Trust an Insurance Company's "Drive-Cam?" 480
ramen99 writes "Our new car insurance company offered us discounts for our teenage driver if we agree to install a 'drive-cam' that records driving habits and wirelessly transmits video footage to a 'neutral driving coach' for evaluation and comment. While this might be great to monitor a new teen driver, it will also monitor other adult drivers. The insurance company claims that they would never use any information obtained to consider changes in insurance rates, but that really sounds unbelievable. Would you give up your privacy to save some dough? Installation is free, and the camera mounts just under the rear-view mirror. Something seems fishy about this..." Especially when, according to a British insurance firm, computer engineers are most likely to crash (sent in by antdude).
Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (probably hooked up to a car pc), set to record on motion and store the past few days of video. These would be for my own use only -- I'd never allow a third party unrestricted access, but it might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
As for "computer engineers are most likely to crash"
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
...and farmers think that 15 miles an hour is fast...
You're from the city, ye? Perhaps the fact that farmers generally live in rural areas with less congested roads could have something to do with it?
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
They're introducing this product by initially marketing it for teens... as if it is somehow more acceptable to spy on them than anyone else. I'm sure this product will eventually be marketed towards all drivers, but if they introduced it initially like that, it might not get as favorable a response (maybe)...
I'm guessing it'll go like this:
1. teens
2. public employees
3. private employees
4. you
(note, for many #1-3 will already be you.)
Subpoena (Score:5, Insightful)
If a participant is involved in an accident, will anyone besides parents and their teens have access to the audio and video?
It is possible American Family might request Teen Safe Driver output from customers in some situations involving the claims process, for instance, as part of an accident investigation. The information also is subject to being subpoenaed by other parties in a legal proceeding.
Which in reality means the very people you wouldn't want to show the video to will be able to see it.
Re:Engineers play video games (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention that most people growing up in farming areas (at least here in the UK, not sure about other countries) have usually got at least five years more driving experience when they go to sit their driving tests than people from other areas. If you can't drive a tractor, and fit, maintain and operate all the implements for it by the time you're 11, then it's special school time...
Will be added to you tax ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's simple (Score:5, Insightful)
One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
I wouldn't want it in my car so don't put it in a teenager's either.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Except one of their partners [teensafedriver.com] is Drivecam.com [drivecam.com]
Drivecam advertises a behavior-based risk mitigation program for fleet drivers.
And their site lists a bunch of private companies that utilize their technology.
I think the idea is right, but the order should be:
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that these 'discounts' match a price increase of the same amount when the technology is ready for the general population. One year, your health insurance provider will give you a $10/month break on your premiums if you sign a 'I do not smoke' form. The next year, the rates will go up by $10/month, or more.
The year after that, the rates go up yet again. They then tell your employer that if any employees are seen smoking on company grounds, they'll double their premiums. Suddenly, you can't smoke within view distance of your work building.
A few months later, they start blood pressure/cholesterol/insulin/weight monitoring. With a discount, of course, if you choose to opt-in.
Insurance is a gambling game. The company is the dealer, and we, the consumers, are the players. We belly up to the table, place our bets, and the dealer gives us our cards. Of course, they've been allowed to stack the deck with their own cards and change the rules around a little bit, because let's face it, you're playing in their casino, under their rules.
This is why people have such a problem with insurance companies. You know, you pay your premiums for five years, make one or two claims, and both of them are auto-rejected, making you call and beg for them to cover it, so you don't have to pay thousands of dollars for a procedure that took five minutes.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some things I don't want people to know about me, but I *really* don't care if they know where I've been.
You see, that is the view of the same people that normally claim "I have nothing to hide". Well, sir, I have everything to hide. If they record from your car, the don't just know where you go. They'll probably end up knowing where you go, who you go with, when you did it, how you got there, how long you stayed, what you carried with you, which way you go to work, what school your kids go to, what time and where you pick them up, what you talk about in the car with your wife, what you talk about when you call sb from the car,... But here's the problem: if people accept this already, then they can safely suggest the next a-little-bit-more-strict piece of legislation. One day it will be "installing a GPS in the box", next it will be "Allowing FBI to access the recordings if a judge says so", then the same but "without a judge saying so, as long as its related to the case", then we'll have Jack Bauer accessing car recordings, then somebody will upload one of this videos to youtube, then they will decide to send the videos to the FBI first,...
