Worse than this, who say's they'll use the data honestly or competently?
Maybe they will draw false inferences from your innocuous driving data and still label you a 'bad' driver.
Then, if you try and argue with them, they'll make an appeal to the data, and attempt to shut down all debate.
2. It's called bumper to bumper traffic for a reason. Following distance is <1 cars length. Anymore than that and some bozo is going to slide into your lane.
3. You know nothing of me nor my driving habits. I simply pointed out that brakes can fail or appear to fail for reasons other than mechanical failure.
Yes, but that's not because of your driving habits, is it?
> 2. It's called bumper to bumper traffic for a reason. Following distance is <1 cars length. Anymore than that and some bozo is going to slide into your lane.
Heaven forbid your ego take a little blow to make everybody safer.
> 3. You know nothing of me nor my driving habits. I simply pointed out that brakes can fail or appear to fail for reasons other than mechanical failure.
I know exactly what you've told me: You drive in a manner likely to cause your brakes to overheat and fade, a problem that many, many other people driving in the same conditions as you are able to avoid. Therefore, you should pay more than them for insurance, all else being equal.
Also: when you have an automatic and can’t depend on your engine for some braking power to take a load off the brakes.
The issue here and my concerns with GPS trackers in general is if they are seen as providing valuable insight to how a person drives. This simply is not the case because so much of driving is context dependent. A few weeks ago, my brakes gave out briefly and I swerved sharply into the shoulder of the on-ramp I was on and finally came to a stop in the median between the on-ramp and the road I was trying to merge on to. Purely from GPS data that looks like erratic and dangerous driving when in reality I saved the insurance company money by managing to avoid hitting anything with my car.