Romeo Chicco’s auto insurance rate doubled because of information about his speeding, braking and acceleration, according to his complaint.

  • init@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    This is a tough one for me. I’m pro-privacy, but I’m also pro-sane driving habits.

    EDIT: Thanks for the replies and some constructive DMs. You brought up a lot of things I needed to consider that my lighthearted comment and thoughts behind it ignored. Privacy is and should be a fundamental right. This comes before the right to drive aggressively or defensively. Privacy should be non-negotiable.

    I’m going to leave this comment up because I believe it is a teachable moment. I have reevaluated my position, and I am wrong. Thanks for the thoughtful replies.

    • dsemy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      3 months ago

      Corporations shouldn’t get to decide if you’re a sane driver.

      • capital@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        26
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I’d like to see this guys report vs mine before deciding.

        Edit: uh oh, shitty drivers detected.

        • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nah just people that understand that the insurance companies will do everything to optimise profits over everything, using any excuse they can.

          Heuristics like this will squeeze pennies out of middle earners and be gentle to the more “competitive” customers, that can afford not driving or going to a competitor.

          • BlitzoTheOisSilent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            Yep, I/my car was involved in 3 accidents over the course of 2 years almost a decade ago. First I was rear-ended, second someone turned into me cause they were in the wrong lane, and the final one I wasn’t even in the car, it was parked in the city I lived in and was one of 7 cars that were hit during a police pursuit.

            That last accident, I had the same insurance company as the guy who was evading police. When I called to file a claim, the woman told me, “Well… We’re not sure we’ll be able to offer compensation, as your vehicle is one of seven involved, and the driver’s insurance only covers XYZ amount, so we may need to put it under your policy.” I told them absolutely not, it was not my problem that they willfully insured a criminal, and that I had been a customer for 5+ years, never missed a payment, and did absolutely nothing wrong in this situation. She still pushed, and I told her if that was the route they wanted to go, she could cancel my policy that minute, and suddenly it turned into “Well, let’s see what we can do.”

            Fuck insurance companies, all of them, literally all of them. They also initially refused to give me my check for that last accident, as the guy at the counter told me, “Well, you have a lien on the vehicle, so we should really be sending this to your bank so they can tell you when/where they want the repairs made.” I responded, “Well, that sounds like a conversation I need to have with my bank, and since the loan is between myself and them, I don’t really understand what business it is of yours, now I’ll take my check please.”

            They recently upped my rates because I moved 1.7 miles away from my old address, which was in a different zip code, and just thinking about all this makes me want to look into leaving them for another company.

            God I hate insurance companies.

            • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Yeah you are a “flight risk” customer or you have other data points that make them think you are worth offering a lower premium.

                • bane_killgrind@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  No? There’s a minimum base price that you would be charged.

                  Remember, this is a profitability equation, not a risk assessment. Wearing a Pope hat doesn’t make you the Pope.

                  • capital@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 months ago

                    I think it does. Seeing as my record is good, thereby making it easier for me to shop around and get a lower price. I think it’s pretty straightforward.

                    Someone who pays their premiums and doesn’t get in accidents is profitable.

                    But again, I don’t know all this to the true - I’d like to see his report vs mine.

                • cqthca@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  I know my credit score has something to do with it, for some reason. I’ve talked to an insurance actuarial and they use that in their premium formula.

                  e. as my credit score went +100 pts my insurance went down, co-incidentally? Liability only, so it isn’t depreciation of the asset. If anything, on average, an older car would be more dangerous, more liable to have the wheel fall off and collide with a Bentley or something.

        • JJLinux@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m a pretty shitty driver, and I pay almost nothing on insurance. But I do live in a third world country, so we get to just cut connections on new data glutton cars, and nobody cares. Plus, any small car damage, we go to a friend’s body shop, and fix it for a couple of hundred dollars, the insurance companies have no way of finding out.

    • okamiueru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      ·
      3 months ago

      Am I too European to understand this?

      Out of all the things and ways “driving could be more sane”, you think the sale of your data to for-profit, private, third parties… will somehow be for the common good?

      • Jarix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don’t like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a “while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it.”

        They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.

        That’s how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.

        They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.

        They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy…and that it may just work

        I’m making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I’ve just said

        • Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          It’s complete speculation but I would think that paying more for insurance would be more likely to make you a worse driver than a better one. Having a crash is probably the only way you’ll actually get anything back out of the insurer!

          It would be better to just ban people outright or do what they do in France which is to allow people to only to drive a ‘sans-permis’, which is a tiny car, limited to 30 mph.

            • AnAngryAlpaca@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Skinner.meme: “Should we build sensible, small cars that are cheap to buy and drive, dont support speeding, need little parking space and prevent horrific high speed crashes? - No, it would hurt the economy and my penis would fall of driving something with less than 400HP that dosn’t make vroom-vroom noises!”

              • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                Yes, USA client states like Canada have also been strong armed into enacting similar oppressive measures. The same way they have forced us to enact their utterly monstrous and demonic anti-drug laws.

                Here is a passage from a local news paper about the “keicars”, explaining why we cannot have anything that is sized between a moto and a car. They are using bullshit “for safety” justifications of course. Whatever works as usual.

                " Ils ne sont pas conformes aux normes de sécurité des véhicules automobiles du Canada (NSVAC) applicables. «La Loi sur la sécurité automobile et le Règlement sur la sécurité des véhicules automobiles exigent qu’à la date d’importation, tout véhicule importé au Canada soit conforme aux NSVAC applicables en vigueur à la date de sa fabrication. Les véhicules fabriqués pour la vente dans des pays autres que le Canada et les États-Unis ne sont pas conformes aux exigences de la Loi sur la sécurité automobile du Canada, ne peuvent pas être modifiés pour les rendre conformes et ne peuvent pas être importés au Canada», explique Maryse Durette, porte-parole de Transports Canada."

                Here it is translated in english

                “They are not in compliance with the applicable Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS). “The Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations require that, at the date of importation, any vehicle imported into Canada must comply with the applicable CMVSS in force at the date of its manufacture. Vehicles manufactured for sale in countries other than Canada and the United States do not meet the requirements of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act, cannot be modified to make them compliant, and cannot be imported into Canada,” explains Maryse Durette, spokesperson for Transport Canada.”

                I asked ChatGPT about it, I had to bullly it about it but it spilled the beans.

                If we strip away the more complex layers of context and focus solely on the more critical viewpoints regarding the absence or restriction of smaller vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canada, a more direct analysis might suggest a few key motives:

                Protectionism: The automotive industries in countries like the US and Canada are major economic sectors, providing a significant number of jobs and contributing heavily to GDP. Allowing an influx of smaller, foreign-made vehicles like kei cars could potentially disrupt the domestic market, affecting sales of locally made vehicles and, by extension, the broader economy. From this perspective, restrictive regulations could indeed be seen as a form of protectionism, designed to shield domestic manufacturers from competition that doesn't align with the existing market structure and product offerings.
                
                Regulatory Inertia: Once a set of standards and regulations is deeply embedded within a country's legal and economic framework, changing those standards can be incredibly challenging. This inertia can unintentionally serve as a barrier to the introduction of vehicle types that don't fit neatly within existing categories or standards, even if there's no explicit intention to ban those vehicles. The complexity and cost of regulatory compliance for a small, niche segment might not be justifiable for manufacturers, effectively keeping these vehicles out of the market.
                
                Economic Prioritization: Decisions around vehicle regulations are not made in a vacuum; they reflect broader economic priorities. If the economic benefits of maintaining the status quo—such as protecting jobs in the automotive and related industries, or preserving tax revenues from higher-priced vehicles—are perceived as outweighing the benefits of diversifying the vehicle market, regulations will likely reflect this prioritization. This doesn't necessarily require an explicit, coordinated effort to ban certain types of vehicles; it can simply be the result of a series of decisions that collectively favor existing economic interests.
                
                Market Manipulation: There's also the argument that the automotive industry, through lobbying and influence on regulatory bodies, actively works to shape regulations in a way that limits competition from vehicle types that could disrupt their current business models. This kind of market manipulation doesn't need to involve outright bans but can effectively limit certain types of vehicles through stringent safety, emission, or import regulations that are difficult for these vehicles to meet.
                

                In conclusion, while there might not be a single, nefarious ulterior motive behind the absence of vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canadian markets, the combination of economic protectionism, regulatory inertia, economic prioritization, and potential market manipulation by entrenched interests could collectively create an environment where only certain types of vehicles are viable. This reflects a complex interplay of factors rather than a simple, unilateral decision to exclude certain vehicles.

        • cqthca@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          they’ll probably mandate the thing the insurance companies want to put into the car. I’d save money as a good driver, but it doesn’t taste right.

      • cqthca@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        do the police have this system for each car, link it to when the siren is off. I see a lot of shenanigans goings on

        If it is an actual emergency go ahead and speed mr policeman, but you trying to get home early doesn’t mean you can drive 95. - The Public.

    • Zanz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      After investigating the vehicle calls every event that you use the brakes over 5 miles an hour a heartbreaking event. If you have the region turned off or set to low it still does it.

    • JJLinux@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      And just because I think people that are brave enough to reevaluate their stand points are awesome, I’m following you (not stalking🤣) on Lemmy moving forward.

      I genuinely hope there were more people like you.

      Edit: I had no idea I could not follow people here. That goes to show how ignorant I am 🤣🤣🤣.