this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2024
476 points (98.8% liked)

Privacy

31975 readers
445 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Romeo Chicco’s auto insurance rate doubled because of information about his speeding, braking and acceleration, according to his complaint.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 9 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (6 children)

I think they are saying that this person apparently drives poorly enough to warrant a huge increase in insurance and that they want people who are bad drivers to be found out, but that they don't like the way this person was found to be a bad driver. Kind of a "while this is the result we want this is horrible, and not the way to get it."

They are conflicted, perhaps even made conceptually(?) uncomfortable, because they see value in that persons insurance reflecting their driving history, by the fact that they see a positive outcome in this case of invasion of privacy.

That's how i read it, not then condoning it just sharing some internal dilemma here. If my take is accurate, we should have compassion and help them through this with support not jumping to conclussions.

They very much did not suggest that they approve at all of the sale of their data only that they see a connection.

They cant ignore that people will use this as justification to continue down this path into the complete solvency of privacy...and that it may just work

I'm making a lot of assumptions to explain my take in their eyes and expanding out a bit. Admittedly i am exploring this and cannot prove anything I've just said

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 months ago (4 children)

It's complete speculation but I would think that paying more for insurance would be more likely to make you a worse driver than a better one. Having a crash is probably the only way you'll actually get anything back out of the insurer!

It would be better to just ban people outright or do what they do in France which is to allow people to only to drive a 'sans-permis', which is a tiny car, limited to 30 mph.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago (3 children)

City cars like that are illegal all over america. Because they are too hard to tax and hurt the automotive industry

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (2 children)

Skinner.meme: "Should we build sensible, small cars that are cheap to buy and drive, dont support speeding, need little parking space and prevent horrific high speed crashes? - No, it would hurt the economy and my penis would fall of driving something with less than 400HP that dosn't make vroom-vroom noises!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago

yeah, yeeeee haawwww!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

Yes, USA client states like Canada have also been strong armed into enacting similar oppressive measures. The same way they have forced us to enact their utterly monstrous and demonic anti-drug laws.

Here is a passage from a local news paper about the "keicars", explaining why we cannot have anything that is sized between a moto and a car. They are using bullshit "for safety" justifications of course. Whatever works as usual.

" Ils ne sont pas conformes aux normes de sécurité des véhicules automobiles du Canada (NSVAC) applicables. «La Loi sur la sécurité automobile et le Règlement sur la sécurité des véhicules automobiles exigent qu'à la date d'importation, tout véhicule importé au Canada soit conforme aux NSVAC applicables en vigueur à la date de sa fabrication. Les véhicules fabriqués pour la vente dans des pays autres que le Canada et les États-Unis ne sont pas conformes aux exigences de la Loi sur la sécurité automobile du Canada, ne peuvent pas être modifiés pour les rendre conformes et ne peuvent pas être importés au Canada», explique Maryse Durette, porte-parole de Transports Canada."

Here it is translated in english

"They are not in compliance with the applicable Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (CMVSS). "The Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Motor Vehicle Safety Regulations require that, at the date of importation, any vehicle imported into Canada must comply with the applicable CMVSS in force at the date of its manufacture. Vehicles manufactured for sale in countries other than Canada and the United States do not meet the requirements of the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act, cannot be modified to make them compliant, and cannot be imported into Canada," explains Maryse Durette, spokesperson for Transport Canada."

I asked ChatGPT about it, I had to bullly it about it but it spilled the beans.

If we strip away the more complex layers of context and focus solely on the more critical viewpoints regarding the absence or restriction of smaller vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canada, a more direct analysis might suggest a few key motives:

Protectionism: The automotive industries in countries like the US and Canada are major economic sectors, providing a significant number of jobs and contributing heavily to GDP. Allowing an influx of smaller, foreign-made vehicles like kei cars could potentially disrupt the domestic market, affecting sales of locally made vehicles and, by extension, the broader economy. From this perspective, restrictive regulations could indeed be seen as a form of protectionism, designed to shield domestic manufacturers from competition that doesn't align with the existing market structure and product offerings.

Regulatory Inertia: Once a set of standards and regulations is deeply embedded within a country's legal and economic framework, changing those standards can be incredibly challenging. This inertia can unintentionally serve as a barrier to the introduction of vehicle types that don't fit neatly within existing categories or standards, even if there's no explicit intention to ban those vehicles. The complexity and cost of regulatory compliance for a small, niche segment might not be justifiable for manufacturers, effectively keeping these vehicles out of the market.

Economic Prioritization: Decisions around vehicle regulations are not made in a vacuum; they reflect broader economic priorities. If the economic benefits of maintaining the status quo—such as protecting jobs in the automotive and related industries, or preserving tax revenues from higher-priced vehicles—are perceived as outweighing the benefits of diversifying the vehicle market, regulations will likely reflect this prioritization. This doesn't necessarily require an explicit, coordinated effort to ban certain types of vehicles; it can simply be the result of a series of decisions that collectively favor existing economic interests.

Market Manipulation: There's also the argument that the automotive industry, through lobbying and influence on regulatory bodies, actively works to shape regulations in a way that limits competition from vehicle types that could disrupt their current business models. This kind of market manipulation doesn't need to involve outright bans but can effectively limit certain types of vehicles through stringent safety, emission, or import regulations that are difficult for these vehicles to meet.

In conclusion, while there might not be a single, nefarious ulterior motive behind the absence of vehicles like kei cars in the US and Canadian markets, the combination of economic protectionism, regulatory inertia, economic prioritization, and potential market manipulation by entrenched interests could collectively create an environment where only certain types of vehicles are viable. This reflects a complex interplay of factors rather than a simple, unilateral decision to exclude certain vehicles.

load more comments (1 replies)