The fifth amendment of the US constitution says I have the right not to say something that may incriminate me. The problem is that, if I allow a camera in my car, I'm providing a potential witness against myself in every single situation, whether I am accused of something or not.
Seriously, people, all phone calls in the State of Virginia are already recorded! How long do you think it'll take for this to be used to control us?
Do it like Gmail. (Score:2, Insightful)
Follow Googles Gmail model, Instead of giving a discount they should give people free petrol. People prefer tot receive than to save. As Gmail has proven will sell our their privacy for receiving something.
Bound to work.
Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
double standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I've always thought it would be a good a idea to put small cameras in my own car (...) might be useful if there's ever any question about what happened in an accident.
The question is: useful to who? Chances are your cam gets you in bigger trouble than it could ever save you from.
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
A safe driver has nothing to fear, takes the camera, and pays less.
This is a fallacy in line with "innocent people having nothing to fear from the government" that we hear as justification for illegal wiretaps, which is patent bullshit. If I get in a wreck and it's my fault, my policy (typically) gets reviewed, maybe canceled and my premiums go up. Insurance companies serve me, not the other way around. I've had one ticket in my last 20 years of driving in a large, congested metro area and I sure as hell don't want my insurance company watching me drive.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, my phone belongs to me, not my phone company, and it's open source. Meaning, it's pretty unlikely someone will actually use it to snoop on me. If they can, it'd certainly be a targeted attack, not a broad monitor-every-driver-always situation like we're discussing here. It's next to impossible to defend against a targeted attack, especially when it comes to computers (e.g. cell phones)... but that's not the issue here.
Re:Our company has a policy of NO overnight stays. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're an idiot.
You're being forced to work under unreasonable and dangerous conditions.
You are risking your life and others on the road (no sleep, exhaustion, skip eating = eventually you will fall asleep and/or pass out on a major motorway).
Your employers have absolutely zero care for you at all - to the point where what you have said suggest they are actually, knowingly, breaking several employment laws. That's how much respect they have for you.
What they are doing is *not* shifting the cost - it's called finding some idiot to work his arse off and pay you for doing one page of tax paperwork and not caring about *anything* else that happens to them, including if they kill themselves or others.
Get a brain. Get the hell out. If I knew you, I'd report you AND your employer for a) dangerous driving, b) employment-related offences. That's *not* a job. It's slave labour. Screw the "credit crunch", there are millions of jobs out there that pay the same and don't involve that crap. Where the hell are your brains?
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do the slashmongs trot out the "correlation does not imply causation" line as if it's some deep wisdom?
Who cares about causation here? Certainly not the insurance companies, they just want to identify factors correlating with crashes.
Maybe for "slashmongs" like yourself who apparently don't get the (not-so-subtle) difference between causation and correlation?
Insurance companies certainly care about causation, not simply correlation, e.g. if they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
Re:One simple rule (Score:5, Insightful)
People who think it's acceptable to monitor their teens' driving habits, cellphone position or bank transactions have an awful basic view of their children. I could understand such measures for small children up to 12 years of age or so, but after that they should be taught trust and responsibility. How are you supposed to grow up as a responsible adult if you have your parents watching and commenting your every move?
The trouble with granting your children privacy is that you also run the risk of them doing things you don't like. They might lie to you. They might go to a parties and drink alcohol. They might even have sex (oh noes!). But this is something that is bound to happen sooner or later anyway, and it's impossible to stop teens from being teens. The solution is not to monitor your children 24/7, but to give them the knowledge and ability to handle those situations. Teach them the risks of alcohol in itself and drunk driving in particular. Tell them about STDs, birth control and safe sex. Let them know when you find out they've lied about their whereabouts and give them a reasonable punishment (e.g. not borrowing the car again for month or so). Better yet, take the opportunity to talk about said things.
As it happens, I don't doubt that Teen Safe Driver works when it comes to reducing accidents. I just think it's an awful way of raising your children.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Given mortality rates being the highest for drivers 16-24, what would be a better alternative?
