Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: More bad news as far as the eye can see
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
Posted in:
* The setup…
State Farm Insurance plans to give its Illinois customers a chance to lower — or raise — their rates depending on their driving habits.
The Bloomington-based insurer said that in September it will start putting a monitoring device in vehicles driven by customers who choose to be part of the program.
Missy Lundberg, a spokesperson for State Farm, said the devices will monitor mileage, acceleration, braking and other factors. Safer drivers will get lower rates and those who aren’t as safe will see rates go up.
* The Question: Should Illinois law allow voluntary electronic driver monitoring programs like State Farm’s? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 11:50 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: More bad news as far as the eye can see
Next Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Today’s edition of Capitol Fax (use all CAPS in password)
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
The alternative is that they use proxies for your driving habits–your age, your brand of car, your neighborhood. Individualized rating is a problem with health insurance, because you don’t have any control over whether you have hemophilia, or give birth to a pre-term infant. But you can alter your driving habits and a little encouragement isn’t a bad thing.
Comment by Ann Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 11:55 am
Why not? If folks want to voluntarily submit to be monitored, go for it. As long as it is not mandated and as long as State Farm cannot deny overtly or covertly deny coverage because of your unwillingness to be monitored.
Comment by Montrose Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 11:57 am
No, I don’t think the state should allow this. I think the insurance pool needs to be as deep as possible, with rates reflecting claims history and citations.
This seems like it punishes those who drive often (as opposed to those driving carelessly), and that isn’t fair. Sensors can’t adequately measure traffic conditions either, which greatly influence acceleration, stopping, etc.
Claims history and traffic citations are as good a measure as whether the sensor thinks a driver is going too fast. I think it’ll take more than a sensor to determine if a driver is operating safely and deserves lower premiums.
The logical extension of this is a body sensor that tells medical or life insurance companies about your cholesterol levels. Yes, it’s an important indicator of health and diet, but there are many factors that determine health and life expectancy.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 11:58 am
As long as it isn’t mandatory
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:01 pm
Voluntary today WILL become a basis for non-participants to be charged hire rates. Shoudl be prohibited by the legislature.
Comment by NoBigBrother Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:05 pm
As time goes on what is voluntary becomes a standard for all Car/vehicle insurance companies.
Then voluntary becomes mandatory as a condition of insurance.
What next….body monitors, tracking devices? Seems far fetched? I think not.
Comment by Justice Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:06 pm
If you are on the road less, you are less likely to be in an accident. This is perfectly okay if a person wishes to do this. I don’t see why the state should have a problem with this. But of course, this is Illinois.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:06 pm
It’s a free society. People choose to go to State Farm, and this program is voluntary. If State Farm required all drivers they insure to be in the program, that would be different.
Comment by SirLankselot Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:09 pm
Montrose said it best. i concur.
Comment by Jake From Elwood Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:11 pm
I voted YES, thinking if anyone is foolish enough to volunteer, let ‘em. Then I read the responses about the voluntary becoming mandatory. Now I wish I had voted NO.
Comment by anon sequitor Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:29 pm
+1 “Why not?” The big question is why do politicians get to make the call? Why not leave it to the market?
Comment by wishbone Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:30 pm
Absolutely not. This is pretty obviously the first step towards then raising rates for everybody else.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:32 pm
I like it as long as it stays voluntary, and long as it only captures performance data but not actual location info. This should be easy to program out, to preserve some privacy while communicating the safe driving info.
Comment by Newsclown Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:41 pm
This is an agreement between private parties. The state has no reason to interfere.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:53 pm
Why should the government be the final arbiter of what is right or wrong between private entities? Let the market decide. If people do not want their driving monitored, they don’t have to do it. And so what if State Farm makes it mandatory? If consumers don’t like it, they can buy insurance from another insurance company. Not all insurance companies will require this. Market share is critical to these businesses. If there are enough people that reject mandatory auto monitoring, there will be insurance companies that don’t require it. Let the free market decide. (Read free market as free consumers)
Comment by aLibertarian Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:54 pm
Accountability means safer drivers no longer subsidize the less safe. Since our state masks court supervisions on the MVR, bad drivers can hide at least for a time.
Comment by Reformer Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:55 pm
I don’t like it because of the point made above about what is voluntary becoming mandatory. And I’m an I-Go member, I may drive 100 miles a year.
Comment by Cheryl44 Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:57 pm
I an against it. In a few years I can see insurers charging more to those who do not volunteer to be monitored. I like the idea of encouraging safe driving habits but the potential for abuse is massive.
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 12:57 pm
But Cheryl, made mandatory by whom? If the company does it, change companies. BUT if some legislator or governor imposes the requirement…
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:01 pm
Most of those who sign up for this will obviously be drivers with lower mileage, better driving skills. So, where will the money lost on these drivers be made up, on those who refuse to participate? Bad news, it’s not fair to have a separate rating system for a select group of drivers.
