In the program that I was in, single events were captured, but when examined over the course of weeks and months of driving, were statiscially insignificant.

However, the point that isn't clear is . . . what if the area or route you drive in does create a lot of such events, like on congested roads or routes with a lot of onramps . . . does that tell the monitor of the data that you drive in a higher risk environment, be it location or time of driving, that would disqualify you from a discount?

Remember, the rules are written by the insurance company. They, and they alone decide what is 'acceptable driving behavior'. Oh, and just to throw another anchor into the mix, they might decide to change the computer program tomorrow morning so that what is considered 'safe driving' today', will tomorrow be considered 'unsafe driving'.

Trust in the insurance gods for they will never lead you astray.

A lot of foil-hattery going on right now. They're not going to put a 19 year old intern in charge of programming some device and basing their entire business model on it. As I said earlier, there are armies of underwriters but seems as though that part has been ignored Insurance companies are going to do whatever it takes to stay in business, as they do have to pay out for accidents and to some degree fraud. Most insurance companies make far less profit by volume than other industries. The sensor thing discussed here is a way to cut rates for safe drivers and probably increase them for unsafe drivers. Personally I don't see anything wrong with using traffic tickets and accident history to determine this...

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Of course the next round of inducements is, "What do you have to hide? We are sure you are a safe driver. We only want to weed out the bad apples. So if you have nothing to hide, you surely can't complain about this little old thing"

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

Yeah, they are the good guys. What if the traffic ticket was unwarranted? Several years back, I met an elderly woman who was in an accident and became the victim of the perpetrator's lies.

Immediately after the accident, the guy who hit her jumped out of the car and approached four people standing on the side of the road who had seen the accident.

The guy told them, "When the police arrive you are going to tell them MY version of the accident" (lie lie lie). He then paid each willing accomplice $20. When the police arrived, the "witnesses" told the police the "story". As a result the police wrote the elderly woman a ticket.

Unfortunately, she accepted the ticket and as a result her insurance company blamed her for the wreck. So now this crap is on her driving AND her insurance record. PLUS, she was out $$$$ to get her car repaired.

How would you feel about the insurance company using this scenario (unwarranted ticket and accident) against your elderly mother or grandmother?

The industry has made a strong case for a correlation between credit scores and loss claims, prompting many carriers to use credit scores in underwriting schedules, where that type of rating is not barred by law.

Don't pay bills on time (or don't even have a credit score) means you're a higher risk driver?

What's your point? The insurance still had to pay because she would have been determined at fault, regardless of what actually happened and thus justifying increased rates. Its her fault for accepting it and sitting back assuming that story is true (somehow I think it is probably exaggerated when it was told to you). The police would have charged the perp with obstructing an investigation, insurance fraud, and tampering with evidence if she lifted a finger.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Most people are shaken up mmediately after an accident and are not thinking clearly, especially the elderly. When the cop presented the ticket at the scene, grandma probably felt compelled to sign it. Ma'am, let me make you an offer you can't refuse. You know, the old 'Now, ma'am I just need you to sign this traffic citation or go to jail' offer.

So, grandma gets it twice, once by getting hit by an inattentive cell phone yakking moronic driver and secondly, receiving a ticket as a result of Mr. Liar's lies.

I can tell you that if it was me, I would have told the policeman to check the pockets of the so-called 'witnesses' for the extra $20 they were paid.

But the elderly don't always think so clearly, especially immediately after getting hit hard (whip lash, concussion, broken bones, etc etc). But, hey, don't cut granny any slack......she's supposed to be on her game 24/7.

Always wondered about states where police officers hand out tickets at the scene, where they weren't witness to the accident, but merely come to the scene well after the fact and often when the cars have been moved to the side of the road.

The police in Arizona hand out tickets to those they presume to be at fault, with the options to challenge in court, pay a fine or take traffic school.

In Hawaii, the police don't issue tickets for the accident, but will cite intoxication, lapses in licence, registration or insurance or other technical violations, but won't single out a driver for fault.

Insurance still had to pay out and that costs them money. What would you do if you were the insurance company and all you saw was a ticket and damage report? Just forgive her and move on with no ill effect? That is an easy way to go out of business reallllly fast. You are demonizing the wrong party.

Granny got taken advantage of, but not by her insurance--the situation is irrelevant.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth

Exactly, which brain surgeon came up with that correlation?

Speaking of which, how about the way credit scores are calculated? Fair Isaac is the credit score god only they won't tell any of us how they calculate credit scores.

That's for them to know and us to find out.

From a macro statistical point of view, the correlation is compelling, in other words, there is a clear link between low credit score and increase claims. On an individual basis, things change. For instance, not all teen drivers or seniors are terrible drivers, but statistically as a group, they are.

Ponder this. Until recently in France, women drivers were shown to have fewer claims than their male counterparts, so they were afforded discounts on their auto insurance. However, this constitutes discrimination under French law, so now women will have to pay the same rates as men.

The point is, this now counts as points against her driving record as well as insurance claims record. I don't believe that ANYONE should be required to sign anything at the scene of an accident. There is too much stress and too much adrenaline and usually injuries ranging from mild to severe for anyone to be able to accurately relay to a police officer what happened. The effect is known as the body going into SHOCK.

Just wait until you get rear ended by an 18 wheeler or some yahoo in a four wheel drive two ton pick em up truck takes you head on and then try to accurately relay to the police exactly what happened IMMEDIATELY after the accident.

Between the statistical computer models and PC, we're finished.

I agree, but that is why there is a documented claim process and the U.S. court system. You have failed to answer my consistent question - how is any of described situation the insurance company's fault?

BTW, been there and done that. Police use discretion if any parties are injured.

__________________
TC
Current stable:
- 2004 Mazda RALLYWANKEL
- 2007 Saturn sky redline
- 2004 Explorer...under surgery.

Past: 135i, GTI, 300E, 300SD, 300SD, Stealth