Last week I came across some information sent to me by a reader, which stated that the Senate Appropriations Committee recently passed a bill in California (72-2), allowing insurance companies to track where, how and exactly when California motorists get behind the wheel. Now that I’ve looked into this further, I’m a little stunned to have discovered that the bill, which goes on to the Senate next month, will have the power to offer different insurance rates and discounts for those drivers who participate in this “little black box” program, as opposed to those drivers who choose instead, to decline the spyware and wish to maintain control of their right to consumer privacy. 

What this means is if you’re a California resident, have a valid drivers license and own a vehicle, you will essentially be forced to choose between using insurance company spyware to get a fair insurance rate or protecting your right to privacy – all strictly ”voluntary,” of course. 

The proposition, which is referred to as AB 2800, allows insurance companies to track – via high tech spyware – any information they believe to be important concerning an individuals driving habits, which might include location, time of day or night, speed and acceleration, as well as how many miles are travelled in any given 24 hour period.  By doing so, insurance companies will offer discounts to driver’s who participate in the program, but it doesn’t seem as if they’ll be offering any discounts for those who choose not to participate.  Also, your insurance rates may eventually be determined on any of the above factors I just mentioned.

According to Consumer Watchdog:

The insurance industry has made its desire to install technology in cars very clear. State Farm argued to the California Department of Insurance this summer that insurers should be allowed to collect a broad range of information including: “time of day,” “days of the week,” “mileage by type of road,” “where miles are driven,” “mileage by speed intervals,” and “aggressive maneuvers (hard stops, starts, or turns).”

Will an insurance company decide that nighttime driving is riskier (as Progressive already does) and try to charge higher rates to the janitor and nurse who work the third shift? Or that a few quick stops last month make you too “aggressive” a driver? It’s almost certain that they’d surrender details about when a car was driven if subpoenaed by a spouse’s divorce attorney.

This brings up all sorts of questions, doesn’t it?  Consumer Watchdog poses a few and I’ve added a few of my own:

• Will an insurer look to avoid providing coverage to employees who work the night shift, if the company decides that nighttime driving is riskier?
• Could insurance companies sell our driving patterns to marketers and/or other companies and corporations?
• Will insurance companies come to believe certain intersections or streets are ”dangerous” and thus charge drivers higher rates just because they drive on those streets routinely?
• How will this information be kept safe?
• How is this not an invasion of privacy?
• Is this truly fair business practice?
• Will older model vehicles be able to participate?

According to what I know, Proposition 103, which was passed 20 years ago, requires car insurance companies to charge drivers less if they drive less – which makes absolute sense - but if Prop 103 is already on the books, why the need for AB 2800, especially when it is illegal under prop 103 for insurance companies to install this kind of spyware in vehicles?  AB 2800 will surely override Prop 103 and in doing so, will allow insurance companies the right to charge drivers more for refusing to allow them an inside track into the personal driving habits of their customers.  What will this mean for the future?  Will our insurance rates be determined on factors such as where we go, what time we travel and what roads we take to get there?

What do you think?  Do you believe insurance companies have the right to know your every driving move?  Do you think it’s fair that drivers who wish not to participate in the program be refused discounts?  Do you think insurance rates should also include where and what time we drive? Do you think AB 2800 will help or hinder your own insurance rates? We know that some companies like OnStar use tracking, but is there a difference between OnStar tracking and insurance tracking? Overall, how do you feel about a tracking device being placed in your vehicle for insurance purposes?

Tags: General // 3 Comments »