# big brother auto insurance - new monitoring gizmo



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

I am a customer of the Personal for my auto insurance in the GTA. 

Our household presently has 3 cars (yes i know, too many) .

Signed up for a gizmo that eats the obd-II data from the 2 vehicles new enough to have one, and uploads by sattelite to the back end server at the underwriter. 
10% off premiums on that vehicle if we drive under 15k per year per monitored vehicle 
10% off on driving gently, and in off peak times, or some thing like that.

Up to 25% premium cut is possible.

I saved 5% on the two eligible vehicles just for signing up.
I have yet to figure a down side, unless it ties me to not braking just before I get into a crash. Usually our vehilces just put put us around town.

I will try to post later once the things arive and we get used to using them.

You apparently can review your metrics that are measured over the web. Yet to get that data live to see what it can teach me.

intelauto.ca


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

I was thinking of doing this as well. But my insurance premiums are so low ($800 a year).

We barely drive our main car so I would be a great candidate but I doubt they would be much cheaper than I'm currently paying anyways.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Desjardines has this too, but they don't make it for my car  
They said it takes a year of data collection in order to determine your discount. 
They give you 5% off up front for waiting.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I doubt this program monitoring is designed so insurance companies can give discounts.

Much more likely, they want to have access to any data they can use to raise premiums or deny claims.

Discounts are a way of having people volunteer to join.


----------



## crazyjackcsa (Aug 8, 2010)

The Luddite/conspiracy nut inside me always springs up when I read about things like this. 

I have to agree with Sags. It will start as a discount for installation, then it will turn into a fee for not having one, followed by a refusal to insure unless one is installed.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I am shocked at the lack of outrage over such an invasive technology as this. I think crazy understands. It starts out seeming benign but one day this will be mandatory and included in every car. Then they'll mail you a ticket everytime you do something wrong while driving.

I know I know, the smarta-s posters are going to say "It's simple, don't speed", to which I reply it's not as black and white as that. We're human. We all make mistakes on a regular basis and the govt and insurance companies would love nothing more than to find more ways to get at what's in our pocketbooks. I for one don't think we're living in freedom when our every move is being tracked and taxed for everything the govt decides we're doing wrong.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

crazyjackcsa said:


> The Luddite/conspiracy nut inside me always springs up when I read about things like this.
> 
> I have to agree with Sags. It will start as a discount for installation, then it will turn into a fee for not having one, followed by a refusal to insure unless one is installed.


+1 from me ... i remember that there used to be a brisk business by guys that went in and disabled air bags ... i bet we will see the same with these boxes if they become mandatory ... wait until we hear the stories of insurance companies denying claims or people getting arrested because of data on the box


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Well, to play the counter-point, auto insurance companies will say that all they are trying to do is better match their premiums with risk.
When you buy insurance from them, they have all rights - to the fullest extent allowed by the law - to have _any and all_ information relevant to the risk they are taking (in this case, your driving history and habits).
This is the same reason that insurance companies providing life insurance do a health check and pull up your past health records.

The best example is the US private health insurance industry that has huge databases for each and every individual's health record - maintained by the M.I.B.
Some of us might consider the MIB a huge violation of privacy rights, but the fact is that it is entirely legal.

The insurance industry's rejoinder to privacy concerns and outrage is that _don't like it, fine, just don't buy insurance_.

The legal system is fully behind them.
And, IMHO, this is only the beginning.
Wheels are already in motion where susceptibility to certain diseases can be "predicted" by analyzing the genes.
Such information is a gold mine to insurance companies that can use it to price their health insurance premiums more "accurately".

Welcome to the future !


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

In theory, you are right Harold........but in practice the insurance companies have shown they are only interested in the kind of information that enables them to raise premiums. They aren't interested in information or statistics that should enable them to lower premiums for individuals.

Case in point.............

Recently insurance companies have started rattling the doors about senior drivers. They claim that the loss of cognitive ability affects driving ability, and they claim that seniors should be in the same "high risk" category as young drivers.

On an individual basis, their argument may sound reasonable, but it ignores the fact that seniors have many years of experience, often drive very few kilometers, usually keep their cars well maintained, and may choose to drive when the roads aren't busy.

The insurance companies ignore all that and say............some seniors develop cognitive problems, so we should raise the rates on all seniors.

Another example is how the number of years the insurance company wants information from has increased. Now they want to go back 5 years or more, and want to know if a person ever had a GI, or G2 licence and if they had driver training.

