[close04]

> leave them on the (virtual) shelves

That's easy today because this option is unpopular. But look back and see how many things we (as entire populations, not necessarily individuals) starting accepting that was unfathomable a couple of decades ago.

Without strong government intervention we may end up at the point where you can take it or forfeit the insurance.

[wmeredith]

This is what I see coming as the mega corps eat our society alongside software. Look at the regulatory capture the telcos have managed with their negotiated service area monopolies or duopolies. It’s easy to say “buy something else” until there’s nothing else to buy and the product is a requirement for functioning in society (insurance, internet connectivity, healthcare). We need trust busting candidates now.

[jrockway]

I don't think trust busting can make the telco problem go away. You can punish someone for their past wrongdoings, but that doesn't necessarily incentivize anyone to become an ISP after the fact. You have to look at how we invest in infrastructure instead. In most of the country, ISPs are responsible for building their own infrastructure; they have to either dig up streets or beg the local power company for pole access. If they didn't have to do that, many more companies would be interested in being ISPs. As it stands right now, it's too expensive and too risky. Sure, being an ISP is 95% profit once you've paid for the infrastructure, but the payoff period is many decades. Nobody has that risk appetite anymore.

In Manhattan, under every street is a subway where you can put power cables, fiber optic cables, etc. The result is that there are a multitude of business ISPs around, because someone already dug a hole in the ground where their cables can go. The actual stringing of cables is a straightforward procedure; sure you need to buy trucks and cables, but that's a lot cheaper than saying "hey we're closing 5th Ave. for 3 months" and digging the whole thing up. The street was dug up once (in 1891!), and now nobody has to do it again. (OK, the tunnels are pretty full, but it's better than nothing.)

If every street were built like this, it is likely that there would be many more ISPs. The big risks are gone. (There is a secondary problem in that many people still like linear TV, and many TV networks are owned by companies that are also ISPs. AT&T owns HBO. Comcast owns NBC. So that would be the sticking point after there is infrastructure, and sure... have the government break them up. They'll probably be dead long before we have the infrastructure, though.)

The short term solution is probably to invest in better trenching techniques. I've heard of microtrenches, nanotrenches, and picotrenches. Maybe we need femototrenches where you just run a fiber to someone's house through their lawn and cover it up with tape where it crosses the sidewalk. It's better than nothing. But probably still too risky for anyone to attempt.

[spockz]

Here in the Netherlands I see a tracking device for cars becoming popular. It is being marketed as a device to get early insights in car breakdown oh and btw you get a 10-20% discount on the insurance fee. That could amount to €40 a month which is a big incentive for people. Sometimes there are even additional insurance discounts when the accelerator has detected a gentle driving style.

[lotsofpulp]

Why should a gentle driver subsidize aggressive drivers? Why should a person that has a healthy diet and does regular cardiovascular exercise subsidize someone who doesn’t? Should someone that drinks only water subsidize those who regularly drink carbonated sugary or alcoholic drinks?

With more data, it’s possible to see how much certain lifestyles subsidize others, so it will be interesting what society deems eligible for subsidies and not.

[drewcon]

You just described exactly how insurance actually works. I don’t really want to live in a world where the higher risk people are MORE disincentivized from being able to secure insurance by eliminating “subsidies” because of their behavior. Insurers need more of lower risk people to subsidize higher risk people (or events) otherwise the whole thing simply doesn’t work.

[lotsofpulp]

As an insured, insurance is to protect yourself from an unknown randomly distributed loss that you can’t afford.

As an insurer, you can afford to insure if the losses occur within the assumed probability distribution and loss magnitude parameters.

In the case of auto (or driving) insurance, it is known that driving aggressively will cause more collisions hence more losses. Therefore, any insurance company not taking this knowledge into account will have uncompetitive premiums compared to another insurance company that is. Insurance only doesn’t work in this case for people who choose to drive aggressively.

A more contentious point would be people living in poor areas having to pay more for insurance due to more property crime in poorer areas. It’s easy to say someone who drives recklessly chooses to and should suffer the consequences, but what about someone who happened to be born to poorer parents?

In the case of healthcare, there are a few known factors that make many chronic health events not random, such as bad diet, lack of excercise, and bad genes. A broken arm might be a sufficiently random event, but what should society do about the non random health losses? What if you were born to poor parents and never had much of a chance to make it so you had a job schedule that allowed you a routine to workout regularly? Or time to cook healthy foods? Or you don’t make enough money to live near grocery stores that sell nutritious foods?

But then at least 70% of Americans are fat. And I see them voluntarily buying large containers of sugar water multiple times a week. Why should I have to pay for their diabetes? Same for a smoker or an alcohol drinker?

It’s a nuanced topic that makes me wonder what freedom is and how much freedom can cost. Am I restricting freedom by not wanting to pay for others’ actions known to cause certain losses? Should people be restricted from certain actions if they can’t afford the losses, therefore restricting their freedom? Can they even be restricted, logistically?

[rconti]

How do you know that more aggressive driving causes more collisions?

How do you know which accelerometer-measured[1] parameters correlate with aggressive driving? High speeds? Abrupt acceleration? Hard acceleration? Abrupt braking? Hard braking? Late braking (how do you know the difference?) High lateral cornering loads? How are these differentiated from abrupt lane changes? Does the dongle know if you used your signal or not?

Studies show that driving late at night is far riskier than driving during daytime; due to visibility, alcohol, etc. Lots of late night trips? Time to punish that graveyard shift ER doctor for driving her car at such risky times!

1. Presumably most of these OBD-II dongles really only use accelerometer data to report back, even though they have access to more data if they want it, and if they're programmed to understand every model of vehicle

[lotsofpulp]

> How do you know that more aggressive driving causes more collisions?

I don’t, but insurance companies employ some pretty smart people who can figure that out. If they offer discounts for certain driving characteristics, I’m willing to bet that they reduce the insurer’s expenses. Otherwise they won’t be in business for long.

[close04]

> insurance is to protect yourself from an unknown randomly distributed loss

But when randomly distributed loss hits you'll surely expect to be subsidized by others who somehow weren't affected by this despite their aggressive driving, or bad diet, etc.

> bad diet, lack of excercise, and bad genes

Now imagine the fun times when your insurer decides which one they can use to screw you over and how badly.

Sure, I get your point but it's buried in a mountain of nuance that makes the "straight forward logic" meaningless. The insurance industry doesn't need yet more ways to screw people over, or give the people who need it most an even bigger middle finger and hang them out to dry.

[ghaff]

>A more contentious point would be people living in poor areas having to pay more for insurance due to more property crime in poorer areas. It’s easy to say someone who drives recklessly chooses to and should suffer the consequences, but what about someone who happened to be born to poorer parents?

This already happens of course. Auto insurance (and I assume other property insurance) varies based on where your auto is garaged (by a lot).I live in an exurban town. I assume my insurance would be 2x-3x is I lived in Boston.

[elliekelly]

I’m more than willing to subsidize the more aggressive drivers in order to maintain my privacy. Joe Schmoe gets slightly cheaper car insurance than he “deserves” and my driving habits are known only to me. That’s a win-win for everyone except the insurance companies who want to collect data about our habits and monetize it to pad the bottom line.

[mdemare]

When aggressive drivers pay more than gentle drivers, that creates an incentive for aggressive drivers to drive more gently. Some of them will, and that in turn will save lives, not just money.