Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor
by JohnFen on Monday March 18, 2019 @03:40PM
(#19424424)
> Those drivers could be offered the option of installing them with a smaller increase in premium, and not installing them with a much higher increase in premium.
At a certain point, that's the same as being forced.
Re:Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor
by danans on Monday March 18, 2019 @04:59PM
(#19425229)
> At a certain point, that's the same as being forced.
At a certain point, the risk you impose on the insurance pool by not driving safely is greater than your ability to pay for that risk, so you have forced (priced) yourself out of insurance coverage.
You can always go with another insurance company who will offer you terms that don't involve the tracking device, but they aren't going to extend that coverage to you for a lower price.
But not everyone can be a safe driver, which is one reason we need alternative transportation options for them.
Private insurance companies buy these, not the state
> to then sell/force them on bad drivers.
They don't need to be forced. Those drivers could be offered the option of installing them with a smaller increase in premium, and not installing them with a much higher increase in premium. Eventually, if their driving habits don't change for the better, they will be priced out of auto insurance, which is what happens today if you continually are at fault in car accidents.