My view of insurance is that they basically start at a base point for everyone.........and nobody is going to get lower premiums then that..............and then they search around for something that will add on extra charges. 

Anything will do.


----------



## Cal (Jun 17, 2009)

I wouldn't necesssarily say they are only interested in information that enables them to raise premiums, I would say they are interested in information that will make their company more profitable. (raising premiums is but just one way to increase profits)


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Insurance business is based on matching risk with premium.
The higher the risk, the higher will be the premium.
Therefore, they will seek out *any* information that will help them estimate the risk better.
Their argument is that monitoring driving habits enable them to estimate the risks more accurately.

The other model is a socialized model where all risks and all premiums are socialized.
Everyone pays the same insurance rate.
Under this model, the good drivers subsidize the bad drivers.


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

The reason I bit onto this is that I already have relatively inexpensive insurance. No comprehensive once a car is three years old, for us, and whe rearely buy a car newer than four years old. 
I wanted to see how low it can go. 
I am a member of an engeeres group policy. Wife works in auto insurance at an insurer in province and their in house rates offered to employees are quite a bit higher that what my group plan offer. 

I guess being a paort of the 'land of the bland' , as my former surveyor turned municipal operations manager co-worker called us pays off.

Now I get to establish a base line driver behaviour while my oldest son is 13. In a few more years we will know who is the likely culprit in any big changes recorded in vehicle acceleration and braking.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Ponderling said:


> Now I get to establish a base line driver behaviour while my oldest son is 13. In a few more years we will know who is the likely culprit in any big changes recorded in vehicle acceleration and braking.


Anytime I think back to all the "fun" there was when my son was young and driving the.......car, boat, atv..........I have to lay down for awhile and let the seething anger pass.

Good luck....................lol


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> Insurance business is based on matching risk with premium.
> The higher the risk, the higher will be the premium.
> Therefore, they will seek out *any* information that will help them estimate the risk better.
> Their argument is that monitoring driving habits enable them to estimate the risks more accurately.
> ...


they are only monitoring driving habits _after the fact_ because they are presumably going to look at the data only in the case of a crash, correct ? ... risk is better predicted by a drivers history

to paraphrase bill clinton, it all depends on what the meaning of _any_ is harold ... using your logic our home insurers should be able to read our electric meters to see if we burn electricity excessively and thus present an increased risk for fire or ask people if they smoke or are overweight which also present somewhat elevated risks to a home

should bicycle riders be required to provide a gps unit on their bike to see if they ever ride on the sidewalk which presents an increased liability risk since they might hit a pedestrian ?

i would find the minute by minute monitoring of my driving to be a real intrusion on my privacy and would counter that you can better predict my risk by my good driving record than anything you get from a data recorder which will be after the fact

as i say, wait until the cops start issuing tickets and charging people based on the data recorders


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fatcat said:


> they are only monitoring driving habits _after the fact_ because they are presumably going to look at the data only in the case of a crash, correct ?


No, I thought the data will be used as constant monitoring to determine the on-going risk of a driver via his/her driving patterns.



> using your logic our home insurers should be able to read our electric meters to see if we burn electricity excessively and thus present an increased risk for fire or ask people if they smoke or are overweight which also present somewhat elevated risks to a home


If those factors were deemed relevant by the insurers, I am sure they will obtain that information.
Just as they obtain information about the structure of the house, the materials inside it, such as do you have a fireplace, if so what kind, is the garage attached or detached, number of smoke detectors, type of furnace, and so on.

To use a better example, we have social health care so healthy tax payers subsidize the less healthy folks, however, in the US private health insurers use the MIB database for health insurance quotes and renewals.
Doctors, hospitals, and other health practitioners report your on-going medical conditions routinely to the MIB.

Another example is credit history.
Most lenders monitor your credit record on a routine basis.
Start missing payments on one account and other lenders can start increasing your interest rates (for revolving lines of credit).

My point is that if you represent a liability to anyone else (such as a lender or insurance company), they will use any and all lawful means to monitor all the factors relevant for their risk.
If laws do not cover the monitoring of specific factors, they will lobby to make sure the laws are amended or new laws are created to enable that.



> i would find the minute by minute monitoring of my driving to be a real intrusion on my privacy and would counter that you can better predict my risk by my good driving record than anything you get from a data recorder which will be after the fact


But insurance is forward looking, no?
They are trying to _predict_ your probability of making a claim (or having a claim made against you).
Any factor or behavior that helps them determine that risk more accurately is material information to them.