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:07 pm
I don’t normally use slippery slope arguments, but this is how intrusive things like this start. Before long it will be mandatory. Once you open the door to things like this it’s awfully hard to close it.
Comment by L.S. Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:09 pm
===If the company does it, change companies. ===
Not always easy, especially if you bundle your insurance for all things.
Also, what happens if this spreads to every company?
The state regulates insurance companies, and for good reason.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:10 pm
It’s voluntary, people. If you don’t like it, don’t do it!
Comment by Son of a Centrist Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:13 pm
How is it any different than “good driver discounts” President Palmer is always hawking in Allstate commercials? Here SFI is just doing the same thing, only with a different set of measurable metrics.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:16 pm
Rich,
Policies can be cancelled, and new policies created and bundled with a new insurer. Yes, it takes some time and is a hassle, but if a consumer does not like what an insurance company is doing, they can switch providers. And like I said before, if enough people do not want to be monitored, competition in the marketplace will dictate that there will always be insurance companies that don’t require monitoring.
Comment by aLibertarian Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:17 pm
I’m against it. If we had Cinci’s vision of a society where the government stays out of all private companies’ concerns, insurance companies would eventually assume no risk at all. If this is allowed eventually anyone who chooses not to enroll will be priced out, and if all companies adopt it they’ll have nowhere to turn. What’s next, voluntary cholesterol and heart rate monitors for health insurers? “Hey Bob, I see your LDL is up a few notches, going to have to raise your premiums this month.” Insurance companies seem to be doing just fine with their gambling, no need to let them see our cards.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:19 pm
Is there evidence that the current pricing of insurance is flawed?
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:20 pm
As a male, I have already been discriminated against when I was under 25 and single. At least with this, I would be able to have a little more control over the rates I pay which would be behavior based, not based on gender and birthdate. Talk about legal discrimination.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:20 pm
State Farm is asking you to not speed, get in accidents, and drive responsibly. Are there down sides? Sure, like a record of what you have done. No tickets, no accidents, but you tend to drive 75 on 55. That would cost you in this system. Kinda like bringing managed care to auto insurance. Not for everyone.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:28 pm
I think you people are confusing the issues. The question was not about whether or not you want monitoring. The question was do you want the government to decide for you. I’d rather have the freedom to choose for myself rather than have the government decide what’s best for me. You have heard it said, “With freedom comes responsibility.” Well, I say, “Give up personal responsibility, and you give up your freedom.”
With each new law and rule, we are less and less a free people.
Comment by aLibertarian Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:34 pm
STL,
Substitute Civil Unions for Insurance. Then re-read your post.
Comment by Cincinnatus Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:39 pm
As long as fairly complete info is made available to the customers as to how the various factors are weighted, so that they can target the habits the company deems “good” and know what will generate savings for them ….sure, why not?
Comment by titan Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:41 pm
Substitute Civil Unions for Insurance and his post doesn’t make any sense.
Comment by Cheryl Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:54 pm
- Substitute Civil Unions for Insurance. Then re-read your post. -
Ummm, Cinci, not sure what you’re going for but that doesn’t work at all.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:55 pm
Remember when seat belt enforcement would only be related to a stop on something else? How about the ruse of insurance being granted/priced on your credit history? I made 2 monthly payments on a credit card bill once in the last 10 years. That is the extent of my “poor” credit activity. Nor mortgage problem whatsoever. Yet every year when I renew my insurance they state my credit rating/insurance rating (the company that does the work for them is not one of the 3 major credit rating agencies, but just someone the insurance company hired out) is diminished for lack of activity on cards I had no balance on and cancelled more than a decade ago or that there isn’t enough activity on present cards with a zero balance. When I call to question them I’m put through a ringer of telephone responses and am told I must deal with the insurance company, that then states I must deal with the credit firm. It is merely an artificial, contrived device to jack up rates (or advertise illusory lower rates). These things always start as a pilot program, that on the surface, may have a plausible rationale. The way it ultimately turns out usually serves a different agenda. I don’t trust the motives of what may be starting here. I hope I’m wrong.
Comment by SlipperySlope Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:55 pm
====The state regulates insurance companies, and for good reason.====
And for now, DOI should find out how the information will be used other than for just the drivers who opt in…it’s too soon for a statutory change.
Comment by COPN Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:57 pm
Should we allow it? I guess. Would I do it? Whoa . . . definitely not.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:58 pm
I wouldn’t do it, but I don’t think it is the role of government to meddle in this issue.
Comment by Just Observing Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 1:58 pm
Speaking as a former Property/Casualty underwriter that is still peripherally in the industry - no way. There’s a trend to overclassification which negates the entire concept of the pooling of risk. If you follow the trend to its logical end, you’ll end up with truly homogenous classes - each with a single member.
Comment by Ken in Aurora Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:11 pm
No…I think we know where this action is going. 47th Ward and Fed-up summed up my feelings. The bottom-line is that insurance companies, like carnival barkers, are constantly looking for ways to slice and dice a perceived benefit to consumers while knowing full well the actual cost of providing that benefit is substantially less than consumers will be compelled to pay. Complicated formulas are just another way to extract higher premiums.
