Comment by xnx
1 year ago
As a safe driver, I like the idea of dangerous drivers paying more. There's no good reason the participants should not be aware they are under surveillance though.
Sidenote: I wonder if they've considered close follow distance or frequent lane changes as a risk factor.
Spot enforcement with appropriate training and vehicle improvements is more than appropriate for numerous reasons: 1) Regression to the mean will happen with 100% enforcement/over-enforcement. The new standard for 'safe' will collapse to an unobtainable level which will not benefit society in the long run. 2) Safety is not my #1 concern. The number one cause of death on roads is being born. I value getting to my destination without being tracked more than the potential safety gains of strict monitoring. I believe in rational safety measures but "It's safer so we must do it" is an argument I no longer accept. I want to live a good life, not just a safe one. 3) We have seen time and time again that personal information collected by companies rarely benefits consumers and instead is always used to benefit companies. This is no different. I have negative trust in industry handling my data for my benefit.
The idea of dangerous drivers paying more for insurance is fine. It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad credit paying more for insurance.
The problem is in how is dangerous driving assessed. Simple to apply rules lack the understanding of conditions. Telematics are going to be low bandwidth data, almost certainly without enough data to form an understanding of conditions.
> It's probably better than the idea of drivers with bad credit paying more for insurance.
There must be some correlation between bad credit and likelihood to be in a collision.
There is a better correlation between dangerous driver and likelihood to be in a collision.
1 reply →
The thing that’s somewhat ironic here is that the car companies could make cars safe by default. For example, they could make it not possible to accelerate faster than one needs to. They could put in speed limiters that are triggered by the speed limit on the road. They could stop marketing and selling over powered cars.
Instead they market cars as exciting race track like vehicles, things that let you do what you want, when you want. And now they will collect data on the people who actually do that.
Personally I would prefer a car that helps me be a safer driver by following the law. Ensuring there are no pedestrians or cyclists in front of me, etc. But at the end of the day, automated enforcement is a good thing, so maybe this will help some people become safer drivers, though the reality that’s probably more likely is that fewer and fewer people will be able to afford/get insurance, and because our country is so car dependent, they will just drive without.
> For example, they could make it not possible to accelerate faster than one needs to.
I was in a rental car that had this once. Was on the highway, needed to get around another driver who was being unsafe. Was unable to do so because of the limiter. It was easily the most unsafe vehicle I've ever driven as a result. These mechanisms lack situational awareness and nuance, and thus are a direct threat to my personal safety. They very much need to be banned as a matter of course until such a time as humans aren't allowed to drive at all.
The problem though is that inevitably they will eventually automatically label anyone who does not "consent" to total surveillance as risky or dangerous.
Its telling how you phrase this.
If it's so telling then tell us, enough with the dark innuendos!
Appearing "safe" via slow speeds and slow turns does not equal "safe" in the real world.
Unless the car has cameras staring at you, it doesn't know if you're checking your mirrors before lane-changes, going 10-under the limit in the far left lane on a busy highway, etc.
Even then, cameras aren't good because assuming people are telling the truth when they use test-taking software, there are false positives that have to be manually-reviewed by proctors when the computer thinks you're looking in the wrong place.
(Edit: it also doesn't know if your mirrors are positioned properly so you do not have a "blindspot". In every modern vehicle I've driven, it is possible to set the mirrors so you can continuously see cars in the left or right lane next you - from the rearview mirror to the sideview mirror to the side glass. Hint, if you can see the side of your own vehicle in your sideview mirror: it is set improperly.)
---
> frequent lane changes as a risk factor.
People not willing to change lanes is how you get more traffic and more dangerous driving overall. Traffic should stay right unless passing - which means once someone is done passing, they also need to move to the right. People crusing in the left lane is how backups happen and people trying to make more dangerous lane-changes to pass on the right. Less lane changes would be a bad thing to incentivise.
If more people used cruise control in general, that might help (don't know if any studies have been done about that). As it is now, most people's speeds ebb and flow and that causes traffic, especially when they either consciously or subconscious try to speed up to match someone trying to pass them, or whether it's curves, hills, narrower lanes due to automated tollbooths, bridges, etc.
1 reply →