Let us say you are in the habit of regularly speaking on the cell phone while driving.
Don't you think they'll want to know about that?



> as i say, wait until the cops start issuing tickets and charging people based on the data recorders


That day may not be too far into the future.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> No, I thought the data will be used as constant monitoring to determine the on-going risk of a driver via his/her driving patterns.


we need to get that straight because i thought it was for after the fact analysis of claims



> If those factors were deemed relevant by the insurers, I am sure they will obtain that information.
> Just as they obtain information about the structure of the house, the materials inside it, such as do you have a fireplace, if so what kind, is the garage attached or detached, number of smoke detectors, type of furnace, and so on.


i view this kind of "dead" information as being of a completely different order from highly personal details about my life



> To use a better example, we have social health care so healthy tax payers subsidize the less healthy folks, however, in the US private health insurers use the MIB database for health insurance quotes and renewals.
> Doctors, hospitals, and other health practitioners report your on-going medical conditions routinely to the MIB.


since i lived in the usa for many years and am in those databases, i can tell you that the insurers use those databases to do nothing but redline and refuse coverage to people who have chronic health problems in order to increase profit and they are only one of the many reasons the us health care system is completely broken ... people that have diabetes or weak hearts or asthma shouldn't be denied coverage through no fault of their own ... 

the largest possible pool will yield the lowest possible premiums for all of us ... in my opinion, the us health care system is completely broken ... 



> they will use any and all lawful means to monitor all the factors relevant for their risk.
> If laws do not cover the monitoring of specific factors, they will lobby to make sure the laws are amended or new laws are created to enable that.


fair enough, let them lobby, we can lobby the other side 



> Let us say you are in the habit of regularly speaking on the cell phone while driving.
> Don't you think they'll want to know about that?


using this logic, they can ask us to wear a tape recorder and video camera 24/7 and review it periodically to determine whether or not our "lifestyle" merits any insurance at all ... where do we draw the line ?


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

fatcat said:


> we need to get that straight because i thought it was for after the fact analysis of claims


Nope, it is for regular monitoring of your driving patterns.
For instance, the most advertised _Adjusto_ device from Desjardins Insurance is indeed monitoring your driving patterns, such as time of day, average speed, accelerating and breaking pattern, etc.
http://autos.sympatico.ca/auto-news/16270/insurance-linked-car-tracking-now-available-in-canada

The pitch is that if you have "good" driving patterns, you get a discount vis-à-vis "bad drivers".



> since i lived in the usa for many years and am in those databases, i can tell you that the insurers use those databases to do nothing but redline and refuse coverage to people who have chronic health problems in order to increase profit


I am not saying you are wrong at all.
The entire intent is to charge more (ostensibly) for higher insurance risk.
I am simply echoing their side of the argument.
And also saying why the law is on their side.



> using this logic, they can ask us to wear a tape recorder and video camera 24/7 and review it periodically to determine whether or not our "lifestyle" merits any insurance at all ... where do we draw the line ?


Valid point. The "line" is constantly shifting.
What is considered ok these days would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.
What you consider unacceptable today could be commonplace a few years from now.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

HaroldCrump said:


> Nope, it is for regular monitoring of your driving patterns.
> The pitch is that if you have "good" driving patterns, you get a discount vis-à-vis "bad drivers".


i guess we will see if people just acquiesce then ... as i say, when insurance gets denied and tickets handed out, we might see some pushback



> I am not saying you are wrong at all.
> The entire intent is to charge more (ostensibly) for higher insurance risk.
> I am simply echoing their side of the argument.
> And also saying why the law is on their side.


this is a long discussion but i'll try to be brief ... their side of the argument is a failure ... their health care system is crumbling exactly because they try to deny coverage to everyone except the healthy or wealthy ... the law really isn't on their side because obamacare is attempting (poorly imo) to repair the damage and it was only enacted with their (the insurers, who were on-board for the negotiations in drafting the bill) help and input ... they (the insurers) know that they are essentially pricing themselves out of business ... the number of people of people that can afford to pay their rising premiums is shrinking daily ... their pool is steadily getting smaller and they know that, which is why they are salivating for the 30M more new customers that obamacare will bring




> Valid point. The "line" is constantly shifting.
> What is considered ok these days would have been unthinkable a decade or two ago.
> What you consider unacceptable today could be commonplace a few years from now.


true enough and we are all revising our own ideas about what "privacy" means as well


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

fatcat said:


