North Dakota makes vehicle black box data owner property
posted Apr 13th 2005 6:29AM
Last month we reported on how automakers are outfitting
new vehicles with black boxes without notifying consumers. In a rare case of having something positive to report in
the political realm, the North Dakota legislature is the first to set a precedent by making the black box data sole
property of the vehicle owner. The legislature overwhelmingly approved the bill, which also aims at requiring auto
manufacturers to notify owners of the presence of black boxes in their vehicles. It would require a court order before
any of the information recorded by the box can be used in court, and prohibits insurance companies from making access
to the box a condition of obtaining coverage. State Senator Ray Holmberg introduces the bill after discovering black
boxes were being put in cars without notice. Hey Ray — you reading? Nice job.
[Thanks, Richard]
What a concept: elected representatives doing something that helps the people they represent. Sure hope this doesn't spread to Washington.
But if the data belongs to the vehicle owner, that means it belongs to the rental company rather than the renter. So possibly they can dump the data on your driving and hold it against you. Shouldn't it be the driver who owns the data?
waaaaaaait a minute! i thought north dakota doesn't exist!! this all sounds like a big wind-up to me.
I agree with #1 - it is about time a politician does something for the people.
California already has a similar law on the books. These have been in vehicles for over 10 years! What took them so long. I understand that noone reads their owners manual, but GM has disclosed their existance for all AB equipped vehicles since the 1980's.
Relax Ward, and FinishingLawSchool, this was politicians just throwing a bone back at you, after you tossed them the entire herd of cows.
What do I mean? Well, since auto insurance is a requirement in most or all states, it means that they are forcing you to do something you may not want to.
If insurance didn't depend on the state to mandate it, all the insurance companies would be forced to drop their rates drastically in order to appeal to customers so that they would actually want the benefit of insurance, instead of having no choice in whether they felt the benefits were worth it.
In other words, all this conversation about black boxes would be moot, and insurance companies would probably stay away from the concept, since most consumers hate it. And at the same time, they could probably offer a trade-off to some consumers, that if they agree to share their driving data, they will get a very significant reduction with a proven driving record.
Of course this happened in ND. I mean, what else do they have to do? They only have 600,000 residents to govern!
I lived in ND for 20 years; nothing ever happens there. ;-)
I'm originally from North Dakota (moved to MN about 4 years ago) and it's refreshing to see a legislative body doing something to actually hinder privacy invasion rather than foster it. North Dakota's legislature has is fair share of stupid ideas but once in a while a good one makes it through. It's also refreshing to see a legislative body doing something. Anything. I swear the MN legislature spent the entire session on passing one bonding bill and messing with the tax laws for 2004.
And about North Dakota not existing, we'd like everyone to think that... Sure tourism brings money into the state and we like that, we're just glad not to have every American family's screaming, undisciplined 2.5 kids everywhere we look. And we can also do without the "soldiers" as Destiny's Child so politely puts it.
As a current ND resident I would say that this state is pretty much libertarian if it was not for huge religious influence. This is just like the whole bank information selling thing that got shot down, the people here don't like a corporate big brother.
1) Info belongs to the rental company because it's their car. You want to borrow their car, you have to agree to their contract and conditions. No reason that information should belong to the driver.
2) Insurance is required to protect YOU from people who run into your car. Otherwise, you'd get many accidents that you had to pay for on your own (even when not at fault) because the OTHER guy didn't bother to get insurance. No one would get lower rates for being a good driver because you can't predict the other guy.
3) Nice job ND lawmaker!
Iceberg:
Re: "Well, since auto insurance is a requirement in most or all states, it means that they are forcing you to do something you may not want to."
Are you saying that auto insurance should not be mandatory? I have had three incidents over the past 11 years - none my fault (hit as a pedestrian, rear ended at a stop light and car hit in parking lot while unattended). Should it be my responsibility to try to collect damages each time including suing if the other party doesn't want to pay? What about the legal fees and the years it takes a case to go through court? What happens if the other party has insufficient assets or decides to shield those assets?
What about leased vehicles? It seems the owner would be the car's manufacturer.
John B:
Auto insurance should not be mandatory. If you value your property, it is absolutely your responsibility to collect damages whenever and however that property is violated. If the matter has to go to court, you sue for your total losses, including legal fees.
As for your incidents; what if the other party was uninsured (i.e., is breaking the current law)? They would owe the state a fine, but _you_ wouldn't get anything without suing them. Unless, of course, your insurance policy covers damage from uninsured motorists, as mine does and as would any good policy in a state where insurance was not mandatory.
The way auto insurrance works -- scratch that, *ANY* insurrance product. The larger the base of people, assuming a certain distribution of claim rates (that is claims are a rare event, but diproportionately very large) You compute the expected loss over a 6 month cycle (lets say thats 12k per incident, and 10k accidents ) That means that it costs the insurrance company 120k dollars to fund all their claims. If 100k people are insurred, thats an average liability per person of 1.2k If 10 times that are insurred, eveyone need only pay 120. the point is that the number of accidents is essentially fixed, (ie, won't change regardless of paying for insurrance) -- the more people pay in, the *cheaper* it is for everyone. And the argument you make about how your policy which YOU pay for to cover you when someone else (uninsured) hits you -- that is only so dirt cheap now, because virtually everyone is insured, so the likelyhood of a payout on that coverage is very very low. That ceases to hold in you "insurrance optional" eutopia. (remind me to move to europe if that passes) The economies of scale work in the wrong direction in that case. There is plenty of price competition in the industry to foster competitive rates. Making it mandatory keeps it fair for everyone, and encouraces the scale that makes it work. The only other viable system, is a socialized product that comes out of your tax dollars. -- no thanks. (eliminates competition and market pressures)
Insurance is a good thing — if you don't have money.
What about this example. Say I have $20 million. That's enough to pay for any car I'm likely to hit and the funerals and, possibly, all of the life insurance claims of the passengers. It would make sense then for me not to have to pay insurance because I'm not likely to get into such a major accident. If I'm paying $2400 a year for x years, that would be enough to buy someone a new car after a while.
The problem comes when someone is able to fake an injury, or be truly injured, and sue you for hundreds of thousands of dollars to even millions of dollars. People are so quick to sue it's not even funny. Suddenly that $20 million isn't that much anymore when someone has brain damage. How does it make sense that their family could sue me into the streets, especially when the injured person probably would not have made that much money in their lifetime?
What would be best is a new insurance system that would let you pay so much in and maintain coverage. Say you reach $50,000 or roughly 25 years of insurance. If you've never withdrawn from that then you shouldn't have to pay anymore. You're not likely to do more than $50k of damage to a single car. Remember this is a hypothetical situation, so please don't respond by telling me how insurance works.
There should also be some sort of discount for people who have taken professional driving courses, i.e. stunt driving courses. I don't know if that actually exists or not though.
People get real !!! You are such right wing egotists. Insurance is more about protecting others than protecting your own selfish junk! You have an accident with an idiot that "chose" NOT to carry car insurance, especially liability, what option do we have when this happens and we can expect no compensation for some f@#$%$g fools actions ? I guess we can then put all those American guns to good use and shoot the self centered SOB for haven injured or killed my family members. Driving is a privilege NOT a right! Monitoring other drivers habits, on the commons we call roads, just makes sense. If it can save just ONE life a year by getting some brain dead self important B@#$%$d off the road more power to black boxes.
The only required insurance is liability insurance, which doesn't cover your own ass, it only covers the person who you hit. If you actually were old enough to own cars you would know this...