Totally agree with you guys on this. I've been using one of those driving apps for a few months now, and while it's definitely made me more aware of my habits, it's also flagged me for some pretty questionable stuff:
- Got dinged for "hard acceleration" merging onto the freeway during rush hour. Like, what am I supposed to do, crawl onto the freeway at 30 mph and hope for the best?
- Another time, it marked me down for "late-night driving," even though I was just coming home from a late shift at work. Not exactly joyriding at 2 AM...
- And yeah, braking suddenly because someone darts out into traffic or another driver cuts you off shouldn't count against you. If anything, it shows you're paying attention.
I get that these apps are trying to encourage safer driving habits, and that's cool. But they're still just algorithms—they can't really understand context or intent. Human judgment is still crucial here. Maybe someday they'll get sophisticated enough to factor in things like traffic conditions or unexpected hazards, but right now they're just not there yet.
On the flip side, I do appreciate the discounts they offer for good scores. It's a nice incentive to drive carefully. But I'm definitely skeptical about relying solely on tech to judge how safe someone is behind the wheel. There's gotta be a balance between data-driven insights and good old-fashioned common sense.
Yeah, those apps definitely have their quirks. I've seen clients get penalized for similar reasons—makes me wonder if insurers will ever start manually reviewing flagged events to add context. Would you guys trust human reviewers more than algorithms?
- I'd definitely lean towards human reviewers, at least for tricky situations. Algorithms are great for catching obvious stuff like speeding or hard braking, but they miss context—like braking hard to avoid a deer or a kid chasing a ball.
- On the flip side, humans can have biases or make mistakes too, so maybe a hybrid approach would be best?
- Honestly, I'd just appreciate insurers acknowledging that driving isn't always black-and-white...a little nuance would go a long way.
I see your point on nuance—I've been on both ends of this. A while back, my own insurer flagged me for "aggressive braking," and it took forever to explain I was avoiding a ladder that fell off a truck ahead. Algorithms just don't get context like that. Human reviewers helped clear it up, but it was a hassle. A balanced system, with algorithms catching routine stuff and humans stepping in for gray areas, seems ideal—even if it isn't perfect.
"Algorithms just don't get context like that."
Haha, exactly! Reminds me of a client who got flagged for "erratic driving"—turned out she was just dodging a family of ducks crossing the road. Imagine explaining that one to an algorithm... "Sorry, my client prefers not to pancake wildlife." 😅 But yeah, algorithms are handy for the boring stuff, but you definitely need a human touch for those weird, unpredictable moments. Glad yours got sorted eventually, even if it was a headache.
