Cheaper Car Insurance For Gamers 207
I know your first reaction is that this story is gonna be an ad, but
SpuriousLogic's story is actually about insurers considering giving a discount to elderly gamers. The question is: does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver? And if so, I'll have to add gaming to mowing the lawn for my weekly chores.
Wrong question (Score:4, Insightful)
The question is, does gaming improve mental agility and make you a safer driver.
That's the wrong question. A more correct question would be "Is there a correlation between gaming and driving ability?"
It could very well be the there is no causal relationship between the two, but rather they share a common cause. Perhaps those without sufficient mental acuity/coordination to drive also lack the "mad skillz" needed for gaming, and thus they don't find games to be enjoyable and therefore don't play.
Re:It make sense to me (Score:2, Insightful)
...as elderly gamers probably spend very little time in their cars.
Mod parent up. I was going to try to post something funny, but I don't think I can top that.
Higher insurance rates for "Crazy Taxi?" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not really (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm driving along a 40 limit road, at a cautious 30 when someone cluelessly drives into my path from a blind junction where they have no right of way. *I REACT* to this by slowing down and avoiding said stupid driver, thus making a non-situation of it. As I reacted, according to you, I had done something wrong or I wouldn't have had to. What bad decisions had I made previously? Except driving on the public roads in the first place, that is.
Likewise, I react to someone cutting into my lane too close by backing off a bit. What did I do wrong in this instance?
Just hypothetical questions :)
Tom...
Re:Not for everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Older drivers, on the other hand, will ideally have commonsense and experience on their side. So for them, gaming may have a positive impact because they'll actually be able to put improved reflexes to good use.
Wrong. People typically overestimate their abilities and "judge" (can't think of a better word) other people's abilities. It's human nature.
As for elderly being safer...let's see.
1. An elderly lady, who had crappy night vision, thought she would be okay enough to drive. She struck my grandfather and tossed him 25 feet through the air and killed him.
2. I live very close to a retirement community. Older drivers are a PITA. They constantly run stop signs, and if you have the gall (HORROR!) of using your horn to let them know that they almost hit you (coming the other direction), they toss the middle finger in your direction. Old women tend to be worse than old men in my experience.
So, no. Younger drivers may not have the experience, which does count for a lot, but being older does not mean you have common sense. Not in the least bit.
(This is why I believe there should be driving tests for older people to ensure that they still should be on the road. Good luck in getting that law passed though with the plethora of older people in the government.)
Re:not really (Score:5, Insightful)
I really don't understand all this crap from US posters about how you should drive at the speed limit, or even faster(!).
Take your reason, someone might be driving the speed limit and not notice "a rolling roadblock". What are they? Blind? When driving, you should always be aware of what cars are near by. And if you are driving along, and you are approaching a car, it is pretty damn obvious that you are going faster then them...
You therefore, take your foot of the accelerator and access the situation, and then decide whether it is safe to pass, or whatever.
Where I'm from learners have to have a big L displayed, and must drive a maximum of 80 kilometres per hour (or the speed limit, whichever is lower). But of course, because they are learners, they often drive slower then the speed limit, even if they don't have to.
It would be very rare for people to get upset at these learners, whether they are on a highway or a city street.
OK, that's one reason why someone might be driving slower, what if they don't know the area? What if they are looking for a house number? What if there are children around? Maybe their breaks don't work so well and they are going to the mechanic? Maybe they just think, "well it's a nice day, no rush to go to work/home, I'll take my time"?
And if some idiot is driving along and cuts that slower driver off, who is at fault? The idiot driving fast and cutting off the slower driver.
Actually, while on the topic of cars, I've often see idiots talking about how they tailgate other drivers because the other drivers drive too slow. Yeah, and you know who is rightfully to blame in the event of a rear ending? The idiot doing the tailgating.
You should always leave enough space between yourself and the car in front to stop safely. If you can't, you aren't driving safely.
Basically, you should be driving safely, and if that means slowing down, then yeah, there isn't a problem with that. (The only case where you can complain legitimately about someone driving too slow is if they are more then about 20 km/h below the speed limit on a highway.)
