Thread: Someone explain this to me.

Imagine if the IRS sent every American a letter. It said at your option we will send you a device which you will plug into your car and it will record your speed and braking and steering habits and then you will send it back to us and if we approve of the data we will give you a discount of 10% every time you fill up your tank with gas.

Do you think folks would get riled up over that? They sure would. Intrusive over reaching govt. What will they do with the data etc, etc.

So why does a private Insurance outfit do that very thing and folks seem to think it's great?

i seen that nad i dont like it i was offered 100$ by penn state university to let them wire up my 84 ford (my baby) and let them record my every move for 3 months so they could do a studie about teenagers driving habits. i told them no way. i dont want people monotoring me everytime i press the clutch to grab another gear. its just to invading in my openion and for 100 it wasent worth it.

when i went to the dmv to get my learners permit there was a group there that was trying to get 500 people to sign up for this. i dident want any part of it.

I was unaware of this but I wouldn't think it's great.

By the way, how a problem is framed has a great deal to do with how people perceive it. Framing correctly places issues in perspective. I think that's what you did here.

I don't see what the problem is if it's optional as most people's driving routes are public knowledge anyway.

I wouldn't sign up for it but in no way do I think it's overreaching regardless of whether it was the IRS or an insurance company. Make it mandatory and that changes everything, but giving discounts in exchange for voluntarily-provided personal data has been around for as long as I can remember in one form or another.

I have seen the commercial I think it is sick. To me there is no difference between big intrusive govt and big intrusive corporations. The corporations are a little more subtle and use positive "marketing techniques" to gain voluntary behavior whereas the government hasn't any tact and the IRS is especially distrusted.

The biggest issue I see is the real reason for the gadget. It is marketed as something to record your "safe" driving habits to receive discounts. The truth is more like data they can use to raise your rates. If some yo-yo pulls out in front of you and you slam on your brakes, swerve, and accelerate to avoid traffic, you avoided a crash. You are an alert, safe driver. However, they will look at the data and see you are an erratic, aggressive driver. Therefore, your rates must go up.
Because it is a company's policy and not the government's law, I don't have too much of a problem with it. I don't like it or want one. Therefore, I choose not to do business with them and will do business with a different company. That is how the free market works.

To add to the above post: It is simply impossible to obey traffic laws in some cities, if you don't go with the flow of traffic, no matter what the speeds or local customs you will be the traffic hazard or the endangered.

Data on itineraries are valuable. Can be sold. Suppose they find out that a higher than average proportion of Cadillac drivers uses a certain stretch of Highway X. GM or Ford will be willing to pay for that information to know where they want to put up billboards and where not.

Originally Posted by milehiscott

Because it is a company's policy and not the government's law, I don't have too much of a problem with it. I don't like it or want one. Therefore, I choose not to do business with them and will do business with a different company. That is how the free market works.

This idea breaks down when there are few companies competing with each other.

Will I have to stop farting while I drive?