Quote:
Originally Posted by The359
How is your movement in a public space on a public roadway private? For that matter, how is your speed on a public roadway private?
And I'm sure insurance companies want nothing more than more government regulation! Mandatory tracking devices brings with it more government regulation of the companies. Which sort of gets in the way of their greedy little fingers.
Granted, an insurance company that requires anything before they grant a policy is, again, committing suicide. Any insurance company will be happy to have your business, so long as you can pay. They are, after all, after money as you so eloquently state. Requiring people to install something is counterproductive.
As for your report from Towers Watson, of course insurance companies want these devices! The entire point of insurance is prediction, and you get better predictions if you have more and more real world data. And with better data, they can adjust their views on all of the public's vehicles. And if a company can get data and realize they can charge less while still turning a profit, then that company has hit a goldmine because they will win out amongst their competitors.
So your claim that they will all make the prices shoot up to screw everyone over is completely baseless. There is no secret meeting amongst car insurance CEOs all planning some rate hike at the exact same time. If a company wanted to raise prices, they'd have to do it themselves, and that would likely shoot themselves in the foot because, as I said before, that'd be corporate suicide.
Nothing in the Towers Watson report states anything to do with mandatory use. It simply states that the companies want the technology for themselves, as they should in a competitive market.
|
The Supreme Court has made some rulings on GPS tracking technology, but they have not fully addressed the entire issue, so neither one of us can claim to own the "law" on what privacy really means when it comes to GPS tracking in public places.
Many argue that GPS technology used
without the person's consent goes against your 4th Amendment Right to undue search and seizure. To be clear, if someone wants to sign up for this service and be tracked, that is certainly thier choice and they have forfeited any right to privacy. I, however, am concerned that at some point this will become a requirement inorder to get insured or at a minimum, you will pay a premium not to be tracked.
You seem to believe that it will never become mandatory, and on this point, we will have to agree to disagree. If it ever does become mandatory, my personal belief is that if I have not consented to be tracked by GPS, then any use of that technology to do just that, is an infringement on my right of undue search and seizure, regardless if I am on public roads.
In the end, neither one of us will decide this issue, it will have to be resolved in the courts.
I may be misreading your other comments, but you seem to suggest that the sole purpose for insurance companies to invest in this technology is to gather data so they can determine if they can lower the rates to "safe" consumers in order to gain market share, because to raise rates for "non-safe" consumers, based on the data, would be corporate suicide.
My question to you is this:
What happens to the rates of consumers who are being tracked that do not meet the criteria for lower rates, but rather have tracking data that suggests they are actually prone to fast accelerations, abrupt braking, and driving during hours that are more prone to accidents. Do you believe they will keep thier rates unchanged?
I think common sense says that if they present a higher risk to insure based on tracking data, then they will be subject to higher rates than drivers who are considered average, or safe. Many here will not voluntarly sign up for this service based on this very belief, so I would be interested in your opinion as to why these types of drivers would not experience a rate increase.
There is a big part of me that hopes that you are correct that this will never become mandatory, or a requirement for reasonable rates, but if I was a betting man, I would say the odds are very slim that this technology will be used to just lower rates.
Thanks for your input.