Comment by techdmn
1 year ago
My biggest concern is that rather than comparing difficult to identify behavior against claim rates, they will penalize behavior that is easy to identify. For example, yesterday I was traveling 15 MPH over the speed limit on a multi-line highway where traffic is often traveling 10+ MPH over the limit (the limit is objectively wrong for a divided, grade separated, access controlled highway). I typically drive as far right as I can to make room for faster vehicles, but eventually got stuck behind someone camping in the left lane. When opportunity presented itself I went around them in the center lane. They expressed anger at this by encroaching into my lane to squeeze me against traffic in the right lane. There were four inches between their vehicle and my side mirror. Who is driving dangerously, and more likely to cause an accident? I would argue it's the driver who is obstructing traffic and behaving aggressively toward others on the road. But if GPS isn't accurate enough to show their lane deviation, it's a lot easier to ding me for my speed.
Making it easier to determine who's at fault in cases like you mentioned would involve more sensors, radars, cameras etc. So we either 1984-ify everyones car or we just don't do any monitoring at all (since half-assing it can lead to false positives). I have a feeling insurance companies (and therefore governments) will slide more towards the 1984 side to save a couple dollars.
Insurance companies don’t have to, people are voluntarily installing dash cams to show who was at fault (or at least show they were not). Chances are, someone is recording your collision, and you might as well have your evidence to fight against someone else’s.