As I understand, all 50 states require insurers to write high risk drivers policies through assigned risk plans. I guess you could shuffle the money through the state as well, but it seems like an inefficient way to accomplish the same.
But really, car insurance and their respective mandates exist to protect the innocent, not drivers themselves. e.g. No state requires that you insure your property.
But yeah, that’s kind of my point. No state (except NH) wants people to be able to run others over, default on any damages, and leave the innocent person screwed. That’s why liability insurance is mandatory, and it’s why (mostly) first-party insurance is not. It is a social safety net.
The goal is to label the drivers as more or less likely to lead to claims, and "aggression" is considered a factor.
Insurance is a business, where the insured pays an insurer to pay for costs for damages that the insured cannot afford to pay. The insurer's job is to calculate the amount of premium necessary to ensure they can afford to pay for the damages, but they also have to sell the insurance at competitive prices, so they probably have to calculate premiums based on the risks that each insured represents.
>Secondly, you seem to be implying that only aggressive drivers are getting flagged by the data. But the computer doesn't know if you accelerate and brake hard because you're an aggressive driver, or if your circumstances require it. Maybe you have to commute to your job in heavy stop-and-go traffic with difficult merges.
The goal is not to label drivers as aggressive or not aggressive. The goal is to tease out the factors that lead to claims. With a sufficiently large dataset, it should be possible to tease out whether or not characteristics such as stop and go traffic is an indication of higher likelihood of claims. If an insurer does not calculate this property, then a competing insurer probably will and hence be able to offer lower premiums to less risky customers.
>Finally, this kind of surveillance changes behavior in ways that may make things less safe. If you're driving down a street and a ball bounces out from behind a parked car do you slam on your brakes out of fear that there is a child chasing after it, or do you think that hitting the brakes might make your premiums go up so you just hope that there isn't a child coming.
If a single event of slamming brakes is causing premiums to go up, I doubt that insurer is pricing premiums accurately. However, if the insurer experiences greater losses in neighborhoods where people are slamming their brakes more often, then obviously the risks are higher in that neighborhood and premiums need to reflect that.
The higher premiums themselves would tell people in the neighborhood that either they are driving too fast, or they are not looking after the children. And if people are choosing to risk plowing into a child for the sake of their premiums, then that is more of a moral quandary than a problem with insurance pricing.
If the goal is to subsidize a specific population, then that should be a government function via taxes.