Why don't we film everyone at home to determine if they engage in risky behavior like climbing roofs or using chain saws?

We could determine their liability insurance premium more accurately!

Why don't we film everyone in bed to determine if they use condoms?

We could determine their health insurance premiums more accurately!

The difference is that swinging a chainsaw in your bedroom isn't going to kill some stranger.

Driving like a moron in a 2T vehicle is.

Risky driving isn't a private problem. It's a public problem.

And the government already monitors your on road behavior and punishes you for engaging in risk. Speed cameras and traffic cops exist, in case you didn't know

We just use their credit score instead!

Credit score is used for lending. Basically, helps to understand the repaying capacity of the person.

However, presence of alcohol in sweat or by another means if detected and taken by systems to feed data to insurance companies it will make judicious decision in charging the person a higher premium.

Because, drunken driving risk lives of others on the road and yourself. If a person is not in a position to live on a agreeable consensus of social security model without putting others life at risk, jungle suits him.

That is a broad brush you are painting with...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-brewery_syndrome

Also:

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/car-insurance/credit-scor...

Sounds like a good idea to me.

I suppose it's a similar argument as answering the question "why shouldn't sicker people pay way higher insurance premiums instead of driving up the average cost". For health insurance I think the pool of insured people to protect against black swan type problems is reasonable and ethical (it protects people with birth defects etc.). However for car insurances I feel like this argument doesn't hold as your driving behavior is very much in your control.

The interesting question is if it might actually be a smart strategic move to announce such a use of data. It's a bit counterintuitive as that would limit your customer pool. However I think there are benefits to limiting your customer pool to more "positive" cases. Let's say Tesla would announce that they'd collect data on reckless driving, warn the drivers and upon ignoring the warnings a couple of times inform insurers about it. That would probably result in less reckless drivers buying their cars which might actually not be horrible since that would also reduce the number of accidents etc. The big issue is of course that it would violate all reasonable privacy laws I can think of (I guess they could make it opt in).

[all assuming non-automated driving]

"I suppose it's a similar argument as answering the question "why shouldn't sicker people pay way higher insurance premiums instead of driving up the average cost"."

I don't think that is a good analogy ... many "sicker" people have played no role in their sickness which may not be related to behavior or decisions.

A better analogy would be: Why don't mountain climbers and scuba divers[1] pay higher insurance rates ?

I sort of think that they should, however I don't have a good answer as to what happens when an injured stunt skier is broke (and broken) ... do they get no medical care ?

[1] Or whatever - you get what I mean.

I know this was just a hypothetical question but as a scuba diver I actually pay for a completely separate insurance on top of my standard health plan called DAN insurance: http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/insurance/dive/

So stuff like a helicopter evac, access to a hyperbaric chamber and the ability to call a number and speak to a doctor who specializes in diving related illness means I already do pay more for insurance than someone who isn't a diver.

Doesn't this happen already with some classes though? Smokers vs non-smokers?

The problem is that statistics isn't that accurate a branch of math. For example, drivers who drive faster are statistically more accident prone. I'd wager, though, that Lewis Hamilton driving faster is less accident prone than me driving slower, something that'll never show up in any statistics based result set.

Statistics are obviously useful, but they are a big gun that sometimes points towards feet.

I'd wager that Lewis Hamilton driving at speed would exhibit very different driving behaviour than I would.

With enough data we wouldn't need to just rely on measuring speed. Reaction times, steering behaviour and lots of other driving terms I am not familiar with can all come into play. Cross reference this with actual accidents and you could come up with a fairly accurate model of what makes a safe driver.

Let me try to rewrite what you are saying in-line with my opinion, hopefully without any loss in translation. You are saying that statistics precision is dependent on model quality, and a better model yields a precision good enough to be usable.

You are correct. My problem with that approach is twofold:

1) There is no clear definition of "good enough";

2) The balancing mechanism between improving model accuracy and simplifying the model (for predictability/market competitiveness) involves actors with very unbalanced bargaining power (insurance companies vs very small subsets of customers)

If I can state the problem in another way: When you use a very refined statistical model for insurance premiums you are basically creating dynamic pricing for insurance services. Dynamic pricing hurts competition in the market through the development of an exaggerated bargaining power by one side of the market. Consumers would be worse off. What they gain in justice of their pricing (I get lower premiums because I'm a safe driver), they lose in bargaining power (via fragmentation of the consumer market).

I would say a good enough measure would be down to accidents. With a large enough dataset I am sure there would be a strong correlation between driving quality and accidents. In that regard the desires of the insurance companies are largely in line with the general public.

I 100% agree that more dangerous drivers should pay a higher premium, but there needs to be a fair, equal, transparent way to determine what dangerous is. Between law enforcement agencies, speed cameras and red light cameras, we have established well-tested legal frameworks which determine whether a driver is dangerous or not.

We we don't have are any legal or moral frameworks for passive, always-on methods of observation. Until we do, we shouldn't be letting private companies arbitrarily determine whether a driver is dangerous or not.

"...and red light cameras, we have established well-tested legal frameworks which determine whether a driver is dangerous or not."

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red-light-cameras/increase-...

I believe we have established red light cameras are the cause of danger in a large number of circumstances, with yellow light time being reduced to increase government revenue.

Not to mention the lack of due process.

I don't think the government should rely on private companies algorithms to determine danger or guilt.

We should not be punishing people for something they will/might cause. The system should panish only people for something they have done already.

Otherwise, we should punish you with a speeding ticket, because you will sometime in the future with some probability exceed a speed limit. Would that be ok for you?