Black Box Law in Washington State
03-30-2009, 01:31 AM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Black Box Law in Washington State
Legislation
Washington black box law draws insurer ire
We live in strange times, when traditional opponents increasingly find themselves on the same side of an issue. Bank bailout money is an obvious example, but there’s legislation in the Washington State Legislature sponsored by the ACLU that enjoys broad support across party lines.
Sen. Claudia Kauffman introduced SB 5574, “An Act Relating to protecting consumer data in motor vehicles,” on January 27. In brief, it gives the owner of a vehicle unconditional ownership of any data generated by an event data recorder (EDR), or “black box” installed in that vehicle, with certain exceptions (On-Star-type calls in a medical emergency, anonymous data to improve vehicle safety, and by signed release).
But Progressive Insurance has raised an objection, claiming the legislation would hinder their introduction of EDR-based MyRate insurance into Washington State. MyRate uses a proprietary in-vehicle data collection system, which generates information on individual driving habits that Progressive then uses to set premiums. Washington lawmakers and the ACLU contend the law would still permit the program, while requiring full disclosure to the consumer and adding consumer protections.
In rebuttal to those objections, a new section was added to SB 5574 earlier this month: “An insurer shall not refuse to renew a motor vehicle insurance policy solely because a motor vehicle owner, as defined in section 1 of this act, refuses to provide access to recorded data from a recording device, as defined in section 1 of this act.”
“(2) An insurer or agent shall not: Reduce coverage; increase the insured’s premium; apply a surcharge; refuse to apply a discount other than a discount that is based on data recorded by a recording device as defined in section 1 of this act; or when there are multiple insurers available, fail to place the motor vehicle owner with the most favorably priced insurer, solely because a motor vehicle owner refuses to allow an insurer access to data from a recording device.” Message: We’re on the consumer’s side on this one, and the Senate Bill Reports make outstanding reading.
Several public hearings have been held since the bill’s introduction, and it’s currently in the House Committee on Transportation.
If this has been posted before sorry, its worth mentioning.
You can bet Progressive has a lobbyist working overtime trying to keep this law from being enacted
Washington black box law draws insurer ire
We live in strange times, when traditional opponents increasingly find themselves on the same side of an issue. Bank bailout money is an obvious example, but there’s legislation in the Washington State Legislature sponsored by the ACLU that enjoys broad support across party lines.
Sen. Claudia Kauffman introduced SB 5574, “An Act Relating to protecting consumer data in motor vehicles,” on January 27. In brief, it gives the owner of a vehicle unconditional ownership of any data generated by an event data recorder (EDR), or “black box” installed in that vehicle, with certain exceptions (On-Star-type calls in a medical emergency, anonymous data to improve vehicle safety, and by signed release).
But Progressive Insurance has raised an objection, claiming the legislation would hinder their introduction of EDR-based MyRate insurance into Washington State. MyRate uses a proprietary in-vehicle data collection system, which generates information on individual driving habits that Progressive then uses to set premiums. Washington lawmakers and the ACLU contend the law would still permit the program, while requiring full disclosure to the consumer and adding consumer protections.
In rebuttal to those objections, a new section was added to SB 5574 earlier this month: “An insurer shall not refuse to renew a motor vehicle insurance policy solely because a motor vehicle owner, as defined in section 1 of this act, refuses to provide access to recorded data from a recording device, as defined in section 1 of this act.”
“(2) An insurer or agent shall not: Reduce coverage; increase the insured’s premium; apply a surcharge; refuse to apply a discount other than a discount that is based on data recorded by a recording device as defined in section 1 of this act; or when there are multiple insurers available, fail to place the motor vehicle owner with the most favorably priced insurer, solely because a motor vehicle owner refuses to allow an insurer access to data from a recording device.” Message: We’re on the consumer’s side on this one, and the Senate Bill Reports make outstanding reading.
Several public hearings have been held since the bill’s introduction, and it’s currently in the House Committee on Transportation.
If this has been posted before sorry, its worth mentioning.
