The "insurance" game - a monitored future

It's a bad deal for you. It's a bad deal for me as well. If you look at it UBI is the only different way to really buy a policy that's been introduced for years. The uptake in other countries shows that people OTHER than you and me are eager for this sort of policy.

However, I'm a shill. I'm clearly biased. This is becoming non-productive, as I said previously.

MPI and SGI (in SK) are really quite good at what they do. ICBC suffers from a lot of political interference and raiding of the kitty whenever the corporation shows a profit.

Well, so far, I haven't seen a compelling argument why we need UBI/usage based insurance, when here in MB the discount is based on driving record, and it's profitable. Heck, I'm 20+ years claims free, the only strike against me a speeding ticket and two photo radar tickets (no points off for photo radar):

https://www.mpi.mb.ca/Pages/your-rates-driving-record.aspx

I'm at max 33% discount: https://www.mpi.mb.ca/Pages/driver-safety-rating.aspx Why do we need UBI? Answer - we don't.

Edit... Let me go a step further, and suggest that UBI monitoring is not just a data windfall for the insurance company (and by extension whomever they share that data with, law enforcement, government, other corporations, etc.), but that there must be added profit in it, or they would not lobby for it. You keep hearing "data is the new oil".

How much profit is acceptable? Do you keep pushing for maximum profit at the expense of the consumer? Here in MB, looks like MPI really is doing OK - "MPI Records Record Profits":

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/ca/news/breaking-news/mpi-reports-record-profits-170477.aspx#:~:text=Despite an increase in the,of $159.1 million in 2018.

And profits keep going up in 2019/2020: https://winnipegsun.com/news/news-news/mpi-profits-rise-in-first-half-of-2019-20

Doesn't sound like they "need" to adopt UBI, so what's this really about?

I agree, since you continue to skirt the issue of data governance. I’ve heard a lot from you about what the magic beans of UBI might do for us, but not a peep about the original issue. I can draw my own conclusions from here, thank you.

Maybe I'll just get a 2nd phone that I leave at home during trips I know will be "out of bounds". Can't imagine what they would think of running down places where no road is shown with the odd drop added in to complete the "experience"!

Depends on what "good" means. Can't speak to MPI, but......

Cost to plate and insure my bike under SGI = $1735/year. Gives $200k liability an d$700 deductible for damage. If I want to increase liability or decrease deductible, I have to buy an additional "package" policy.

Cost to plate and insure my bike in AB = $490/yr. Gives me $2million liability and $500 deductible on damage.

The profits from SGI are rolled into provincial general revenue. Whether it should be or not is a philosophical debate, but nonetheless is true.

I never skirted it. If you chose ubi you will sign a EULA. The question of whether and should is up to a consumer. If they choose to agree to data usage then they get a different model of insurance premium calculation.

Does it float my boat. No. I won't buy it. Can they collect it? Yes if the customer agrees. Don't suggest I didn't say that previously. Is it compelling to me? No. If there is no interest in the product it will flop.

I said much the same thing when ads on tv started promoting a discount for auto insurance, if you installed a monitoring device in your car.
"This is bad for the consumer", I said then, and still believe now.
If enough consumers buy into the program, it will become the baseline and that will mean an increase in your premiums if you don't install the device.

As for comments made regarding using the data for or against you in crash claims, there already exists telemetry recording devices in most newer vehicles. This information can be used by authorities for investigation of cause, though it does need to be collected from the vehicle physically.

@ommoran
There was a company presenting at the RIMS conference last year. They provide a service to collect and report on the telemetry data from vehicle claims that are "suspicious". The case studies were certainly bizarre. The information available from the device is impressive.

Couple of things, here. First, I don't think that the fact some data is already being collected means there's no longer a case for vigilance. The other is that the information collected from a vehicle EDR is more limited and specific than what can be collected with these monitoring devices. This is a significant escalation. EDRs generally record the vehicle's operational state for a few minutes before an event. Monitoring devices can record every minute of every trip. From an evidentiary perspective, the difference is huge. It's one thing to know if I was speeding or braking prior to the point of impact. It's another to have some lawyer point out that my speed an hour previously suggests I am an aggressive rider and therefore my testimony should be discounted.

A second issue is one people have trouble focusing on, data governance. So let's say we are going to collect this information... are we comfortable there are strong enough rules around its use and availability? Do we even know where it's being housed? For example, how many people are aware that if the 'cloud' in which our data is stored happens to live on servers located in the US, that data is subject to the terms of the Patriot Act? Are we comfortable that it's securely stored at all? What should the standard for that be?

I'm not an idiot in a tin foil hat. I am well aware of the trade-offs technology asks of us. I just think it's important to understand that there is a lot of risk, here, and 100% of that new risk falls on the shoulders of policy holders. It seems smart to me to be skeptical, and to not assume infallibility on the part of the people coding this stuff up, interpreting the data, using it fairly and storing it responsibly. Lord knows, we've had enough lessons to the contrary.

Would a private insurance company do this, reduce rates and actually hand out rebates?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/manitoba-public-insurance-rebate-100-1.5821995

Data governance... https://www.insurance-canada.ca/2019/10/30/novarica-idma-insurers-struggling-data-governance/

I haven't been to the RIMS Canada conference in a few years, and have not been to big-boy RIMS in the US. I know that there has been use of this technology in North America for a number of years, starting with management of trucking fleets to help ensure driver logs are accurate and to keep thefts down. Coming into the private market was the next step that many companies in the US started 5-7 years ago. Canada is a late adopter here. But yes, the information they can get between that device and the vehicle's own black box is truly impressive.

Many private insurers did in the private provinces. However, I think most people would agree that the actual rebate was more than a bit underwhelming. In BC, they did nothing until they could make it a campaign promise.

The specter of the data collection is my biggest personal hurdle with this scheme, without question. I still say lots will pick this type of policy as it is "pay-as-you-go". If you choose it, you opt into being monitored although many won't realize it because many won't read the terms and conditions. Like most EULAs, they will be clicked through.

Comes a point where people will stop insuring and simply carry on. The risk of being stopped as an average person not breaking the law is low. I'm out of Canada right now but here in Israel there was a huge spike in bike insurance a few years ago and the result was an estimated 50% of bikes stopped insuring. Government legislated a reduction in price but it was to late. An estimated 50% of the scooters (the most common bike on the street) are uninsured.

I think in an urban environment, you'd likely eventually get caught. I don't know how often LEOs use license plate reader tech here, but pretty sure that they have it, and pretty sure it cross references an MPI databases to verify a vehicle is insured (or not). I think it's not a reach to assume we'll see more & better traffic cameras, and programs that do that automatically. One just has to look at facial recognition tech, how usage is spreading. I remember watching that Tom Cruise movie Minority Report when it first came out... not so far out anymore.

Edit... if you read the "controversy" blurb, Edmonton gets mentioned (not in a good way):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_number-plate_recognition

I'd expect to be caught quickly. An old friend had his license suspended about 5 years back for his 3rd time (DUI) and a week later headed 6 quiet blocks to a grocery store. LEO passes him, did the u-turn and he was nabbed. He's a likeable fellow and chatted up the LEO, who eventually revealed the scanner had highlighted the registered owner of his vehicle had a suspended license. So, even with a valid ICBC policy in effect at the time, the scanner flagged his vehicle for a stop.

Ha! Wait until the insurance companies have access to your DNA analysis and see what happens to your life insurance and health insurance - if you can get any.

I'd say harder in a car but the bikes (scooters mostly) in the city just ride away.