One of the greatest – most pernicious – cons associated with car insurance (beyond people being forced to buy car insurance) is that you will “save money” by having the cost of the insurance you’re forced to buy based on how you drive.
The mistaken assumption being that if you are a “safe” driver then you will pay less. In fact, you will pay more – unless you are an obedient driver. One who always drives the speed limit – no faster. Does not accelerate – or brake – faster, in a manner the insurance mafia deems “aggressive.” One who stops – completely – at every stop sign and signals every time he turns.
Even when there is no one around to see him do it.
Ask anyone who drives commercially as most are already under this regime of electronic monitoring of everything they do behind the wheel – including how long they’re behind the wheel and also when. If it’s late in the evening – or too early in the morning.
If it’s raining. Or snowing.
Anything the company doesn’t like can cost them their job – and all their money.
Elon Musk has the same in mind for you.
In addition to the electric car con, he is getting into the insurance con. Both work together well as the electric car is also the electronic car and thus perfectly suited to monitor – and report – your “safe” driving habits.
Musk says what you’ll be forced to pay him (and all the “five families” that comprise the insurance mafia, who are working hard and in concert to make electronic, real-time driver monitoring mandatory, too) will be based upon a Driver Safety Score.
Can you guess how it will be scored?
In a Tesla, if the car’s electronic “safety” systems clang on – e.g., Forward Collision Warning and Automated Emergency Braking – then you will be dunned for “unsafe” driving. You should know that all new cars – not just Teslas and not just electric cars – have similar “safety” electronics as part of their standard equipment package.
You cannot opt out.
And they can be used to narc you out.
At first blush, this may not seem unreasonable to a reasonable person. It reveals itself to be so when you discover that these “safety” systems are programmed to a hyper-cautious standard that’s the vehicular equivalent of insisting that people who are not sick wear “masks.” If you have not driven a car equipped with such systems you won’t know about this; all you’ve heard is how they . . . keep you “safe.”
You know, like “masks” – and Jabs.
In fact, they get very upset if you drive. That is to say, if you exercise judgment.
Your eyes perceive external data regarding objects fixed and moving in relation to you and your car; your brain judges time and distance – spatial relationships. A safe driver knows he has room to pass right now – or will, in the elaborating moment – because he can perceive that the car on the left of him is slowing gradually while the car ahead is picking up speed, increasing the space available to thread the needle in between.
He can make a rolling judgment about what is developing – as opposed to what statically is – and act in concert with developments.
His eyes – and his senses – can tell him whether a hole is closing. Or opening. Whether the car ahead that is actually stopped or merely slowing – and will be off the road before he gets to where it is now. He can judge how much time he’s got to pull into traffic, given oncoming traffic – and how much acceleration will be necessary to do so, safely.
These are the things that encompass the art and skill of driving – as opposed to meatsacking mindlessly in the left seat, passively following the car ahead like an elephant at the circus following the one in front of him, target-fixated on his rear end.
Electronic “safety” systems can only be programmed within a set of comparatively limited parameters. They lack even the judgment capacity of the circus elephant. They are styled “smart” this and “advanced” that – but in fact, they are just machines and one-size-fits-all, which is bad enough by itself since the “size” they are programmed to fit is that of the fearful galucomic old man, whose eyes can no longer see very well and whose brain is fogged by calcification and incipient dementia.
Which also makes them worse – since the fearful glaucomic old man is also often a very unsafe driver. He brakes suddenly and without cause. He pulls slowly (“safely,” according to the programming) into the path of fast-moving traffic. He stops on ice-slicked hills – because the sign says so – even though conditions warrant maintaining momentum, so as to not slide backward into the cars behind him on that ice-slicked hill. He never attempts to pass – and he never gets out of the way. He drives the speed limit – never faster – and often, slower.
Try to imagine Joe Biden overseeing your driving – or rather, being electronically caned to drive like Joe – and you’ll begin to get the idea.
The insurance mafia loves this regime because it assures a steady – and greater – revenue stream. It is easy to avoid accidents – and claims – by driving safely. It is very difficult to obey every traffic law – especially when to do so would be dangerous and might result in an accident (and a claim).
Tesla consigliere Zachary Kirkhorn says that electronic cars collect “enormous amounts of data to assess the attributes of drivers and whether those attributes correlate with safety.”
What he does not say is who gets to define the meaning of “safe” driving.
It should mean, skilled/attentive driving, evidence for that being a clean record as regards accidents/claims filed against the insured – the sole objective measure of actually unsafe driving. It is difficult to comprehend how a driver who never wrecks can be characterized as “unsafe,” even if he does drive faster than the speed limit and doesn’t stop completely at every stop sign.
But the insurance mafia has for decades used traffic law infractions – e.g., “speeding” – as the measure of “unsafe” driving. The record of these technical foul infractions used to dun drivers – including drivers who never cause accidents.
Clearly, this is mercenary as well as punitive. Very much of a piece with forcing the not-sick to wear “masks.” The true purpose in both instances being mindless obedience.
In both cases, it is peddled as being about “safety,” but this nonsense ought to set off alarm bells in the minds of people not yet completely conditioned to mindlessly salivate – like Pavlov’s dogs – at the mere mention of that dreadful word.
. . . .
If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos.
PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)