TK4
Well-known member
Could it come to Ontario ? You betcha...
Why you should pay attention to Alberta’s insurance changes | Driving
Why you should pay attention to Alberta’s insurance changes | Driving
|
|
|
Nanny state
- Thread starter TK4
- Start date
Mad Mike
Well-known member
They already collect and share a ton of info on all of us... (payment history, cancellations, accidents, claims, family relationships, credit reports/scores plus all that stuff they ask when you sign up. )
If letting them know how and where I drive help reduce my premiums... I’m in.
I would ask something in return, transparency. Insurers should make their actuarial data available for scrutiny.
If letting them know how and where I drive help reduce my premiums... I’m in.
I would ask something in return, transparency. Insurers should make their actuarial data available for scrutiny.
Hahahaha. Negotiating with a functional oligopoly. You're a funny guy Mike.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
We would need a hard right govt to get any effective change to insurance. The existing setup is a cartel, with provincial govts being one of the pigs at the trough.
Its likely not going to reduce your premiums but simply increase them if the data suggests your "risky".
Have a co-worker who did a trial last year with a device. Drove like a grandmother for 8 months. In the end little to no savings.
Accelerate and brake at a snails pace to save ~$75 a year. Any abrupt accel or decel, even for a moment, knocks points off.
Im not so sure that driving under the limit is less risky than simply keeping up with the pace of traffic.
And the upside to those changes is everybody is on the same side. Breaking the cartel is adversarial. Busting the crooks benefits everybody.
Now, maybe that is an avenue that could be used by government to reduce rates. Gov't could try to make fraudulent charges come out of the insurance company end of the pie instead of being rolled in as recovery at cost plus where nobody really cares. Pitfall is that may invoke even less investigation as you can't get in trouble for what you didn't find.
An easy first step would be regulatory authorities adopt zero tolerance for insurance fraud. Any doctor/physio should automatically lose their ability to practice upon conviction with no chance of reinstatement in Canada. The payout is too big and punishment too small now. It is worth the gamble financially. Cops/Towies/Repair shops with no overriding regulatory authority are a much harder group of nuts to crack. As a start, making the default position of going after their everything as proceeds of crime seems reasonable. They can prove how they paid for their assets from legitimate sources.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
Yes, I did same tests with TD, I think it’s a gimmick, or at best brain dead. It penalizes you for moving with traffic that’s flowing faster than the speed limit, which is 5-20 over in any in congested area. My daughter bussed to school from Markham to St Mikes, bus drivers received a lower score than me.
My point was more related to relative behaviors and miles driven relative to payouts. I’ve driven continuously since 1978, as has my wife, neither of us has an at fault claim. Neither of us drive like your grandma, but we have managed well over a million miles each without claims, most of that in a red hot insurance zone
I can see where driving data could help reduce our costs.
Another thing that I like is the pay as you drive option. I switched over to CAA My Pace, I keep an old truck on the road at my place up north for $150/yeaar + $55 for each thousand KM, and my old Jeep here as a spare for same. Neither gets much driving, but if I need a truck or tow capable vehicle I have one ready on the cheap.
sburns
Well-known member
But doesn't fraud help make them money by justifying increases?? To me it's a "why bother" from them as its a win.
If you sign documentation stating the phone must be on you and you pull that stunt, they will cancel the policy.
I dont know how they can verify you are driving and not a passenger, in an Uber or on a bus.
Seems like the only way would be to link in with newer cars or verify the odometer on older vehicles.
Roadghost
Well-known member
The problem I have with it is not just the intrusive nature of the app, but that insurance companies are only after the low-hanging fruit for customers. How will this end up? Well, we already have a lot of people driving around with no insurance and illegal plates, and if rates go higher that's just a bigger incentive for lawbreakers. Of course, the app itself is only active if the phone is on, and some clever code-writer is bound to create an app that will feed the insurance software wrong information (setting a false speed of say, 20km less than actual, or phone pretends to be off past 30km/h).
I think insurance companies are hitting the point of diminishing returns these days. There's only so much money to go around.
I think insurance companies are hitting the point of diminishing returns these days. There's only so much money to go around.
I dont think the insurance companies care much for pay as you drive. There are many primary and secondary vehicles that dont get driven much. These policies subsidize everyone else because we get dinged liability, accident benefits etc for each vehicle.
Same with Bikes. Im sure a bunch of us would like to own an SS and a touring etc but when you get a 10% discount its not worth it.
