[mc32]

It’s still unknown if someone engaging in risk will end up in costly collisions, or other events. Just because you engage in risk doesn’t mean it will bite you, only that it is more likely to bite you.

Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier drivers?

[toss1]

If they have an ACTUAL measure of lower skilled and higher risk drivers, fine.

But when they use overly simplistic data (or use it in an oversimplified way) that makes the highest-skilled drivers appear in the same batch as low-skilled and high-risk drivers, that is not subsidy, it is unfair penalization by stupidity.

(see other comment on logging of g-forces)

[giantg2]

"Besides why should less risky drivers subsidize riskier drivers?"

They essentially do. If the safe drivers are never at fault, those premiums went somewhere. If the risky, repeat accident drivers aren't paying thr full price replacement vehicles, that money came from somewhere.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

You are right but what matters is disclosure.

Here is a car that sells your driving data. Here is one that won't

If you knew they were selling your data you could objectively demand a discount from one of the 2 .