Actual driver training that might reduce the accident rate rather than just attempts to apportion blame better ?
It's target at teens because they have less choice (Score:4, Insightful)
"Think of the children" as an argument is a red flag--usually means there's something wrong with what you're saying and you don't want people to think rationally about it.
Usually, Mom and Dad fund teen's car (that's the car which belongs to the teen, for all you BTAF fans).
If the gadget saves m&D money, teen gets a take it or leave it option (well, teenage was a few decades ago; maybe it's changed since then...).
If the surveillance was actually something people wanted, it would be offered to everyone as the latest perk on the insurance plan.
Re:Ride a bicycle (Score:4, Insightful)
Fit speed limiters and black box recorders on all cars. Drivers just can't be trusted to obey the law.
What about putting cameras in every home then, since people cannot be trusted to obey the law?
It is a slippery slope.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
If they instituted a "what did you have for breakfast monitor" and found that 20% of their driving population sample ate Brand X cereals before having an accident (aha! correlation!), I doubt they'd offer discounts for households that swore off Brand X cereal.
I guess you've never worked for an insurance company, this would not seem unreasonable at all to many of the actuaries I know.
You lose control when 3rd parties are involved (Score:4, Insightful)
Then I followed the link to DriveCam.com. Now is when concern start rising. Yes - I did see an Insurance company monitoring a teenage driver and maintaining extremely personal data forever and may have been okay with that. But now the data goes to yet another service provider. In looking there, it is not clear to me that the videos or data does not go to any other company.
So my interest in helping educate and protect my son is obliterated with so many others having access to this information. I question their inability to do geo-location - it is merely one more chip and a few more bits of data to be passed! Add the name, vehicle info, date/time, location and events (yes - there will be many "events" as someone learns to drive) with audio & video.... sorry The Minority Report comes immediately to mind!!
A far more appealing device would be one that does the recording but retains the data longer. I would buy a device that informs me of "events" as they happen. Give me some information such as sudden swerving, acceleration, braking or jostling of the vehicle. Let me, the responsible parent, be able to choose if I should or should not contact my child and make a parental decision. I would love to be able to review the events at home afterwards. I am not willing to wirelessly transmit this stuff anywhere. Yes, it is after the fact and bad stuff can happen. But it is far better than not being informed like today and would give me the chance to sit down with my child and review his (her) actions as an upcoming adult.
Succinctly - I don't want 3rd parties involved. I'd pay a reasonable amount of money for the device (upto $150 or so) for us to use.
Re:Ride a bicycle (Score:2, Insightful)
Ride a bicycle and you can extend 90% to all drivers. They speed, pass too close and are very impatient.
Let's have them for cyclists too, so that it's all recorded when they swerve in front of cars, nip up the inside of vehicles that are turning left, run through red lights and cycle on the pavement at dangerous speeds close to pedestrians.
Cyclists are all - without exception - the most dangerous road users.
Re:Will be added to you tax ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well except that this is private industry, not the government. Let me make that more accurate for you:
The next step is to put equipment on your body that continuously monitors your activities where each Jaywalk and other minor infringements result in changes to your life insurance deductible. You health insurance company will also adjust your deductible for each offending word that comes out of your mouth, as it shows that you haven't been dealing with stress in your life properly and are liable to die quickly.
Why do we need the government when we can pay hyper-efficient private industry to do it for us? Granted that the private insurance companies make the government look slim and trim, but who wouldn't want a privately held unaccountable bureaucratic corporation deciding whether we live or die? It's like the government, but without a voting stake. Sign me up today!
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
"As a parent, I would definitively go for it.", until the Drive-Cam captured "Champaign" actively resting her head in your lap because your car was in the shop, and you just took the kid's car that day.
Hell no (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just another way to indoctrinate kids into a world where they have no privacy and accept constant surveillance by corporate America ( and the goverment ) as the 'norm'. This is rather offensive and i hope people boycott the companies that are offering this.
Re:It defeats the point of insurance (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yes and no
I'd venture for majority of people, insurance is a case of paying some money to prevent the occurence of something that will take ALL your money (or even bankruptcy). You may get into a situation that insurance will cover but you would not at that time have had the chance to save up enough money to cover.
