this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2023
1032 points (99.5% liked)
Europe
8324 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree with this except im too cynical to believe people just forget about safety. People learn to pass the test and then drive how ever the hell they like. Granted alot of people are safe but i see far too many people just completely disregarding anyone else on the road and their only goal is to get to the front of the line as fast as possible and screw everone else.
They can retake their test, they will drive safely and carefully that one day and then go right back to being selfish idiots.
I would maybe go as far as to say thst there is a requirement to have a black box installed in all cars that gets switched off/removed after a number of years of safe driving. And if you drive badly or unsafely then your insurance goes up every year until you prove you are safe.
Maybe it goes up by x amount ยฃ100 or like 10% or 20% a year until you stop driving badly but remains at the price it was when you start driving safe for 3 years before dropping back down to the price it would be without the increases you incurred. That would stop people from trying to cheat the system.
It may be extreme but if you are driving safely you have nothing to worry about.
Of course we would have to nail down exactly what counts as unsafe driving so it wasnt overly/unjustly critical.
I mean.... maybe its a bad idea. But again. If its not you then you needn't be worried.
Lol... First they came for the people doing 20 over, and I don't drive 20 over, so I said nothing. Then they came for the ones doing 15 over, and I don't do 15 over, so I said nothing...
You're talking about applying fees and profits to people deemed "less safe" by some arbitrary measurement, and assuming that said fees and profits will never be applied to you because you meet what will be the likely initial standard, but you're assuming the arbitrary measurement will remain fixed... And it absolutely will not.
The thing is, the revenue you're suggesting as an incentive to avoid those behaviors will become a documented and budgeted source of revenue for someone, somewhere, and if your pie in the sky works, and said revenue reduces because the roads get safer, the people who've budgeted that revenue will be incentivised to tighten the restrictions to regain the revenue loss, all in the name of safety, of course...
Of course, you have nothing to worry about if you're willing to comply with the increasingly restricting goalposts...
Firstly it was a hypothetical. I made that pretty clear.
Second i literally said in my comment that we would need to define was considered unsafe driving so it wasn't overly critical or unjust. So there would be nothing arbitrary about it.
You raise a good point about the revenue becoming budgeted but that is something that would be taken into account if such a system was ever devised. The revenue would have to be spent subsidising safe drivers lower insurance fees and be an acceptable loss in the event that unsafe drivers become safe drivers. At least it should not be considered as profit.
I accept that i know very little about these systems so i cant really talk about how they would work but to be honest if you are more concerned about who profits feom unsafe drivers increased insurance premiums than making roads safe then im not sure you should have a say either.
Also we already have optional black boxes to lower insurance costs in the UK so there is a precedent for this and thst might be a good starting point. They must already be considering the fluctuations in profits for those insurance packages.
Ultimately i was preaenting a hypothetical and i wasnt willing to die on that hill.
You don't have to die anywhere ;)
It's got merit, and quite a few US insurers have similar programs, either via an OBD port dongle or through an app. My wife has an app on her cell phone that monitors her driving, and mainly cell usage, and frankly, I think that specifically is a hell of a good metric for safety these days.
I like it as an incentive. I DONT like it as a matter of law or policy, for previously state reasons.
You don't gotta die on any hills though, I come for the simple discourse and don't consider disagreement to be hostility. I just got removed resting comment syndrome or some shit I think ;)
Fair enough. I sometimes see agression where it isnt present.
Regardless i just cant stand the attitude that many drivers adopt of "me first".