[zimzam]

I know someone who's an actuary, and the reality is much simpler: people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits.

It gives the insurance company a way to identify a lower risk group of drivers so they can charge that group lower prices.

[SoftTalker]

IDK. I've declined the tracking with State Farm, and I drive pretty conservatively. I might speed by 5mph or so but I really try to watch traffic and minimize my need to accelerate/brake as it does result in better fuel economy (and saves wear on the brakes). The MPG on my cars absolutely drops by 2-3 MPG when my kids are driving. I just reject the tracking on principle. There's too much incentive for the companies to monitize this data once they have it, and most of us know that really anonymizing data can be quite difficult.

[JohnFen]

I'm the same.

But it's not hard to see how nearly 100% of people who drive recklessly would avoid such programs, but less than 100% of good drivers would.

The statistical skew makes sense to me. I doubt that insurance companies are assuming that every driver who doesn't take part in such program are bad drivers, but insurance is purely a game of statistics.

[LeafItAlone]

> people who consent to tracking tend to be safer drivers because they aren't afraid of the insurance company seeing their driving habits

Is that true? The handful people I know who have/had these devices are definitely wouldn’t fit that category. And most removed it after a while because their premiums went back up (because of their driving). They just chose it because it offered cheaper rates and they all said the companies promised it would not raise rates above what they were already paying. So it was a “what do I have to lose” decision.

Obviously anecdotes aren’t data. I think it makes sense that the drivers that are egregiously unsafe (and know it) will avoid them. But it would take seeing actual data to make it clear to me that the majority of people who consent are safer drivers.

[incone123]

That seems to support the point you replied to. You point to a group of people who opted out of monitoring and exhibited risky driving behavior, leaving leaving lower risk people in the monitored group

[LeafItAlone]

They all consented, initially. The insurance companies got the data they need.

[MichaelZuo]

The people who stay in the plan are the low risk group, obviously there will be some percentage of churn in the first year.

[imtringued]

The problem with this tracking nonsense is that it doesn't change anything. The business model is still the same. Unless the insurance company pays out less claims there won't be any savings.

[LeafItAlone]

For the members, probably not. But if the insurance companies can more accurate determine who not to cover, they can see huge savings in payouts. That’s why they already have teams of actuaries determine rates based on the data they do have. They just want more specific data.