At least that's how I think of it. e.g. sure maybe the entire sum of my auto accident damage is say 50 grand and I could easily save that over the next 10 years, but it may come in one hit next year when I have only five grand in my savings.
The casino always wins but for most people its better to be sure of taking a small loss than the possibility of a massive hit that may bankrupt or ruin you financially.
Re:It would be wonderful! (Score:3, Insightful)
For some definition of better. By Canadian definition, retarded bacon brain idiot who has reflexes of a dead horse, always drives 45 km/h an hour everywhere, because he is scared shitless to drive faster than that, never uses turning lights (probably doesn't even know what they are for) is considered a great driver by police, insurance company and even general population.
On the other hand person confident in their driving ability, driving a good fine tuned car with good handling and breaking capability, who drives correctly, doesn't follow too closely, uses turning lights well in advance to indicate intent, etc but who also drives faster than speed limit liberally is considered a horrible driver by police, insurance and general population.
I see 1000 traffic offenses daily on my commute to work. Failing to use turning signal when turning is theoretically 2 demerit points where I live, but no one ever, ever and I mean ever got stopped for not using a turning light. But break the speed limit by 20 km/h and you are treated like criminal.
So, basically this is massive systematic criminalization of speeding, just because it's so much simpler and easier to enforce.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, yes, I bet they would offer a discount... maybe Brand X cereals cause accidents, or maybe aggressive drivers (who cause accidents) happen to like Brand X cereal (maybe the commercials for Brand X show someone beating up on a wimpy guy and then chowing down)... correlation (of the statistically significant variety) is useful for predicting the future; which way the causal chain works is mere trivia.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
Ditto. And if you discover the insurance company raised your rates after you install the camera, then just switch companies. That's one of the advantages of not having a monopoly-based system.
Ultimately you'll run in to adverse selection if this becomes widespread. Here's the simplistic version: Drivers start off all paying x, but some are safer than others and the camera picks this up. The safest drivers install the camera and save money. The average safety of those without a camera falls, so the non-camera premium rises. The safest without one install the camera and save money. The average safety of the remainder falls again. And so on.
You have to expect that someday saying no to a camera implies you are almost certainly a high accident risk, so all of the insurance companies will charge you very considerably more.
Re:New Deduction/Premium Strategy (Score:1, Insightful)
Except that in case of all other gambling games you decide if you gamble or not. In case of a car insurance you must participate - therefore car insurance should not be run on the principles of gambling games.
lack of experience = mistakes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:5, Insightful)
To an insurance company, if a correlation exists, it is relatively unimportant to know WHY it exists. In fact, the only reason I can think of that they would be interested in the WHY is to use that information to find other correlations.
This isn't because insurance companies are stupid, it's because they aren't. People have this silly idea that correlation is meaningless, and only causation ever matters. However, when evaluating probabilities, causation is utterly useless.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It would be wonderful! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, basically this is massive systematic criminalization of speeding, just because it's so much simpler and easier to enforce.
If you go twice as fast you have four times the energy. This is why speeding is a priority. Car parts sometimes fail while you are using them through no fault of your own, speed limits are supposed to reflect that.
Obligatory Disclaimer: Anyone not going 75 mph on the posted-65mph Highway 280 in California is getting passed by everyone, including the truckers and the buses. Just took 101 to 1something to 1 to 9 to 35 to 280 to 101 to 175 to home yesterday, and the freeway was MOVING. I actually got to get up around 100 C on the thermostat in my 1982 W126 300SD :)
Re:Black boxes (Score:4, Insightful)
Is the situation in the US really like that?
Yes. Right now the US has a serious shortage of experienced truck drivers and new drivers are being shot right through school (figuratively, of course) and into the cab of a truck making long hauls. Truckers are forced to sleep short hours and make long hauls over the speed limits in order to make deadlines in some cases; in others they are paid poorly and "encouraged" to make up the difference on bonuses in order to entice the same behavior. Seasonal trucking often also involves inexperienced drivers; in general, trucks without air brakes can be driven with trivially available licenses.
