Yes. I would rather insurance profit more off of unsafer drivers then have to pay for the risk associated with them via the shared pool method currently employed. Bring on the telemetrics & make cost more fair.
I have the Allstate app. You have to opt into the telematics, which I have not done. It's in the privacy settings. Second, I don't care if they have my location data; there isn't much they can do with that besides determining my mileage.
Then, you can opt into one of the insurance company's voluntary programs.
I get your concern about safety. I'm not trying to encourage unsafe driving. This isn't about safety, it's about privacy.I know you're trying to fear monger and all, but a large portion of road users were literally safer in 1984. Your ill-conceived notion that you're somehow only affecting yourself when you recklessly drive a 7,500 missile on publicly-funded roads is nonsensical.
The more this line goes up, and the corresponding one for bicyclists, the more regulation and "lack of freedom" you'll experience on the road. Keep the line down, and there won't be a need for "telematics" or the "nanny state" to crack down on you.
Totally agree. The insurance company I switched to offered a discount to download their app and collect data. I refused. Again, back to my first statement- These companies (including Rivian) are making it more expensive and cumbersome to keep your privacy so that they can make more money. I'm not sure how anyone could argue against that, but here we are.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, however the graph you posted is misleading at best. Deaths per 100,000,000 miles is a deliberately watered down statistic. Most road-user deaths occur in the "last mile" of transportation. That's either soon after leaving your origin, or immediately before reaching your destination. Adding in the sum total of all vehicle miles traveled on highways is simply irrelevant to the issue at hand.Last thing-killing someone and driving reckless is already illegal. We have rules and laws in place already. Losing freedom in the name of safety is not the solution. Granting the government more power is not the answer.
Do you think companies selling your data is going to reduce pedestrian deaths
Do you think companies selling your data is going to reduce pedestrian deaths? That's the first question you'd need to answer.
Don’t buy a 800 horsepower vehicle if you don’t expect to have a few.
No. I think driving recklessly is a problem that kills more children than almost any other single cause. I don't know what your graph has to do with that point.
See, this is the kind of logic that will make the rest of the public outraged that these products even exist. If the purpose of a product is to be able to break safety laws, then it's only a matter of time before the public as a whole pushes back against that. This sort of attitude is the reason why speed-governor legislation is being proposed.
How does selling data prevent driving recklessly? First, define reckless driving. There's no point in any discussion if we cannot agree on what is, and is not reckless driving. For example, do you think getting up to 70 MPH, posted freeway speed, on a freeway onramp in a rapid manner is reckless or not? Assume for the sake of this question the pavement is dry, there is low traffic volume and the onramp is flat and straight with high visibility.
There are two sides to this. I would say that ANY driver will have a few incidents here and there. There are always a few drivers who aren't paying attention, and you cannot always anticipate someone cutting you off to make you decelerate enough to count it as an incident. Not to mention there are some lights around here with red light cameras, as such their yellow light time is set artificially low.