Comment by Louis Howe Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:12 pm
This will work great to reduce the insurance costs for Peer-To-Peer Car Sharing.
Comment by JBilla Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:15 pm
SLT - The reason you (as a good driver) need to subsidize me (a bad driver) for insurance is the same reason I (a high wage earner) needs to subsidize someone who is not a high wage earner via taxes.
It takes a village, you know…
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:18 pm
Ken hit the nail on the head. Insurance is pooled risk. If you keep classifying people into ever more specific groups, then there is no need for insurance.
Comment by Katiedid Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:19 pm
Let’s compromise: A pilot program with lawmakers’ vehicles. See how that goes.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:20 pm
- SLT - The reason you (as a good driver) need to subsidize me (a bad driver) for insurance is the same reason I (a high wage earner) needs to subsidize someone who is not a high wage earner via taxes. -
Wrong. I would be subsidizing the insurance company, an entity whose goal is to maximize profit and has been doing a pretty darned good job of it. I have zero problem with my tax dollars going to help those who haven’t been as fortunate as me in life, but I’ll be darned if I think I need to kick in a few more to an industry making record profits.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:23 pm
Slippery slope. I don’t think I’d volunteer UNLESS it meant my insurance premiums were based upon how much my wife and I actually drove each of the four vehicles in the driveway instead of paying on the assumption that we’re driving all of them everyday (when we usually carpool).
Comment by Logic not emotion Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:28 pm
i would like to see all government vehicles in illinois (regardless of jurisdiction) enrolled in such a program…
Comment by bored now Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:35 pm
No. Not that long back many were super steamed up about government intrusion into their lives. Some still are. Yet government has little inherent reason to want to spy on you - really - what’s in it for them? Business, on the other hand has every reason to spy on you because it’s profitable. Few seem to be all that cranked about the continued evolution of the profit-driven surveillance state. I’m agin it.
Comment by Excessively Rabid Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 2:54 pm
Agreed.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 3:31 pm
A couple of years ago, I was at a professional conference where one of the speakers presented a discussion on some research that was done in Iowa and driver’s ed classes. The researcher approach to the study was to install a device on the rear view mirror that recorded (video and audio) any event that incurred a 0.5 g acceleration. The device would down load the information every night via a wireless module attached to the student’s house.
The information would be reviewed by the researchers and driver’s ed teachers prior to discussing the event with the individual student.
They found that over the semester that the kids were in driver’s ed and remaining school year, the incidence of bad driving decreased. By bad driving, I mean those events that resulted in a crash due to driver error, distraction, etc.
The school did not mete out any punishment to the students for any bad driving incident, nor were they rewarded for any incident where they successfully avoided a crash that was recorded by the device.
The point of the study was to provide the young driver feedback and information on how to improve their driving habits.
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 4:32 pm
What will you think when this little device is subpoenaed in a trial against you (civil or criminal) and only then will you find out that it’s accuracy/precision has never been demonstrated?
Comment by Bird Dog Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 4:46 pm
Yes, this should be allowed. It’s optional!!
Insurance is based on risk. If I am “less risky” because I drive 65 on the interstate (not 80) and follow other rules, then I should pay less. Conversely, if I engage in higher risk driving, then I am a greater risk. Companies already ask how many mies are driven annually.
Comment by 1776 Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 6:11 pm
I guess i would be concerned that such an approach, perfected, would cause insurance to cease to be insurance. If risk can be adequately parceled out to something approaching an infinite degree (I’m looking to the future) then only those who are going to cause payouts would pay in any significant amount.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 7:13 pm
I like the cut of 1776’s jib.
If I am “less risky” because I don’t eat fast food, and exercise regularly, I should pay less health insurance. Conversely, people that eat sugary foods are at higher risk and should pay more.
Comment by Peter Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 7:35 pm
just asking how much more 3rd party involvement do we as “free” people want for gods sake! you buy groceries and your tracked you buy clothes and your tracked you buy dog food and your tracked..come on folks does State Farm lose money have any of you ever got a rebate for the years youv’e gone accident free!!! Oh thanks Mr. J Q Public heres a years Ins for NO cost because we think you drive 55!! Sammy Hagar is laughing his a** off!!!
Comment by railrat Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 8:35 pm
I can tell you, after recently adding 2 teens to my car insurance, I would sign them both up for this until they were on heir own, in a heartbeat, if I could get a deep enough discount for it. If I got email updates from the insurance company about Junior’s driving, better believe we would rapidly ameliorate the problem.
Comment by Gregor Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 9:03 pm
This is silly. Apparently, they don’t need a law to do this. They’re already doing it. Also, why would they need a law. This would be something the customer & insuarnce co. would voluntarily agree to. State Farm isn’t trying to impose this.
Comment by Mr. Sensible Thursday, Aug 11, 11 @ 10:19 pm