Insurance Driving Monitoring

[OldGuy]

People driving on hilly roads with curves should may more then people driving roads that are flat and straight.

Now that I let that gestate even longer, unsafe driving and unsafe roads are two different things, and insurance companies do set premiums based on zip code, recognizing different risks in different areas.

But, as I've repeated, if they claim to be able to measure safe driving, and they offer that on unsafe roads, their devices should be able to do what they say they will. They do not have to offer the devices/discounts where the devices do not work.

 

[am1]

Now that I let that gestate even longer, unsafe driving and unsafe roads are two different things, and insurance companies do set premiums based on zip code, recognizing different risks in different areas.

But, as I've repeated, if they claim to be able to measure safe driving, and they offer that on unsafe roads, their devices should be able to do what they say they will. They do not have to offer the devices/discounts where the devices do not work.

To the insurance company it may not matter if they are two different things. Also most people think they know how to drive. The amount of collisions dispute that.

 

[OldGuy]

To the insurance company it may not matter if they are two different things. Also most people think they know how to drive.

& for both of those reasons, including the possible insinuation that my wife and I may be among those, I have offered to have the Safeco agent ride with me. (as if our accident non-rate and violation-free driving and all the other factors used by underwriting is not sufficient)

If you'd like to be a monitor, I can take my golf clubs out of the back, and pick you up, too.



I would think that both Safeco and their agents would want to know whether what they are offering their customers really works.

The fact is that something is wrong, either my wife and me, or the device provided by a third party, or the insurance company.

The fact is that we either are driving safely or are not driving safely, and that the device is either capable of monitoring our driving or not capable of doing that.

Just the facts, Ma'am, as was once said.
- - - - - -
A quick google-search shows plenty of question about these devices and promises.

 

[OldGuy]

However, the Internet is a curious place, though. Whether it's facebook or forums, there's pretty much just two groups of people.

Those who understand what you are saying, see the facts, feel your pain, sense your anguish, and empathize with you, and . . .

Those who see the same thing and assume the opposite, without facts to support it.



My suggestion to have a Safeco rep ride with me at the same time I am being monitored, is my attempt to remove human shortcomings from this, and let technology, or lack thereof, resolve it.

I wouldn't be totally satisfied, but even if their agent would put the device on her car and drive our route a few times, that would be a step in the right direction.

In the meantime, we can do no worse than get a 5% discount, so they say.



PS: I have thought about driving the vehicle we have only driven once with the device, 17 miles, a little bit more, and see what happens to the 28% discount that vehicle's at, but that seems foolish when I suspect the device is unreliable.

 

[OldGuy]

consumerservices (consumerservices?myfloridacfo.com)To:you Details
Receipt of your emails and information acknowledged. Thank you.
- - - - - -
In an effort to bring your matter to resolution, we have contacted SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. Pursuant to s. 624.307(10)(b), Florida Statutes, insurance companies are allowed 20 days from the date we contacted them to respond to inquiries made by the Department of Financial Services. In order to allow time for us to review all information provided, we respectfully request that you allow up to 30 days to complete the handling of your request.

 

[OldGuy]

Hey, I'm a brakaholic.

Every 19 miles I slam on the brakes, just for the heck of it I guess.

Some things are just too ridiculous for anyone to call them legitimate.

 

[isisdave]

Soon they will control your thermostats.Wait for it! Little by little, inch by inch, creeping into our lives...

We have that now in SoCal. For years, there has been a scheme where they can turn off your AC unit remotely. We get a credit for this, typically about $160 a year for a 4.5 ton compressor. But it requires a control box on the compressor, so they can only do it on ground-mounted ones.

Well, now that there are smart thermostats, they want to do it through the thermostat. No external controller box, it can work on every AC unit, and they'll still give the discount. And now, you can override the shutoff a certain number of times.

 

[WinniWoman]

We have that now in SoCal. For years, there has been a scheme where they can turn off your AC unit remotely. We get a credit for this, typically about $160 a year for a 4.5 ton compressor. But it requires a control box on the compressor, so they can only do it on ground-mounted ones.

