There was an interesting question posed in the New York Times today: "Would you let your insurance company electronically monitor your driving if you knew it might result in a discount?"
In plain terms, a black box in your car would monitor a bunch of different variables to determine what sort of risk factor you present (ultimately letting insurance companies know how much to charge you).
The box would be recording "not only how many miles [people] drive, but how they drive those miles." Other factors would include miles per year, acceleration/deceleration, how aggressively/defensively the car is driven, and where (if GPS-equipped).
In the black boxes' defense, insurance companies "could charge more fairly than the current method, which relies on drivers to report risk factors, like how many miles a year they drive, themselves." But what about this: "For instance, drivers who commute during rush hour are greater risk than those who drive when the roads are clear." So now people are paying to get to work on time? I think not.
While the privacy debate rages on, people should know that this technology has already been implemented by insurance companies (Progressive has used it since 2004) and that its costs are getting much more affordable ($175-250 versus $500-1000 per car).
According to Richard Hutchinson, a GM for Progressive's usage-based plans, one way of letting people try the program includes "[setting] a driver's rate based on the standard formula and then give them a monitor with the promise that their rate won't go up, but careful driving could result in a discount."
That's a lot of trust in an insurance company's "promise". Even if you could regulate such vows, is it worth having big brother as a backseat driver to save a buck? Voice your opinion in the comments section below.
- By Phil Alex
Via: NYTimes
