[ams6110]

The latest insurance "incentive" is a tracking device in your car that tracks when and where you drive, how fast, how hard you corner and stop, etc.

I've declined this but expect that insurers will push for it to become mandatory. They would love to be able to charge unsafe drivers more money, and in the abstract I don't have a problem with that, but the tracking is creepy.

[toyg]

No no no, they would love to charge everyone more until they prove to be safe drivers — ready to withdraw the discount at the first doubt.

This is why I am not going to get one, nor a “smart” water or electricity meter: give more data to corporations, and you can be sure that they will use it against you.

[Terr_]

Or to put a combative point on it: "How much money do I get when you abuse this data for any purpose other than your exclusive safety metrics?"

[mulmen]

This is an idea that I do not see getting enough attention. “Big Data” has a lot of possible benefits but only if companies collect limited and relevant data. I’m comfortable telling my insurance company where and how I drive as long as they cannot share that or combine it with any other data.

[Scoundreller]

Wait until your insurance suspends their coverage for 24 hours because the road conditions aren’t meeting their requirements, or you didn’t evacuate quickly enough, or there’s a forest fire nearby.

[Rebelgecko]

I think in California it's illegal for insurance to put in a black box that measures anything other than total # of miles driven.

[mulmen]

Does the mileage number have to be accurate in terms of wheel rotations? Can a hard braking event add miles? Is miles just an abstract representation of risk?