if you live upstate it's the cheapest, then from LI in the closer you get to the city your rates go up. So if you live out east on LI but go out to Queens to see family a few times a week- I'm sure the co's would take that into account too- that not only are you driving many more miles then what they feel you are paying for, but also that you are spending too much time driving in areas which they consider more dangerous and more prone to accidents- you would probably receive a non renewal for being too much of a risk.
After all, they are in the business of NOT paying money out- their whole business model is to determine, and insure, those who pose the the least risk of causing them to actually have to do what they are paid for- pay money on claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Imagine if the FAA and air traffic control operated under a policy of anything goes......
Hypothetically:
A driver is obviously drunk and has a problem with me - let's say I didn't - but he perceived I cut him off. Maybe it was another car, or he was trying to pass unsafely - whatever.
Now, if I speed up to 75 to get away from the clown or whatever - how can the car's computer know that? I AM a safe driver, in fact - I used to drive a school bus - the training I got is well applied in a car as well. I drive very defensively, but that doesn't always include keeping exactly at the speed limit or driving at a certain part of the day.
So - it's safer to drive at 6:30 PM moreso that 5:00 PM? What if there's a major winter storm coming - predicted to be a blizzard at 6:00 PM - would 6:30 still be a safer time than 5:00 to drive? I think not.
The computer cannot make intelligent decisions or provide accurate data without ALL of the facts. I may have sped up to 90 miles per hour to get out of trouble - or who knows? There are a lot of variables that the computer just cannot measure.
But I guess - some people, can drive and NEVER EVER move of of their lane, speed up, hit the brakes quickly, make a defensive sharp turn - or anything like that. They can drive exactly the speed limit, in their lane and never, ever regardless of any situation have to detour from the routine because, well I guess they are perfect. And I also suppose, when stuck in snow and spinning the tires - they also insure the speedometer never goes over the posted speed limit - regardless of the fact that in reality the car's not moving, however the computer in the car is not aware of that.
Imagine if the FAA and air traffic control NEVER allowed deviation at all - regardless of the situation.
It's a wonder these perfect computers aren't already driving the cars for us!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speeding
1) You do the speed limit of 55 and get run over by people who do 70, 75, and 80.
2) You keep up with traffic and do 70 mph, but your "black box" reports back that you're speeding.
Which do you do? Slow down to avoid a "black box" insurance cancellation or speed up to avoid road rage from the drivers around you?
In other words, these "big brother" devices don't understand the context of the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fit Black Boxes
provide a way to extract the file, with a hash so it can't be (easily) tampered with.
runs on a rolling 24hrs of run time, records speed every second, accelerator etc. and all changes to other things.
you're in a crash, it will show what happened just before, if you did sound your horn, if you were swerving etc.
you have the ability to download to a pc at home, so you get your fuel economy info etc.
as a plus point you get pulled for speeding, well you can grab a download that evening and compare with the time stamp from the cops...
and plod can pull a quick download roadside.
won't get everything, no cameras, but for accidents and 'safety' it will work.
insurance companies may want an aggrigated set of data submitting.
include GPS and it knows where you are (make it part of the cars nav system). but note it has *no* transmitter, just the recorder. big brother? sort of, but it works for planes and trains.
you would be amazed how many times a trains speed trap system 'plays up' when the driver 'was doing the limit' and the download tells a slightly different story.
I'd have one, plus if its built in and the car gets pinched, it will record where its been etc.
maybe add a weeks storage or something, or more, combining its memory with a music player or something. you just need a resonably tamper proof file format.
oh and have a registered list of cars that have the devices, if you get a ticket, and *don't* submit a download but claim innocence, well it nails you, if you were not speeding you're in the clear.
can't see the gov going for it, no tracking, or ability to use it for taxes etc. but for 'safety' its pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Auto Trade Insurance
Auto Trade Insurance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could be ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]