Talk:Usage-based insurance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Name of Page[edit]

Should this page be called "Pay as you drive" rather than PAYD? Should there be a redirect, and if so in which direction? --RichardVeryard 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Generalizing the Concept[edit]

The term pay-as-you-drive was used in the BBC news today [1] to refer to a forthcoming report on road pricing. This article previously referred solely to PAYD insurance, but I think it is reasonable to include road pricing as well. --RichardVeryard 11:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

PAYD and "Pay as you Drive" are trademarks. "Telematic auto insurance" would be a more generic term.--Nowa 02:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Commercial Offerings[edit]

There is some concern that the section on commercial offerings violates WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Since this is an emerging technology with potentially important social and environmental consequences, however, I think that it is appropriate to have at least some mention of the specific versions of the technology that been commercialized.

Counterpoint?--Nowa 00:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for stating your concerns. Given your reservations, I will let the info be for the time being. However, note that while PAYD may not currently be offered by a large volume of companies, I foresee this eventually becoming a slippery slope to a list of links for companies offering the service. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 00:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point. When we get to the point where the list is too long, we probably just say that it is generally available.--Nowa 10:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the argument is the other way around. I don't think there is any dispute about the notability of PAYD, but at present most of the sources for PAYD insurance belong to or refer to specific insurance companies. I added the Commercial Offerings section because I thought a simple list was better than a proliferation of product-specific articles like the one on TripSense. I don't think TripSense is sufficiently notable to deserve its own article, but I think it's okay to have a brief mention of TripSense within the PAYD article. --RichardVeryard 15:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Brief descriptions of the different companies' approaches to the technical challenge are relevant and useful. If the list gets too long, the data could be transferred to a table: Country, Company, and tick marks for each method they use (odometer, OBD, GPS, etc.) with maybe a last column for further remarks.Egmonster (talk) 00:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Broadbit[edit]

The recent addition of Broadbit information had only a commercial web site as a source. Nor could any other information be found. It may be acceptable when there are more sources, such as newspaper, magazine, etc.--Nowa 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Edits[edit]

Dear Anonymous editor,

I appreciate your efforts to make a better article, but it might be best if you explained the rationalle behind your edits on this page first. You seemed to be cutting out a lot of good information and it wasn't clear why.--Nowa 11:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

merge from TripSense[edit]

See discussion at Talk:TripSense Pairadox 07:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pareto? Efficient[edit]

The following addition to the article was recently proposed:

Recent theoretical economic research on the social welfare effects of Progressive's telematics technology business process patents have questioned whether the business process patents are pareto efficent for society. Premliminary results suggest that they are not, but more work is needed. [1] [2]

I did a quick review of the cited articles, but couldn't find support for the assertion. In particular, the term "pareto" didn't appear in either reference. Could the contributing editor please elaborate?--Nowa 11:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Read about congestion pricing, Pareto has to do with optimal pricing related to externalities. Some authors in the transport economics literature consider PAYD as a form of congestion pricing. In the near future (now I am working on something else) I will elaborate on the economic rationale. In the meantime, see the New York Times [2]. This article is from the authors of Freakonomics explaining PAYD as a more equitable alternative to congestion pricing. Mariordo (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Are PAYD systems "GPS"? based[edit]

The point is being made that current commercial offerings of PAYD do not send GPS position information to insurance companies. This is a good point. The editor, however, goes on to remove reference to fact that the GPS aspect of the systems still raises privacy concerns. I've added another reference to support the position that the GPS itself raises privacy concerns, even if the insurance company asserts that position information is not used.--Nowa (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

From my perspective, the bottom line is this: Although GPS car systems exist, none have ever been used, nor even proposed to be used, to provide location information to insurers. It's not that these systems have no privacy concerns, it's just that those concerns have no role in this article. In OnStar, sure, but then again there is already a criticism section there that covers it. In no case has pay-as-you-drive insurance been used or even proposed to be used in a way that divulges GPS information to anyone that didn't have it to begin with. Ergo, no real privacy issue. If I'm wrong here, please correct me, but otherwise I think we should say exactly that. Vectro (talk) 03:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with everything that you say, except that I would point out that this is an encyclopedia article and hence should summarize the content of its sources, not draw its own conclusions. We have two sources that point out that the mere fact that a GPS is placed in a car is a cause of privacy concern. It would be appropriate, however, to add additional information summarizing the counter arguments to the GPS related privacy concern if you can find a source that articulates it.--Nowa (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Both Hartford TrueLane and all three versions of State Farm Drive Safe & Save make use of GPS data seen by the insurer, not that either of these programs are mentioned on this out-of-date page. Mostlymostly (talk) 19:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Reference[edit]

  1. ^ "Strauss and Hollis, 2007, Insurance Markets When Firms are Assymetrically Informed: A Note" (HTML). 
  2. ^ "Hollis and Strauss, 2007, Privacy, Driving Data and Automobile Insurance: An Economic Analysis" (HTML). 

Information on pricing[edit]

The following text was in the article, but it's been uncited for a while so I removed it. Please feel free to return it with adequate citations of reliable sources. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Charges would be very high for young drivers [citation needed], especially at night[citation needed], and as such would strongly discourage them from driving socially[citation needed].

Potential drawback: Odometer fraud?[edit]

I've heard one other objection raised. Turning back the odometer (long practiced by certain unscrupulous used car sellers) for example, could cause the system to undercharge. In a radio interview, one mileage-based insurance advocate asserted that such odometer fraud is not hard to detect in modern cars, so would not be a significant cost for an odometer-based system. I don't know enough about the field to present or provide references for this issue, but I'd like to see it addressed. Egmonster (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There are some well-reasoned but undocumented points on the fallacy of odometer-fraud as an objection, here: http://www.centspermilenow.org/odometer.htm#Top3Excuses The author has several scholarly papers on that site, but not about odometers. Maybe there's a source somewhere else discussing efficacy of odometer checking to detect fraud in warranty claims? Egmonster (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Usage-based insurance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)