I also haven’t signed anything saying anyone can use my data. Don’t know if hubs did but we don’t have a loan so I didn’t sign anything.
If you sign saying they CAN share your data with your insurance co, does it actually say that they can use it for rating? I’ll have to check to see if that’s allowed in my state.
Sounds like every cat ever.
As opposed to the rabbits we get here. They always choose the wrong way when confronted by a car.
Arguably, this kind of data sharing is not much different than the data sharing that makes CLUE or personal credit reports possible.
(For non-US/non-P&C folks: CLUE is an industry database of claim histories generated by insurers submitting claims data to LexisNexis. Ordering CLUE reports is a standard part of new business underwriting in personal lines.)
The difference is that now it’s a car manufacturer contributing data to the common underwriting database.
The time I know I had a hard brake was when someone ran a red light & they had been in my blind spot. That’s also when I found out my car’s anti collision features worked. Braked so hard I looked in the mirror to make sure no one ran into me.
I suppose it was my fault for not knowing the car I couldn’t see was going to run a red light.
But I guess I’m just beating a dead horse now.
Looking back at the OP article, I think there is one piece of the puzzle that’s missing to me.
Hard braking data is, I think, only relevant in an environment where rating is being done with telematics.
It’s not clear if the subject of the article had been part of such a program, or if LexisNexis was just reporting everything it had on them, regardless of whether it was actually being used by the insurer in its rating and underwriting.
While I wouldn’t completely discount the possibility of an insurer using telematics data in the predictive modeling behind a non-telematics tiering determination…even though it’s been many years since I worked with personal auto in the US, I think I would have heard something about it, unless it’s brand new and/or limited to just an insurer or two.
Maybe LexisNexis’ now has an insurance score model that makes use of such data when available? I haven’t kept up with that aspect of their product offerings…
You drove in an area that had a person who ran a red light and a hard brake was required. It’s not significantly different from ZIP code. You don’t choose that the place you live has bad drivers. It’s not your fault other people drive badly in your ZIP code. It’s objectively good that you braked before collision. However, as frustrating as it is (and imagine how much more to non-actuaries), circumstances outside your control will impact your rate.
The person who drives such that they hard brake every 30 minutes will have a much higher rate. Similarly, somebody who is T-boned while driving the speed limit through a green light will (in most states) get a higher rate for it.
Does anybody know if Honda is doing this? And if so, where do I go to turn it off?
From what I’ve read, on the internet, you have to opt in to it if you have a Honda.
From for years ago:
Honda on Aug. 6 announced Honda and Acura owners with HondaLink and AcuraLink connected cars could opt-in to share driving data with Verisk. The data exchange provider would study the data and provide analysis and tips on the motorist’s driving through a Driver Feedback app.
Drivers who opted in to the Driver Feedback app might receive offers on insurance from carriers studying the telematics data, according to Honda, who specifically mentioned Nationwide as a possibility.
NYP, yesterday, says the same thing about Honda and other less morally bankrupt mfr’s:
Sure, but presumably I’m already being rated for zip code as well as past collisions.
And I still don’t want to be dinged for speeding when I’m not speeding. So who is driving around in all the cars making sure the speed limits are correct? (Where’s that dead horse emoji?)
Actually, the telematics partially replaces the information provided by ZIP code and (perhaps to a lesser extent) past claims claims history.
I just went down a rabbit hole, because they claim that Nissan has it right in their privacy policy that they can collect information on your sexual activity. I was curious what would enable my car to know my sexual activity (perhaps connection to a phone app where I log having sex?) so I followed the links.
Here is the claim with a direct link to the privacy policy. They claim “We absolutely aren’t making that up. It says so in their privacy notice.”
Here is the only reference to “sex” in the policy:
Does “sex” inherently cover “sexual activity” even though it’s clearly intended to read as “biological sex”? I strongly doubt it, but maybe that legally holds up. Nothing else in their policy even hints at “sexual activity”. There are some general categories like “other personal and non-personal data” which describes examples such as “vehicle description”, “VIN”, “general geolocation service data”.
It’s very possible Nissan changed their policy, but I am always skeptical of articles exaggerating their claims by adding a link in the vein of “do your own research!” and then moving on with no context added beyond the claim and link. Once I find that one of the claims smells of bullshit, I am hesitant to trust anything else by that source without thorough research.
Probably can sense rocking in their Quests.
I think they changed their policy after backlash. Here is a shot of the poilicy from an older article
That’s useful and restores my trust. Wish it was typical in journalism to have at least link to a saved image for such things. I’d guess that was the result of some boilerplate language that had no compelling reason to be ripped out, but who knows.
This kind of thing is way more annoying when articles report on a law or a court case and make claims then never back them up. But clearly it matters here too, because without @ArthurItas I would have disregarded the entire article as “clearly containing some truth due to numerous articles from other sources, but impossible to know how truthful this source is until every claim is investigated.” Even though I had a predisposition to trust Mozilla, I don’t know the bias or professionalism of everybody in the company.
Are you talking about this? -
I noticed this a lot in the comments to the article. Something along the lines of “when I drive to/from work I have to hard brake several times because of all the idiots on the road I use”.
Regardless of whether you are one of the most careful drivers on that road, the fact that you are commuting on a road that requires multiple instances of hard braking means that you are more likely to have an accident than someone who commutes on a quiet surface street/country road.
You make a good point.
Precisely. You could use alternate roads that you don’t have extensive experience of having idiots that make your drive dangerous. If there is no other way to work, you simply have a dangerous drive that requires you to frequently screech to a halt.
I could, however, buy that argument if there is only one car in front of them, their car, and never once another vehicle on the road, and they are driving at a safe distance, but the car in front suddenly begins driving in reverse.
That’s the only case I can think of where I’d go “okay it’s 100% bullshit for that one to count against you.”