You can bet Progressive has a lobbyist working overtime trying to keep this law from being enacted
03-30-2009, 01:53 AM
#2
Pro
Member Since: Dec 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Finally this is one of the first positive bills I've heard about coming from your state.
Money talks and insurance companies have tons of it. We'll see if it passes and how the insurance companies get around the law and will be able to screw people.
Money talks and insurance companies have tons of it. We'll see if it passes and how the insurance companies get around the law and will be able to screw people.
03-30-2009, 09:09 AM
#3
Team Owner
I haven't heard if other insurance companies are lobbying against this. If Progressive is alone in this, they probably won't have a lot of luck.
Part of this stems from a fatal vehicle accident involving a Toyota and Toyota (at least the dealership) had refused to give up data from that vehicle's black box. The family wanted the data to learn why the victim died in the accident. Part of the resistance to give up data was the fact that Toyota has a proprietary system on their trucks and didn't want to make public how the data is captured or how it would be recovered.
The biggest problem with black boxes and insurance companies is they will want direct access to the data even though a vehicle was not involved in an accident. If they get the ability to check things like vehicle speed, engine RPM, braking forces, or lateral movement from something like a yaw sensor, they will have the ability to raise rates of any driver that seems to be driving a car outside of their parameters.
So insurance rates could skyrocket if the insurance snoops saw even a single WOT operation, any speed above the highest posted limit in state (WA is 70 on the freeway) or any combination of data elements that makes it look like you are not driving like a Birkenstock-wearing, latte sipping, save the whales, tree-hugger liberal.
Part of this stems from a fatal vehicle accident involving a Toyota and Toyota (at least the dealership) had refused to give up data from that vehicle's black box. The family wanted the data to learn why the victim died in the accident. Part of the resistance to give up data was the fact that Toyota has a proprietary system on their trucks and didn't want to make public how the data is captured or how it would be recovered.
The biggest problem with black boxes and insurance companies is they will want direct access to the data even though a vehicle was not involved in an accident. If they get the ability to check things like vehicle speed, engine RPM, braking forces, or lateral movement from something like a yaw sensor, they will have the ability to raise rates of any driver that seems to be driving a car outside of their parameters.
So insurance rates could skyrocket if the insurance snoops saw even a single WOT operation, any speed above the highest posted limit in state (WA is 70 on the freeway) or any combination of data elements that makes it look like you are not driving like a Birkenstock-wearing, latte sipping, save the whales, tree-hugger liberal.
03-30-2009, 11:18 AM
#4
Team Owner
Member Since: Aug 2007
Location: I live my life by 2 rules. 1) Never share everything you know. 2)
Posts: 136,148
Received 2,402 Likes
on
1,366 Posts
St. Jude Donor '11-'12-'13, '16-'17-'18
They don't call themselves "Progressive" for nothing.
They are probably the most left-wing supporting insurance company around (one reason I would NEVER EVER use them)
They are probably the most left-wing supporting insurance company around (one reason I would NEVER EVER use them)
03-30-2009, 11:42 AM
#5
Safety Car
Peter Lewis (past president of Progressive) donated 10 million along with George Soros to try and get J Kerry elected in '04. I'll NEVER insure anything with them.
03-31-2009, 05:09 AM
#7
Pro
Member Since: Dec 2001
Location: Oregon
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going home from work and my turbo quit, the vanes would not open. I stopped into Canby Ford and the Tech plugged his scanner into my OBDII jack and read that my highest speed, with a time it took place, was 70 mph, it showed 2000 rpms and a mess of other engine data along with the turbo's problem. The turbo was replaced. I KNOW I have a "black box" in my truck, I saw the info it spit out by a Tech's keystroke on his Ford scanner.
Last edited by 884fun; 03-31-2009 at 05:14 AM.
04-02-2009, 07:16 PM
#12
Safety Car
04-04-2009, 02:48 PM
#15
Drifting
Member Since: Feb 2005
Location: Issaquah Wa.
Posts: 1,960
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This might be good news BUT,.........These companys do anything they want to do right up to and untill someone takes them to court and even then, they usualy try to "midigate" the exsisting law.