Well, now that there are smart thermostats, they want to do it through the thermostat. No external controller box, it can work on every AC unit, and they'll still give the discount. And now, you can override the shutoff a certain number of times.

Horrendous! This would drive me insane!

 

[OldGuy]

Drive? Did someone say Drive?

 

[OldGuy]

Hey, I'm a brakaholic.

Every 19 miles I slam on the brakes, just for the heck of it I guess.

Some things are just too ridiculous for anyone to call them legitimate.

Here, for instance, I slammed on the brakes twice, two times, at places on the road I have been driving for 22 years, and have never slammed on the brakes.

What, did four deer run out in front of me????!!!!

c'mon man!

Event 11 07/22/19, 7:35 AM
Event 12 07/22/19, 7:35 AM
Event 13 07/22/19, 7:41 AM
Event 14 07/22/19, 7:41 AM

 

[OldGuy]

Sadly, I am avoiding driving because of this dang device. I'm pretty sure that's not what was intended.

Safeco has said (paraphrasing) not to worry about the hard braking incidences . . . the more I drive, the more I can save.

The opposite is true. I believe I cannot drive (in any manner) the roads I have to drive, to go anywhere, without getting false hard braking or hard acceleration incidences. I can't improve my driving because I'm not driving badly to begin with. Each day I have driven, our discount on that vehicle has gone down, so I'm just avoiding driving.

 

[OldGuy]

A typical conversation at our house nowadays . . .

"I see you only slammed on the brakes once today."

"I DID NOT SLAM ON THE BRAKES EVER TODAY."

 

[OldGuy]

Things change . . . way back when, I said I was going to drop the program on my daily driver because the device is so inaccurate, but I decided, for now at least, and since I have initiated a formal complaint/inquiry, and have asked for a fair resolution, and have to wait 30 days for that, that I should let the devices continue being inaccurate, build the log up, and see if a resolution comes along.

Of course, what I would like to accomplish is to somehow establish where/why the inaccurate readings are occurring. I have half the information available, the timestamp on the log in our RightTrack account, but the other half is to establish, and show beyond a doubt, where I am at that those times.

I sense no one is going to just take our word for it, even though some of the "evidence" is so ridiculous it loses it's own credibility.

I see on the Internet that others have had problems with these devices, some problems even worse, like ruining vehicles' electrical systems, and there may be some class-actions going. The electrical system problems have to do with devices plugged into the OBD2 port, which ours are, and that "code-reading" port being intended for short-time use in a controlled environment, like a mechanic's garage. It seems like plugging something in, and leaving it, fries some systems.

I am an experienced, DIY, code reader, and never thought about that.

 

[OldGuy]

Just have it somewhere convenient . . . .

The device does not actually measure braking by pushing on the brake pedal or accelerating by pushing on the accelerator; it measures the rate of change in the vehicle's speed. It cannot distinguish how that change occurs; so it is not actually monitoring the driver. It is mostly monitoring gravity (hills) and curves.

It encourages driving at a constant speed, with no recognition as to whether that is safe or not. It should be obvious that trying to drive at a constant speed can get you in some trouble, but . . .

I tested this theory on the 3.6 miles where I have been getting hard braking (mostly) and/or hard acceleration incidences. The various (safe) speeds on that route are 25, 35, and 45. Of course, on the half-dozen turns (as opposed to curves) a safe speed is less than 25. I tried to hold my speed to as close to 35 as I could, the only times slowing from that being when I had to make turns.

Needless to say, it was not safe to drive 35 in the flat, open stretches where the speed limit is 45, because the cars sorta piled up behind me, and it was even more unsafe to hold it close to 35 on the sharp 25 turns. It was hard to do those curves without braking, after 55 years of braking.

It was much harder to hold close to 35 coming down the long hill coming back than going up that hill going the other way. I did have to brake to keep from increasing speed rapidly.

It was a very unnatural, abnormal, and unsafe way to drive.

But, I drove the 3.6 miles there and back without an "incident" being recorded.
- - - - - -
Oh, yeah, no negative incidences on this 7.2 mile drive, but the discount for that vehicle went down 1%.

