OT: Car manufacturers are sharing your driving data with insurance companies...

[Louis]

Originally Posted by unterhausen

I'm a very, very good driver.

In this regard, we all live in Lake Wobegon.

[verticaldoug]

Originally Posted by Peter P.

Speaking of data sharing, there might be some benefit to all of us.

To drivers who go habitually drive recklessly or fast, once you associate your high premiums with your driving habits, perhaps you'll tame your driving.

What I predict will happen is, insurance companies will offer the "potential" of lower premiums if data is shared or if chosen to opt out, premiums will be extremely higher, forcing drivers to opt in.

I doubt it. The result will be more uninsured reckless drivers. A part of me thinks a person who has their license revoked, should have their car confiscated, sold and given the proceeds. It should be against the law to sell a car to someone without a valid license. If you sell a car for someone without a valid license, you should be held liable. Same for companies with drivers.
I think license renewals should happen at shorter intervals as we age. Cognitive and physical declines can happen quickly, and 10 years is much too long for an 80 year old not to be retested.

A car is a transportation device until in the hands of someone incapable of operating it, then it is a dangerous weapon.

It sounds a bit like the nanny state, but if you want to stop a lot of needless death, it is the way. Otherwise admit you are willing to accept a high number of people being killed yearly by impaired, wreckless, dangerous drivers.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Louis

I always thought that older drivers were considered safer than younger ones. Are they implying that it's a U-shaped risk curve, or were just saying that as an excuse to extract more $$$ from you no matter what your record was?

According to the data from the National Safety Council, the highest crash rates per 100,000 licensed drivers are for drivers between 16-19 years old. The number of crashes per 100,00 licensed drivers then decreases by driver age after that, with the exception that the number of fatal accidents per 100,000 licensed drivers increases for drivers over 75 years old.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

I doubt it. The result will be more uninsured reckless drivers. A part of me thinks a person who has their license revoked, should have their car confiscated, sold and given the proceeds. It should be against the law to sell a car to someone without a valid license. If you sell a car for someone without a valid license, you should be held liable. Same for companies with drivers.

These measures are not likely to work, for a variety of reasons. Mostly because even if there were such laws, there are lots of ways around them. For example, if there is a family member with a revoked or suspended license, then they could just drive a car that is registered to another family member (this kind of thing happens all the time). Here in Massachusetts, a car owner has to show proof of insurance in order to register a car. So if a family member has a suspended license, the family member registering the car would simply not include that suspended driver on the insurance.

I have a friend that was hit by an unlicensed driver. Fortunately my friend had only minor injuries, but her bike (a Specialized Ruby, which cost a few thousand dollars) was destroyed. The car was owned, registered and insured by the driver's wife. When my friend tried to file a claim to replace her destroyed bike, the insurance company wouldn't pay, because the insured party (the wife) says that the driver didn't have permission to use the car, so the driver wasn't covered by insurance. The driver had little assets of his own, so there was little chance of collecting if the driver was sued directly.

[verticaldoug]

(New York Times) -- G.M. had provided information about braking, acceleration
and speed to LexisNexis Risk Solution and Verisk, firms that generated driver
risk profiles for insurers.

General Motors said Friday that it had stopped sharing details about how
people drove its cars with two data brokers that created risk profiles for the
insurance industry.

The decision followed a New York Times report this month that G.M. had, for
years, been sharing data about drivers’ mileage, braking, acceleration and
speed with the insurance industry. The drivers were enrolled — some
unknowingly, they said — in OnStar Smart Driver, a feature in G.M.’s
internet-connected cars that collected data about how the car had been driven
and promised feedback and digital badges for good driving.

Some drivers said their insurance rates had increased as a result of the
captured data, which G.M. shared with two brokers, LexisNexis Risk Solutions
and Verisk. The firms then sold the data to insurance companies.

Since Wednesday, “OnStar Smart Driver customer data is no longer being shared
with LexisNexis or Verisk,” a G.M. spokeswoman, Malorie Lucich, said in an
emailed statement. “Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively
evaluating our privacy processes and policies.”

Romeo Chicco, a Florida man whose insurance rates nearly doubled after his
Cadillac collected his driving data, filed a complaint seeking class-action
status against G.M., OnStar and LexisNexis this month.

An internal document, reviewed by The Times, showed that as of 2022, more than
eight million vehicles were included in Smart Driver. An employee familiar
with the program said the company’s annual revenue from Smart Driver was in
the low millions of dollars.

[Peter P.]

Originally Posted by verticaldoug

(New York Times) -- G.M. had provided information about braking, acceleration
and speed to LexisNexis Risk Solution and Verisk, firms that generated driver
risk profiles for insurers...

I may be reading between the lines, but the article says they stopped sharing with the two firms. It doesn't say if GM is now sharing with OTHER firms, or maybe some other way GM might be sharing the data.

I'd believe GM if they said they will no longer share the data with ANY other firms.

Corporations like to speak in legalese so you have to be careful what your read.

[bikeboy1]

“Customer trust is a priority for us, and we are actively
evaluating our privacy processes and policies.”
Haha I think what they are trying to say is, whoops we got caught with out hand in the cookie jar. Obviously Customer Trust is the last priority they are focused on but first priority is making easy money.
Sure glad I didnt keep my OnStar going after its free subscription expired.