If you own X number of cars, with a waiver stating only you can drive them, the premia should be fire and theft on all of them + the highest collision and liability or it should be split based on % of usage.
Having 2 cars and 2 bikes and paying 4 full coverages with a small discount is a pure scam.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
It's not so much that it helps them make money, regulators allow them to simply pass the cost along to customers, they are not obliged to fight fraud in any meaningful way so they don't.
Fighting fraud is expensive -- ask banks -- they spend gazillions fighting fraud because the cost is passed along to their shareholders, not their customers. Insurance companies are able to pass it along to customers with the the regulator's blessing.
In a perfect world there would be some form of consumer advisory board that represents consumers interests at FICO (regulator). Another option would be a MPP that has some insurance industry experience AND a the backbone to shake up the cozy cartel.
Mad Mike
Well-known member
I think they do like the idea. First, they only do it on a monitored basis and not everyone qualifies for the program, they pick and choose good drivers only. In my case I dragged over some home policies and 3 other cars attached to a low risk upside, that's a lot of upside.
Every time I speak to CAA about bikes they claim it's coming -- been hearing that for 2 years -- not holding my breath.
As for the multibike policies, insurance salesmen will tell you it's the regulator that stops this. That's not true, while insurers are regulated, there is nothing that stops them from applying blanket protection across several vehicles. This is a cartel business, insurers commiserate thru the IBC, there are a few areas that would be 'industry disruptive', the IBC keeps the peace between members of the cartel.
I used Desjardin devices connected to my OBD port to monitor driving habits on 2 cars for about 2 years. Saved about 15%. Desjardine folded the hard device program and went to an app, which I do not participate in. My "discounts" have carried over from the OBD device.
The smartphone app, as outlined in the linked articles, scares the crap out of me. If you have insurance with one company for your car and then with a second company for your bike how does the app differentiate riding/driving between the 2 different vehicles?
Given the reality that speed limits are too low and that virtually everyone rides / drives 10 - 15% over the speed limit I see these types of programs as cash cows for the insurance industry where everyone is defined as high risk, everyone pays higher premiums and insurance companies make more money.
The smartphone app, as outlined in the linked articles, scares the crap out of me. If you have insurance with one company for your car and then with a second company for your bike how does the app differentiate riding/driving between the 2 different vehicles?
Given the reality that speed limits are too low and that virtually everyone rides / drives 10 - 15% over the speed limit I see these types of programs as cash cows for the insurance industry where everyone is defined as high risk, everyone pays higher premiums and insurance companies make more money.
A question emerges.
Let's say you manage to get everyone in the province basically required under these terms to have this monitoring app. I expect very few people would opt out, because insurance is already expensive.
So now you have this HUGE data set. Do you get to arbitrarily make rules anymore? Can you still justify classifying people who drive 5-10 over a higher risk if the data bears out there was actually no significant correlation? People who accelerate/brake "roughly" or cause high lateral acceleration? Person A who drove 5000km more in a year than Person B?
Not that I think this is a good idea. Unlike overhauling our very weak licensing system, which would be a great idea, and I personally guarantee would reduce insurance claims & cost
Let's say you manage to get everyone in the province basically required under these terms to have this monitoring app. I expect very few people would opt out, because insurance is already expensive.
So now you have this HUGE data set. Do you get to arbitrarily make rules anymore? Can you still justify classifying people who drive 5-10 over a higher risk if the data bears out there was actually no significant correlation? People who accelerate/brake "roughly" or cause high lateral acceleration? Person A who drove 5000km more in a year than Person B?
Not that I think this is a good idea. Unlike overhauling our very weak licensing system, which would be a great idea, and I personally guarantee would reduce insurance claims & cost
Last edited:
My head messes with the cost of repairs part of the equation.
Yes cars are more expensive to repair due to technology (And price gouging IMO)
You have a crash in your $7,000 car and the body work to fix it is $3000. But the air bags also went off and the car is a write-off.
However the air bags kept you from having serious injuries so the total payout could be substantially less. Does an air bag really cost a thousand dollars? or more?
Yes cars are more expensive to repair due to technology (And price gouging IMO)
You have a crash in your $7,000 car and the body work to fix it is $3000. But the air bags also went off and the car is a write-off.
However the air bags kept you from having serious injuries so the total payout could be substantially less. Does an air bag really cost a thousand dollars? or more?
Last edited:
|
|
|
|
|