> i guess we will see if people just acquiesce then ... as i say, when insurance gets denied and tickets handed out, we might see some pushback
> 
> this is a long discussion but i'll try to be brief ... their side of the argument is a failure ... *their health care system is crumbling exactly because they try to deny coverage to everyone except the healthy or wealthy* ... the law really isn't on their side because obamacare is attempting (poorly imo) to repair the damage and it was only enacted with their (the insurers, who were on-board for the negotiations in drafting the bill) help and input ... they (the insurers) know that they are essentially pricing themselves out of business ... the number of people of people that can afford to pay their rising premiums is shrinking daily ... their pool is steadily getting smaller and they know that, which is why they are salivating for the 30M more new customers that obamacare will bring
> 
> ...


That's how for-profit insurance systems work: unprofitable customers are dumped.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> That's how for-profit insurance systems work: unprofitable customers are dumped.


absolutely, and it is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable business model for all kinds of insurance 

and as a good driver with only a 40 year old single ticket to my name (and i have never made a claim against my home insurance either) i don't want to pay for lousy drivers

but dumping unprofitable customers in the health insurance business is not a good (or workable) business model

because we are talking chronic illnesses and all manner of health conditions which are no fault of the people who have them other than being born unlucky

these are two vastly different "businesses"


----------



## Ponderling (Mar 1, 2013)

The technology isn't perfected yet - I see from logging on last night they have no readings for my truck yet, while I had it on a road trip for a week, parked outside the whole time. Usually it ives underground at my office while I strive to bike to work more often.

Wifes car shows read one day of 473km, while many other days of zero or one km. Lokes of fast starts and sudden braking, but zero high risk hours driving. Well she commutes against rush hour traffic on the QEW abourt 35km round trip per work day, so I guess the stop and go traffic at 7:30 at the 403/qew merge has not been modelled as a high risk time yet.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

MoneyGal said:


> That's how for-profit insurance systems work: unprofitable customers are dumped.


MG, it's an acceptable outcome for someone to not be able to afford their car insurance because they are too great of a risk. They just don't drive. If your health insurance is too expensive to afford, you have much heightened risk of death. Understandably, that outcome is less accepted.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> 1. "It's simple, don't speed", to which I reply it's not as black and white as that. We're human. We all make mistakes on a regular basis....
> 2. I for one don't think we're living in freedom when our every move is being tracked...


*1.* Hopefully you're not referring to mistakes on a 'regular basis' while driving.

Indeed we make mistakes as humans, but there are mistakes and [dangerous] wilful acts. If someone in your family had been injured/killed by a speeder [since u brought up the issue of 'speed'], you probably would have a different view on that not so 'black & white' def. 

*2.* This is a fact, but would you rather keep Snowden company? :biggrin: He should accept Venezuela's offer IMHO, as it will be a lot easier to learn Spanish than Russian.

***********

The healthy ought to subsidize the sick, and that's fair [excluding abuse & fraud by various parties]. 

But I so hate to subsidize the bad drivers, and also dislike the statistical group rating used by insurers [though I understand it, ie: the 16-24 group rating considering their love for speed]. We shop around when consider increases unreasonable, especially as we're 100% accident/claim/ticket free [auto & home].

A friend recently told me that the insurers will recognize us as 'shoppers', but so what if we're claim free? It's not like our clean records don't count for anything.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Andrew - my comment was meant as a *criticism* of for-profit health care systems!


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Time to require bicycles to carry liability insurance, license plates and monitoring devices as well. The intersection safety camera technology could be used to measure speed limits for bicycles, braking force and other factors to charge the bad cyclists more for their insurance. Bad cyclists carry a greater risk for all than those who drive more responsibly. Equal access, equal enforcement.


----------



## Mall Guy (Sep 14, 2011)

kinda thought about putting this into the car my kids drive . . . there are systems available to tell you what little Johnny is up to !!!


----------



## hystat (Jun 18, 2010)

I like to "blow the carbon" out of my engine once in a while. I guess another tax on my freedom is-a-comin'...

I have a big problem with an insurance company deciding what is risky and what isn't. 
For example, there is nothing in the highway traffic act that says you can't accelerate up to the speed limit as fast as you want (as long as tires aren't breaking traction, and there are no obstacles/other cars), but will the insurers penalize for acceleration beyond what they feel is appropriate?

very slippery slope. 

I know a couple of people who work writing code and developing hardware that mixes with the can network on vehicles. Maybe they could build me a "granny box".


----------

