I guess you could argue that driving near deer at all is still more risk of accidents and damage to the car than a driver who never goes out of their suburb?
When your kid runs in the road. Do you want the to avoid an accident, or do you want to optimize for them just turning enough so they don't lose their insurance.
When traffic ahead of you makes an emergency stop, do you want the person behind you at a safe distance to error on stopping earlier or do you want to add an incentive to just stop right before your bumper?
There is a reason emergency braking is a popular feature. Humans tend to no apply brakes early or hard enough, even when no distracted.
Otherwise safe drivers are punished also because it isn't a reliable metric, so the actuaries know that they can't tell crash avoidance from risky behavior.
If you know about training fleets and semis, you can see these new drivers taking risks that they should not be taking.
Give it a decade and a lot lost or shattered lives and I would guess these will either abandoned or not supported by the reinsurance industry. Possibly just being another source of income to the companies to sell to data brokers.
>90% of drivers consider themselves above average,
They're probably right because the average includes a lot of people who chronically create carnage like drunks, teenagers and that old woman everyone has in their extended family who swears she's a good because she managed to not be found responsible for the dozen accidents she's been in.
Now, if 90% of people said they were better than median that would be concerning.
> While reducing speed when you see deer is important, you won't see the one you hit. In my case it jumped over a road barrier from below, it would have been impossible to see.
"Won't see it?"
You can't argue that all else equal, driving during the day is as likely to hit a pronghorn as driving at night. Not calling you a liar, but I'm skeptical.
Never made that claim, but dawn and dusk are the most risky.
Mine happened on a lunch break, can't see through rock either.
But you only see a fraction of the wildlife that is there. If your sole stratagy is to see them you may be surprised how many deer hit the sides of cars.
Complacency and selective attention are very real human problems.
The classic basketball game example of selective attention if you don't buy it.
Then it seems reasonable to charge people who live in those suburbs more.
I think they key sticking points are 1) Why isnt aggregate claim data good enough for this purpose? 2) Do we prefer erroneous risk estimation from bad personal profiles over erroneous risk estimation from group averages.
