Drivers can save by letting Big Brother ride

[UFO]

Originally Posted by t vago

Did they give a rationale for dinging the graveyard shifter? I would'a though that, all things being equal, it would actually be safer to drive during those times when all you have to worry about is the occasional drunk driver. Daytime drivers scare me.

Sounds statistical to me. More drunks after dark, whether you are one or not.

Originally Posted by t vago

I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I can't figure it out. I would have thought that actual accident history would have made one much more likely to be dinged.

Again, statistically speaking, the more time you are on the road, the more likely you are to become a "statistic".

[t vago]

Originally Posted by UFO

Sounds statistical to me. More drunks after dark, whether you are one or not.

Sounds like straw-grasping. There aren't very many people on the road at 1 am.

Originally Posted by UFO

Again, statistically speaking, the more time you are on the road, the more likely you are to become a "statistic".

By that logic, then statistically speaking, it should not really matter where the accident occurs as all roadways would have an equal chance of hosting an accident. Yet, it's been shown that the vast majority of accidents tend to happen within 10 miles of one's house.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by t vago

Did they give a rationale for dinging the graveyard shifter?

Just general ones. I've seen stats like %60 less drivers yet %40 of fatal accidents happen at that time, and speculation about various causes.

Originally Posted by t vago

I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I can't figure it out. I would have thought that actual accident history would have made one much more likely to be dinged.

I may have to reconsider my position there. On the one hand if the system is so fine tuned that only the people who cause accidents pay for all the insurance ahead of time (plus salaries and bonuses) then it isn't really insurance anymore, so trying to nail down all the parameters and determine who pays more and who pays less is a bit of folly. But I don't drive very much and can understand that my chances of getting in a claim are reduced as a result, not linearly, but less.

So what is the right answer, what is the balance between averaging costs within the group and rewarding or punishing those who are above or below average with changes in fee structure?

I am leaning towards past performance, and the rationale is that the driver is the most important piece of safety equipment (and you can use past performance without having your driving micro-managed by the insurance company)

[Diesel_Dave]

This is a little off-topic but the biggest thing that bugs me is that I've been hearing this Snapshot discount thing promoted ENDLESSLY for the last few months on TV & radio--commercial after commercial after commercial. And in all the months of commercials Progressive has NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT THIS WAS!!

All they have is cheesy commercials of a freaky girl taking pictures of a guy in wierd poses, a freaky girl talking to a guy in a helicopter about how big this thing is, etc. How hard is it to say, "We plug this thing into your car and it records how safely you drive. If you drive safe we'll give you a discount."?! I seriously think I've seen this thing advertised at least 100 times and until I read this post I had no idea what it was!

Maybe I'm old fashioned, but when you're trying to sell me something, I'd actually like you to tell me what it is, not just attempt to amuse me or show me pictures of smiling, happy people!

[Frank Lee]

But I don't drive very much and can understand that my chances of getting in a claim are reduced as a result, not linearly, but less. Maybe I should drive a lot more if I'm paying the same for insurance as everyone else.

And that is why I signed on!

Whenever I've done cents/mile calcs my insurance costs were way outta proportion huge compared to most, even though I have just about the cheapest insurance anyone can get, simply because I've already reduced all the other costs (purchase price, finance costs, depreciation, repairs, maintenance, etc.) down to near ZERO so that left insurance and registration as the two big fixed costs (same no matter if the car is driven 0 miles or 100,000 miles) and then fuel.

So that, and not making sudden stops, not being on the road in the middle of the night (much), not speeding, etc.. I knew I would have all the parameters for max discount pegged. I also knew/didn't care that whatever personal info they could glean from this was either something I already told them or something that doesn't matter to me if they know.

That said, I'd vehemently oppose a GPS type system that can tattle my endpoints/routes/transient speeds/etc.. and I will NOT NOT NOT own anything with On-Star!

[Frank Lee]

This is a little off-topic but the biggest thing that bugs me is that I've been hearing this Snapshot discount thing promoted ENDLESSLY for the last few months on TV & radio--commercial after commercial after commercial.

I rarely skip an opportunity to tell them that I'd like them to reduce their advertising budget by- oh, a Billion dollars/year- and pass the savings on to me. Total advertising saturation has been their M.O. forever.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave

This is a little off-topic but the biggest thing that bugs me is that I've been hearing this Snapshot discount thing promoted ENDLESSLY for the last few months on TV & radio--commercial after commercial after commercial. And in all the months of commercials Progressive has NEVER EXPLAINED WHAT THIS WAS!!

If they explained what it was, some people (those of us who recoil at being monitored by government or even big business) might resist it, and try to convince others that it's a Faustian bargain.

Not everyone thinks that being monitored by nanny is a beneficial thing - or worth a discount.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by dcb

I may have to reconsider my position there. On the one hand if the system is so fine tuned that only the people who cause accidents pay for all the insurance ahead of time (plus salaries and bonuses) then it isn't really insurance anymore, so trying to nail down all the parameters and determine who pays more and who pays less is a bit of folly. But I don't drive very much and can understand that my chances of getting in a claim are reduced as a result, not linearly, but less.

That's why mandatory auto liability insurance is ultimately a redistribution scheme. No matter how you look at it, you are being forced to pay for someone else's accidents - especially if you are good driver and never have any chargeable accidents. It's just another unholy alliance between government and big business, forcing you to pay for something you may not want or need.

[dcb]

some redistribution is necessary, unless your position is that you cannot drive unless you are wealthy. Regardless it seems like 1/2 the time I get hit the person still doesn't have insurance, and the court won't fine them. Best insurance (medical aside) is to drive an easy to fix piece of crap

[Frank Lee]

Re: sudden stops: this discount isn't all or nothing so my impression is there's a sliding scale of some sort for these various demerits- so if you reach the "2nd threshold" in miles accumilated you don't get the maximum discount; likewise with sudden stops; likewise with driving after 1 a.m., etc.