Re:not really (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh, this line betrays your true sentiment. If people can't avoid hitting you from behind when you are going 10 mph less than the speed limit, they don't belong on the road. It's not inherently dangerous to drive 30 in a 40 zone. The main danger is stupid folk getting pissed off and wanting to take it out on you.
Possible indicator of coordination... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:not really (Score:3, Insightful)
And actually wanting to get somewhere isn't a valid reason to drive? I thought the entire purpose of cars and roads were to get people quickly from point A to point B. I think if most people wanted to sit in the car and not get anywhere, they'd not bother even starting the engine.
If you want to drive below the speed limit then that's fine, but you're just being an inconsiderate ass if you let traffic pile up behind you. Pull over and let the people behind you go at the pace they wish to drive.
There are a lot of perfectly valid reasons to drive below the speed limit, and there are also perfectly valid reasons not to. But you're either lying or stupid if you think you're some kind of saint for driving slower than everyone else and being the "victim" of people who just want to get where they're going as soon as they can. Either pull over or move to Vermont (where at least you'll fit right in), but stop bitching about people who don't want to cater to your fear of actually going.
Re:Dude no joke.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So it wasn't the jolt of adrenaline, or the fact that he was becoming a more experienced driver, or the fact that he's of a particular astrological sign. It must be video games. That's the only explanation. If he believes that, then it it must be true.
Understanding the insurance pricing mechanism (Score:3, Insightful)
Pricing insurance does not, in itself, require a complete (or even partial) understanding of the cause-and-effect relationship between a rating variable and exposure to loss. The insurer (i.e., actuary) need only demonstrate that [1] inclusion of the variable in the rating plan results in a model more predictive of loss than without it; [2] it is verifiable; and [3] the variable is not "unfairly discriminatory"--that is, its use in risk classification is allowed by regulators. In truth, many other issues do come into play but these are the primary factors that the actuary considers when researching a new rating variable.
To the extent that a correlation or causation is hypothesized or believed known, the actuary seeks to confirm it with historical data.
The personal insurance market is very competitive. Insurers will try to develop the most accurate rating plan possible because they want to avoid adverse selection. Thus pricing actuaries do keep on the lookout (especially in bad underwriting cycles such as the one we're in right now) for more sophisticated ways to classify risks in their book, and if it is determined that elderly drivers who play games are a better risk than elderly drivers who do not play games, then a discount is actuarially justified and its use may provide a competitive advantage.
Of course, that doesn't mean an insurer would actually use that variable, as one has to consider whether it can even be reliably known whether an individual is a gamer. What does that mean? You play more than N hours a day? You own a game console? How do you confirm this during the underwriting process? Does it drop off if the insured stops playing? Do they qualify if the grandson is the actual gamer in the household but the insured only plays very occasionally?
To give you an example of how important verifiability is, note that in personal auto, the generally accepted exposure base is car-years, although mileage would be more predictive (think of it: two cars bought on 1/1/2000, one driver drives 40,000 miles/year, the other drives only 1,000 miles/year--which one has more exposure to loss?). The problem with using mileage as the exposure base is that it varies from year to year for a given insured, and is hard to confirm. Your agents aren't going to ask every last one of their policyholders to check their odometer, and even if they did, what is the chance they'll be honest if they know their premiums are directly tied to the result?
That's why I don't put too much stock in this proposed classification--it doesn't seem that it would be sufficiently predictive of loss to justify using it, and moreover, it would be a pain to verify, for the reasons stated above.
Re:It make sense to me (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about you, but I can still remember I'm overly concentrated like your son when I first started to learn driving. And that does NOT mean his ability to scan a real life scene is actually not as good as you. You've been driving for years, the basic driving techniques have all become "natural movements" for you, allowing you (and me) to pay much attention outside. However, for a first learner, controlling a car is definitely not natural. It is very natural that he paid most of his concentration on something he's trying to learn and missed the "external" environment (which is very important, of course).