So, the more you drive safely, the more your discount . . . . another lie.

 

[WinniWoman]

What did I tell ya?.......

 

[OldGuy]

Still driving a little, copying and saving the data.

It says a whole lot when a company stops "talking" to you. They know enough not to say any more.

 

[OldGuy]

DW finds it curious that we are driving three vehicles over exactly the same short stretch of roads, and one vehicle has no Events, one vehicle has seven Events, and one vehicle has 22 Events.

 

[OldGuy]

Yesterday DW headed into the grocery store, and when she got back, she said, "Did I have an event?"

That, in itself, says something . . .

But, it turns out that when she came around one of those blind 35 mph curves, with inadequate warning, there was a guy standing in the middle of the road, waving his arms, and she had to hard-brake for real. Someone was unloading a dozer in the middle of the road.

So, I looked at the log and, no, no event.

Then, last night I looked again, and, yes there was, at 8:36 AM. So, it does record real actual events, too, not just fake ones.

That actual event had not changed her 13% discount.

 

[OldGuy]

DW and I have a joke going now . . . we are saying the devices are like the local speed cops who hang out a little out of sight, and target certain cars.

I drive two cars, a Fast and Furious-style one and a funky SUV. Neither have a front tag, and an out-of-state rear tag. I drive them both the same, like an anal OldGuy.

I don't have any negative events in the funky SUV, but I have 22 in my Fast and Furious car, just like what a speed cop would target.

Wow! Did I really say that? Speed Cop . . . targeting vehicles based on appearance.

 

[OldGuy]

Something else that's interesting . . .

The car with the highest premium is at 7% discount.

The car with the middle premium is at 13% discount.

The car with the lowest premium is at 27% discount.

Hmmmm!

 

[OldGuy]

The car with the lowest premium is at 27% discount.

Not that there is anything wrong with 27%, but the vehicle has no events and has been at 28%, 26% and 27%.

Never 30%.

Just soooooooo many inconsistent inconsistencies.

 

[OldGuy]

Vehicle choice is now part of going anywhere.

I had to run into town to the post office and the mall (Dollar General), so took the vehicle with no Events, at 27% discount. I had no Events, but the discount went down to 26%. Also, the driver seat heater came on on it's own. I kept shutting it off, but it kept coming back on. There is/was a class action lawsuit against Progressive because their Snapshot that plugged into the OBD2 port caused a lot of electrical problems, that port intended for temporary diagnostic use when the vehicle is not being operated. I'm waiting to hear what I should do, pull the device or pull the fuse.

Then, I had a longer trip, 60 miles RT, and my wife said, "Take my car. It doesn't get events like yours." Mostly hilly, winding roads, but with more traffic than our local one. I had two things that easily could have been events . . . the car in front of me stopping dead to turn left, without signalling, and a mama deer and her baby in the road when I came around a curve. Firm braking, but not unsafe both times . . . just what you have to do. No new events.

 

[OldGuy]

Oh, yeah, no negative incidences on this 7.2 mile drive, but the discount for that vehicle went down 1%.

So, the more you drive safely, the more your discount . . . . another lie.

I drove it again today, about 30 miles, no Events, but the discount went down 1% again.

 

[OldGuy]

Not that there is anything wrong with 27%, but the vehicle has no events and has been at 28%, 26% and 27%.

Never 30%.

Just soooooooo many inconsistent inconsistencies.

25% now. Still no Events.

I got two more Events recorded in my daily driver going to and from work today. They absolutely did not happen, and the timing is the same as others in that car. I simply cannot drive it without getting an event.

One car I can't get an event in and another car I can't drive without getting an event.

We have been offered to send the devices back and take the discounts now reading, 7%, 13% and 25%. I don't like that because the faulty devices have skewed our discounts a lot lower than they should be. It's like they penalized us, then we're being asked to lock that in.

But, it would be over.

 

[am1]

You may have to sue the company or even better sue them and find another company. If they treat you this way now how do you think they will treat you after a collision?