Progressive Insurance Snapshot

[Sunset]

I didn't have to pay anything for the 2 devices (we have 2 vehicles).

We pay $880 for the auto's combined per year, would it be higher without the discount ??

 

[FireFool]

Sharing some additional related info related to some of the items raised by others - -

Progressive does not charge for their Snapshot device (unless you fail to return it after the monitoring period).

If you have a GM car with OnStar, or a cell phone of any type, the same data and more is being collected.

If you have a smart phone you're giving up so much personal information via that mechanism it seems laughable to even fret over the data collected by Snapshot. I'd trust Progressive a WHOLE lot more than Verizon based upon my interactions with both over customer service and billing. Progressive typically only monitors for <6 months, cell phone companies have years/decades of data/tracking available on you.

 

[exnavynuke]

I know how I drive, I sure as heck don't want my insurance company finding out...

 

[zinger1457]

Wonder why they are so hung up on how quickly you slow down. I drive into town on a road that has a 55mph speed limit, and quite a few traffic lights. If the light changes while you're approaching sometimes you have to decide to come to a quick stop or continue on. It would seem having snapshot would encourage one to risk running a red light rather then coming to a quick stop.

 

[braumeister]

It would seem having snapshot would encourage one to risk running a red light rather then coming to a quick stop.

That was the first thought that came to my mind too.

 

[Spock]

Progressive test monitors driver location - tribunedigital-chicagotribune
"Dave Pratt, Progressive's top telematics executive, disclosed Wednesday at the Chicago Auto Show that his company will be collecting location "data from a sample of customers" in 2014 for research purposes."

 

[rdy2go]

Other insurance companies are looking at these devices and are being pushed by Willis Towers Watson to try them. The insurance agents I have talked with about them really don't care for the devices as they seem to cause hard feelings from their customers since so many tend to have problems with the braking sensor in the Snapshot. The agents that I have talked to in the past were pushed by their Progressive marketing reps to try it and they couldn't wait to get it out of their cars.Discount or no discount, I'm not interested in an insurance company riding along with me in my car.

My former employer tested the telematics devices in their fleet cars and it was a nuisance. Sometimes the device would pick up the speed limit for the wrong street. One guy was on an interstate highway in a large city with a 70 mph speed limit but the device picked up the speed limit for the cross street that went over the highway. He got a call from his boss's secretary asking why he was driving seventy in a forty mph zone.I retired just in time to avoid this rubbish.

 

[jazz4cash]

Wonder why they are so hung up on how quickly you slow down. I drive into town on a road that has a 55mph speed limit, and quite a few traffic lights. If the light changes while you're approaching sometimes you have to decide to come to a quick stop or continue on. It would seem having snapshot would encourage one to risk running a red light rather then coming to a quick stop.

Exactly!!

 

[Koolau]

I have no idea if it is a European versus US thing. I'm Midwest American born and raised, and I am not as hung up about privacy as others on this forum may be.

I really don't get 99% of the privacy concerns, or the 'all or nothing' approach that some have.

-ERD50

I think for me it's that you may wake up one day and realize you have given up a "privacy" that you didn't intend or that you couldn't have imagined the ramifications of.

Suppose you are in an accident. Maybe you are blameless except you were doing 31 in a 30. If that data is made available to the right lawyer, you might end up with a bogus judgment against you.

It could sound far fetched, but I just think it's typically better to err on the side of caution where possible. I guess the other thing I think about is that because we are all used to no privacy, eventually the gummint may feel empowered to mandate some sort of "tracking" on all vehicles - or perhaps even people. It could be useful to catch criminals. But would you like your every move tracked on the off chance you turn out to be a criminal. If so, we can tear up the bill of rights.

If you think you have nothing to hide, you may be under thinking it, but that's just my opinion so YMMV.

 

[nwsteve]

A minor hijack, but I was encourage by the rep to download the State Farm app. Started reading the disclosures and permission and it nearly the same as the plug ins. App has to access to GPS and a number of other phone features. And that is what they are telling you about.

 

[ERD50]

I think for me it's that you may wake up one day and realize you have given up a "privacy" that you didn't intend or that you couldn't have imagined the ramifications of.

Suppose you are in an accident. Maybe you are blameless except you were doing 31 in a 30. If that data is made available to the right lawyer, you might end up with a bogus judgment against you.

It could sound far fetched, but I just think it's typically better to err on the side of caution where possible. ....

I don't think it is so far fetched (maybe the 1 mph over, but...), however, that's exactly why I would like it. If the other guy is in the wrong (more likely the case, since we are all graduates of the "Lake Wobegon School of Driving"), and this helps prove it, that's great. And if I am in the wrong, well it's not fair to the other guy for me to get by due to lack of evidence.

Yes, any 'tool' can be used against us. But that is what needs to be monitored, not the tool itself. Otherwise, we'd outlaw hammers and chainsaws and kitchen knives. I like security cameras, lots of bad guys getting caught. I'll take a reasonable invasion of my privacy if it is for a good cause.

Obviously, people can differ on where that line is drawn, but for me, as long as it doesn't impinge too much on my freedom to travel where I want (and security inspections can be considered a reasonable impingement/delay), I'm pretty much OK with it. Actually, I like it - I want me and my family to be safe. Maybe I get a little aggravated at the 'privacy all the time, anywhere, in all forms' crowd making it tougher for me to be safe?

-ERD50

 

[Koolau]

I don't think it is so far fetched (maybe the 1 mph over, but...), however, that's exactly why I would like it. If the other guy is in the wrong (more likely the case, since we are all graduates of the "Lake Wobegon School of Driving"), and this helps prove it, that's great. And if I am in the wrong, well it's not fair to the other guy for me to get by due to lack of evidence.

Yes, any 'tool' can be used against us. But that is what needs to be monitored, not the tool itself. Otherwise, we'd outlaw hammers and chainsaws and kitchen knives. I like security cameras, lots of bad guys getting caught. I'll take a reasonable invasion of my privacy if it is for a good cause.

Obviously, people can differ on where that line is drawn, but for me, as long as it doesn't impinge too much on my freedom to travel where I want (and security inspections can be considered a reasonable impingement/delay), I'm pretty much OK with it. Actually, I like it - I want me and my family to be safe. Maybe I get a little aggravated at the 'privacy all the time, anywhere, in all forms' crowd making it tougher for me to be safe?

-ERD50

I'll still default to my tag line and (hopefully) we'll agree to disagree.