In the future, would Telsa use these data for other purposes? ie after analysing the data, it finds that my driving behaviour risk and has a higher chance of accident. It could trigger high insurance premiums or restriction on which car I can purchase etc.
What exactly is the problem with punishing people for risky driving? Or rather, let them pay a corresponding premium to cover for the (statistically expected) higher damages they will cause? Keep in mind that driving behaviour is something the user has full control of, in contrast to e.g. disabilities, for which of course no insurance premium should be paid.
I actually think this is a good idea, and would like to hear opposing opinions.
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!
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
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 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.
Statistics are obviously useful, but they are a big gun that sometimes points towards feet.
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.
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.
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.
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?
The realistic one for me on this is when they show aggregate data to insurers to get lower premiums for their cars (or indeed provide the insurance themselves at low rates and use the data to get excellent reinsurance rates). That seems a very tesla thing to do.
