Will we have mandatory driving scores like credit scores? (Details Inside)

That may fly in Canada, but the Fourth Amendment issues involved make it unlikely in the US, at least not without a years-long legal battle. If they want that information after an accident or crime then there’s Probable Cause, but otherwise it’s warrantless snooping.

OBDIII was set to be a successor to the OBDII that controls the engines of all cars built since 1996. It got canned because it contained similar information tracking/transmission abilities.

Right now it’s voluntary. I can’t see them passing a law tht would make it mandatory.

Progressive advertises having a tool that plugs into your car that can help save you money if it proves you are a save driver. I’ve never tried it and don’t plan to. If my insurance cmpany wants to use a point system, they can use the point system the DMV uses.

Yeah, I fear that this Progessive doo-hickey may open the floodgates toward all car insurance companies offering it “to save you money by being a good driver”. Then this magically evolves into much HIGHER rates for anyone who won’t use this monitoring device.

I’m a better, more careful driver than most people, but I’ll be damned if I want my insurance company’s electronic nose sniffing around every move I make, regardless of how excellent it might be….

The auto insurance companies will assign us one especially after we make them fix one of our screw ups. It’s as close to risk assessment as we can expect. And ya, screw that Progressive plug in snooper. That thing is a double edged sword. I wouldn’t get “On Star” satellite tracking either. Because if it isn’t happening already the govt will force the service providers of it to allow those drivers to be monitored and recorded. Bad idea, probably a govt ploy from the get go slipping car makers some goodies to help them eventually wire us in.

Credit scores are not “mandatory”. Insurance scores are not “mandatory”. They are both systems put in place by private businesses as a tool to calculate risk. Since they seemed to have evolved to be a part of living in a modern economy, @jerv and @woodcutter, perhaps you ought to consider working to lessen the mandatory nature of such systems by big corporations.

The problem with the car tracker stuff is that very good drivers would be punished because often the speed limit is not set to actual driving hazards but by other legal factors. But often the flow of traffic is above 65 mph, and it is disruptive to traffic to have people in the middle or fast lanes driving at the strict speed limit.

@zenvelo Credit scores don’t track your non-financial activities. Credit scores also are tied to a person rather than a vehicle; SSNs and signatures are far less likely to be shared.

Or are you saying that a modern economy means zero privacy and renouncing Constitutional rights? I’m not paying for how my buddies drive, and I sure as hell won’t let my car insurance company access my phone; a device with a camera that I bring into my bedroom. If you claim they will only use it to track speed then you are too naive for me to treat as an adult, especially in this era of information sharing. Maybe I don’t want my location known to anybody who slips my insurance company a few dollars.

@jerv Constitutional rights apply to your freedom from government intrusion. Whether that is being intruded upon is a different discussion. You have no Constitutional right to intrusion form someone you are paying to assess you as a risk.

The car tracker stuff is like a black box for an airplane. It tracks your speed and where you go to verify statements you made. So if you put down that you only drove 6,000 miles a year, but the box records 2,000 miles a month, you get busted. If you say you take public transit to work instead of your car, but the data recorder has you going into the office everyday, busted.

But that is not “zero privacy” and your car insurance doesn’t care fig if your phone is in your bedroom, they only care if they see it active while you are driving.

I am not in favor of car data recorders, and will not have one on a car I own. But let’s keep the reactions germane to the issue at hand.

@zenvelo If they wish to install a cellphone sensor at their expense that can differentiate between texting/calling and thedata ttransmission that comes from using the phone as a GPS/radio then fine. My issue really is that they have no way of getting the information that they have a right to know without gaining access to information that they don’t.

Also, your implication that corporations have rights that we specifically and explicitly deny government is, at best, ominous, but that is a separate discussion.

@zenvelo I do work. But only if I want to.

I can see insurance companies requiring a monitoring device in the future – if you refuse, they deny you insurance. I’m not sure how I feel about it. I would probably drive better if I had it, but I could imagine it being used to make assumptions not related to pure driving, that might be shady. For example, if you stay out late on Friday and Saturdays, will there be an assumption about drinking and driving? Will church goers get a discount? They give discounts to college grads, so this kind of stuff is possible, right?

@Gabby101 Yes, all of this new demographic capability is already here, and I dread to think about what the future will bring .

As we speak, insurance company executives are sitting around conference rooms, stroking their chins and considering how to best to insert another blood-sucking needle into the bank accounts of the masses…..

@Gabby101 Technically possible, but the very practices you mention would cause all sorts of problems ranging from legal battles that would cut into the profit margins to people saying, “fuck insurance!” and driving uninsured (which would lead to a whole other set of problems that would cause ripple effects throughout the economy as medical bills go unpaid….) so it’s one of those things that would cause so many more problems than it’s worth that I don’t see it becoming mandatory.

As for incentivizing monitoring to where it becomes practically mandatory, well, that would merely lead to more uninsured motorists. Then again, since insurance companies would rather have more money than less money, they will either avoid that discrimination, or go out of business.