A lot of my lifts in Europe and Central Asia come from truck drivers, and a lot of them are quite well-educated people, often with university degrees, who began driving trucks because of uncertain economic times. It's not like there's much other work to do in certain places, especially the former Soviet Union.
That's unfortunate for them; it really blows what you say next out of the water though:
I wouldn't call the job shit house work either.
If you have a Uni degree and you're driving a truck because of uncertain economic times, it's shit work. (Anything you want to do is a great career, if it will pay the bills and you won't have to wonder what will happen to you when you're old and senile.)
While it is monotonous, the money is a lot better than you'd expect, and the amount of time drivers have to actually work is continually reduced by new legislation.
Not around here, at least, not effectively.
Re:Don't know how it is in Britain, (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm, what other industry is able to get away with charging people different amounts based purely on what group they fit into?
And isn't making assumptions about people based on a group they are in known usually as discrimination?
Well, at least I now know of another lie to feed the insurance company to get a lower price. And with on line insurance purchasing, I really do have a good excuse when they end up with incorrect info about me: my computer had been hacked (obviously I mean cracked, but I'd say hacked if asked by a judge).
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
(also in reply to all the other replies)
all kinds of things can happen. maybe your cam happens to record some criminal activity, and the police come get it as evidence (i call that trouble), maybe it records some situation you got in due to someone elses' mistake, maybe it happens to record what you were doing while you told someone else (boss, wife?) you were doing something else, and just maybe you actually do something utterly stupid.
crashes or whatever in which video images are required to determine who's fault it was are extremely rare. damage patterns (your backside, their front?), rubber on the road, traffic rules and witnesses provide more than enough clues in nearly all crashes. the only situation in which the cam is your only chance, is when someone hits your from the front (were them cam is) and then leaves the scene. i have quite some trouble thinking of such situations where an accident affects the front of your car AND the license plate of the other party is visible on the video AND it wasn't your fault.
therefore i think a cam has more potential to cause trouble than to solve it.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
everybody misses the obvious. This wont' ever be legally "mandated".. but eventually insurance companies won't let you have insurance without it.
After one speeding ticket or accident (no matter fault) the choice will be to pay $500 extra for 3 years or install this system for "free"... which of course will eventually have monitoring fees/law enforcement uses as usage grows. So as soon as law enforcement give everybody one speedy cam ticket, everybody will be "required" by insurance to have this.... and you legally have to carry insurance.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol you've never been involved in a court case, have you?
Saying "what if he made it up" with absolutely no evidence to back that up does not introduce any doubt at all. People are smart enough to think "Is there any evidence he made it up? No? Ok, it's probably real then."
All someone has to do is ask themselves which scenario is more plausible: Guy sets up camera in car for just such an occasion, or Guy manages to engineer from scratch a video that even the top special effects guys in the film industry can't manage yet. Hmmm... I wonder which they'll pick?
Claims that have no basis in reality are dismissed out of hand. Claims that have a basis in reality are carefully considered, and may still be dismissed as being implausible without more evidence.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
so when do they learn to drive at night? Because the risk clock for learning to adapt doesn't start until you get practice.
The silly idea of restricted licenses just moves the problem another 2-3 years down the road.... I expect in 5 years 27 will be the new 25 for getting out of the insurance gutter when the risk factor shifts up from the restricted license laws.
Black Box.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
Correlation is necessary, but not sufficient, for causation. Therefore, if you want to eliminate causations, and can afford to error in that direction, eliminating correlations is a good way to do so. Especially since it is so difficult to prove causation.
"Correlation is not causation" does not mean all correlations can be mindlessly discarded.
Re:Private Car Cameras (Score:3, Insightful)
I must disagree. A large part of the problem is emotional control. This inherently becomes less of a problem as the driver ages. It still needs to be learned, and learned in unsupervised driving. But older people learn it much more quickly. And women inherently have less of this problem than men.
I'll agree that practice in driving is a part of the answer, but probably only for the first month.
N.B.: Even adults suffer from this problem, though usually to a lesser degree. Ever hear of "road rage"?
Rules for insurance companies... (Score:3, Insightful)