Car tech makes insurance more confusing

"Cars and Things" (stern0)
10/22/2015 at 13:09 • Filed to: None

Technology continues to have a profound impact on cars. Just a few years ago, for example, few cars had blind-spot monitoring. However, blind-spot monitoring was offered as an option on three-quarters of the cars offered for sale in 2014. And, says the American Automobile Assn, nearly half of the class of 2014 were could be equipped with lane-departure systems.

In the face of such rapid technology changes, a question has arisen. Frank Doyle, senior vice president of insurance services for AAA Northeast asked: how does such technology affect car insurance rates. It appears to be a double-edged sword:

Technology officers improved safety while also promising reduced claims

Technology also means that more equipment may have to be repaired or replaced, boosting repair costs

The current edition of AAA Northeast cited an AAA study that backed up the claims of improved safety and reduced claims. The researchers found, for example, that rearview cameras improved rear visibility by an average of 46 percent. Another study, this one by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) found that Volvo XC60s, equipped with forward collision avoidance systems, had fewer claims than Volvos and other luxury models without similar options.

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reported in another study that Acura and Mercedes-Benz models with similar equipment saw a 14 percent drop in property damage claims.

However, there’s the question of increasing repair bills. “There’s a nice benefit for reducing the frequency of accidents, and that’s a good thing, particularly to prevent injury, but the cost to repair vehicles has been going up substantially,” Doyle said

IIHS found that while Mercedes-Benz cars, equipped with forward crash-avoidance warning systems, had a three percent reduction in claims, that vehicle claims cost rose by more than $800.

If this seems a bit complicated, it is. Indeed, the issue gets more complex when you add in the human factor. Drivers, for example, can impact accident results if they choose to turn off the safety feature. If it is off, then the system cannot have any effect on whether an accident is avoided or not. And, if the driver chooses to ignore the warnings, then, it is as if the system is off.

Doyle noted that each of these factors will likely have an impact as the body of data grows. “It’s becoming pretty complicated,” he said. “There are early numbers to indicated that the frequency of accidents could be lower, but ultimately, it’s going to depend on how may of these safety systems are engaged and whether drivers are paying attention to them.”

DISCUSSION (15)

Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer > Cars and Things
10/22/2015 at 13:14

BREAKING NEWS: INSURANCE COMPANY FINDS EXCUSE TO KEEP RATES HIGH

450X_FTW > Cars and Things
10/22/2015 at 13:23

They need to make it where if it can be proven that the other person caused the accident (say you’re sitting at a red light and get rear ended) that person has to pay your deductible and their insurance has to take care of the repairs. No changes to your insurance and you don’t pay a penny. Sadly in Michigan that’s not the case, you get into an accident regardless of who’s at fault, be ready for your rates to double

Cars and Things > 450X_FTW
10/22/2015 at 13:29

I feel your pain...had a single-car crackup due to the weather last Jan. (car hit a patch of ice on a 45-degree turn north and car spun out, went endo once and smacked guardrail). Guess who is at least half at fault (though I was just minding my own business, so to speak, and driving, of course)? moi...but my rates more than doubled, almost tripled. Now I am undergoing appeal... that’s the case in Mass. Can you explain it?

By the way, with rear crash tech the camera could be rigged to be on all the time, while the key is in, recording to a last in first out buffer that lasts for a day or so. It would cover you and meet with your idea...

Cars and Things > Smallbear wants a modern Syclone, local Maple Leafs spammer
10/22/2015 at 13:29

Another one?

jariten1781 > 450X_FTW
10/22/2015 at 13:31

There are only a few 'no-fault' states (like 10 or something). Everywhere else works as you describe.

450X_FTW > jariten1781
10/22/2015 at 13:51

Which is why Michigan has such ridiculous insurance rates

jariten1781 > 450X_FTW
10/22/2015 at 13:59

Yep. When 'no-fault' was put in place it was supposed to actually lower rates because there'd no longer be court battles between insurance companies. Didn't work out so the majority of states that implemented it got rid of it. For some reason a few have left it there...because inertia I guess.

450X_FTW > jariten1781
10/22/2015 at 14:28

Just as bad as no-fault is our MCCA fee. Everyone pays $186 per year as a fee, this is because insurance companies don’t have to pay more than $545,000 of damages, and the fee makes up the difference. I have my truck, 2 motorcycles, and my wife’s car, so we get to pay this fee 4 times a for the year. Hell my one classic bike, the insurance only costs $17 a year. But because of MCCA It actually costs $203.

jariten1781 > 450X_FTW
10/22/2015 at 14:39

You’d think the home of the American automobile would have a less ridiculous system...that's just nasty.

gin-san - shitpost specialist > Cars and Things
10/22/2015 at 14:51

As long as insurance companies are privately owned and have shareholders, drivers are fucked. As far as I know all Canadian provinces have no-fault insurance where if you are not at fault, your premiums and driving record are not affected. The fact that someone else can clearly be at fault (i.e. a rear-end collision) and still impact your own rates is completely absurd, and something that needs to be rethought in the states which do this (which is apparently most states).

I personally believe the public, government run system is superior, since in British Columbia they have liability insurance which is basically renewed with your plate renewal or license renewal (I don’t remember which); I believe you can purchase additional physical coverage from private companies afterwards. In Ontario, anyway, physical coverage is cheap, it’s drivers who are injured (or who claim they’re injured, those fucking fucks) that make the mandatory liability/injury coverages so expensive.

No matter what they say, the companies are always looking out for their bottom line, the customer is simply the means of satisfying that need.

To be fair, we'd probably be bitching about a government-run system as well, but that's another discussion.

450X_FTW > jariten1781
10/22/2015 at 15:06

We also ban tesla sales method here. No electric cars unless you buy them out of state

Cars and Things > jariten1781
10/27/2015 at 15:23

I think it was at one time about 20 states now it’s 14. Mass. is one of them. Ouch.

Cars and Things > 450X_FTW
10/27/2015 at 15:23

True, true, true, true!!!

Cars and Things > jariten1781
10/27/2015 at 15:24

Next joke, please......

Cars and Things > gin-san - shitpost specialist
10/27/2015 at 15:24

Nicely reasoned thought!! Worth considering...