Comment by toss1
1 year ago
The worst thing about this is that all of their conclusions about what data constitutes "bad driving" or "risky driving" is dead wrong.
The signs they consider to be "bad driving" are high-g braking and turning.
Yet these are EXACTLY the same signs created by highly-skilled driver or racer operating at the limit, as they would to avoid an accident (thus costing the insurer $0), where the same situation would catch 90% of the low-g drivers into a wreck that totals the vehicle and causes injuries. A core element of high-performance driving for accident avoidance and racing is to understand the limits of tyre traction, and how to operate the car up to those limits — but not over them — i.e., just under the limit of sliding (sliding friction is always less than static or rolling friction), and to choose lines that maximize available traction.
Distinguishing the signs to tell a high-skilled driver from a bad driver requires more than just "is that number high?". You must look at the circumstances, the frequency, the conditions, the rate of increase and decrease of pressure, the slip angle, the grip state of all 4 tires, and more. But of course, no one bothers to do this.
It is the same kind of institutional stupidity that causes a world-class weightlifter with 4% body fat to be classed as "obese" because s/he scores high on the stupidly simplistic BMI scale(a ratio of weight to height).
Except with BMI insurance companies are not allowed to re-rate people and doctors can instantly adjust treatment when they see the person is obviously not obese but highly trained.
With auto insurance, they can secretly re-rate us on bogus numbers that actually down-rate the highly skilled.
Seems more attractive with every passing year to rebuild older nice cars than get into the new rolling spyware contraptions.
Well, if one is stupid enough to get a race car with telemetry then the spying is deserved. The skill level is irrelevant insurance-wise, as it doesn't last, varies within the day, and is of no use on open, shared streets.
Now the dream car will soon be an electrified lada niva, no electronics, speeding impossible.
Who said anything about racecar telemetry?
You do realize that wheel speed sensors and g-force sensors are already standard equipment in most cars, and that this is part of the data they are selling, right?
Electrified Lada Niva, eh? Depending on how it's electrified, it might go waaayy faster than would be sane... ;-)
I'm skeptical of this argument. I don't want to be on the same road with people who self identity as expert drivers going at the limit.
I completely agree.
My example is NOT about "self identified" "experts", but REAL experts who ACTUALLY have the skills. They also are typically very safe on the roads and know that race-like on-the-limit driving on the streets is idiocy.
The point is that people who ACTUALLY have these skills have a far wider margin of safety than the ordinary driver, and far better capability to avoid accidents. But, they will also — with that far wider margin of safety — often turn or brake with higher than ordinary G-forces.
For example, ordinary street tires and suspensions on modern cars can handle 0.9G lateral or braking acceleration. Ordinary people get uncomfortable at 0.2G lateral acceleration.
An unskilled driver approaching 0.25G lateral acceleration does risk exceeding adhesion limits and losing control because they are insensitive to inputs and feedback. In contrast, a skilled driver can turn at 0.25G all day with virtually no risk, as they are accustomed to driving at 3-4 times those Gs, and are situationally aware, sensitive to inputs and feedback, and choose lines and inputs that avoid the limit.
They are far less of a risk than an unskilled driver at 0.1G. Yet, the skilled driver will get flagged as "bad".
With deeper understanding and analysis, they could make the distinction between actual expert drivers vs overconfident idiots. But I see no indication that this will happen.