PayAsYouGo Auto Insurance in Ont

[godwin]

My insurance rate is not high.. but it is an interesting development nevertheless. This is an evolution of the system they had in the US where you need to manually upload the info. Yes with cell tower and accel + time data, they can inference whether you have been speeding or not. We are also talking about stratospheric insurance cost of Ontario.. so even a small discount could be quite a bit.

Desjardins Insurance Offering Usage-Based Insurance Program In Ontario - Autos.ca


Desjardins Insurance Offering Usage-Based Insurance Program In Ontario

MAY 14, 2013
OBD reader measures hard acceleration, braking and other variables to calculate insurance discounts.
Usage-based insurance is a ten dollar word for “let us spy on you and we will give you a discount.” Desjardins Insurance in Ontario seems to be getting into this new fad with Ajusto, which purports savings of up to 25% on premiums and a 5% discount for just signing up.

If you are not familiar with this kind type of insurance, here’s how it works: Desjardins sends you an OBD reader in the mail which connects to the Bell cellular network. It measures the distance you’ve travelled, how hard you accelerate and brake, and the time of day you’re typically on the road. Using this information, the insurer will give you a discount rating anywhere between 0 and 25%.

The insurer says the information will only be used for calculating insurance policy discounts, but I am always wary of these types of programs. Though, for new drivers, they are great for reducing incredibly high premiums.

Press release below.

New usage-based insurance program from Desjardins Insurance puts Ontarians in the driver’s seat

Drivers with good habits can now save up to 25 per cent on their car insurance

TORONTO, Ont, – Today, Desjardins Insurance is launching Ajusto, the first widely-available car insurance program in Ontario to offer savings centered on usage-based insurance technology. New and existing customers of Desjardins Insurance can now save up to 25 per cent more on their car insurance based on their driving habits.

“Desjardins Insurance is introducing an innovative and personalized technology that helps transform the traditional model of car insurance. By tailoring premiums to individual driving habits in addition to traditional predictive factors such as age, gender, type of vehicle and home location, drivers can now take control of their savings,” said Sylvie Paquette, President and COO of Desjardins General Insurance Group. “Ajusto is one step that makes car insurance more affordable for good drivers in Ontario.”

Ajusto is a free and voluntary program available to all Ontario car owners who drive a vehicle made in 1998 or later with limited exceptions. The savings begin when participating customers join the program and are applicable upon renewal of their insurance policy. The program measures three factors to determine cost savings:

Distance travelled annually (up to 10 per cent off)
Extent and frequency of hard braking and acceleration (up to 10 per cent off)
Time of day the vehicle is driven (up to 5 per cent off)
Premiums will not increase as a result of participating in the program nor will it result in any other adverse effects. Customers can opt-out of the program at any time and without penalty.

“Savings with Ajusto are in addition to other savings offered by Desjardins Insurance. Our studies show that our employees who participated in a pilot program were on track to achieve an average additional savings of 12 per cent,” said Ken Lindhardsen, Vice-President of Claims Operations and Legal Counsel. “When combined with other Desjardins Insurance savings, Ajusto represents the ultimate form of personalized insurance.”

Ajusto customers receive a small wireless telematics device that is quick and easy to install in the vehicle’s diagnostic port, which is usually located under the steering wheel. Customers can then track their driving habits and savings online. The information on the online dashboard, which is only accessible by the customer, includes a detailed graphic of the customer’s driving habits that is updated daily. The discount is calculated monthly.

The data collected by Ajusto is subject to strict privacy policies and is not used for any other commercial purposes. The data featured on the dashboard is analyzed by Desjardins Insurance on a confidential basis solely to determine savings.

Desjardins Insurance also offers a similar program, Intelauto, to clients of The Personal Insurance Company, a Canadian leader in group insurance. Ajusto and Intelauto are currently the only usage-based insurance programs to be approved by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) after passing a stringent review process. Both programs are also being launched today in Quebec, and will be offered in other provinces, following regulatory approvals.

While usage-based insurance programs are common in the United States, Britain and Europe, the Ajusto and Intelauto programs are a made in Canada solution. The wireless telematics device was developed by iMetrik, a Montreal-based technology company, and both programs run on Canada’s largest high-speed mobile network with Bell.

For detailed information on the Ajusto and Intelauto programs, please visit Save on Car Insurance with Ajusto Technology from Desjardins | Ajusto or Intelauto - Car Insurance Savings from The Personal.

For an overview of Ajusto, go to Mvt Desjardins - YouTube.

[smoothie.]

this is a great idea. While we're at it, lets put webcams in all cars that livestream to monitor distractions and vehicle speed for automated speeding tickets.

gtfo.

[dared3vil0]

[Traum]

Measuring acceleration and hard braking? WTF? BS like this will only create more cars that drive up the hill at 30km/h.

On the other hand, I totally agree insurance premiums need to be tied to the distance the car gets driven. More time on the road = greater exposure to road risks = higher premiums.

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by Traum

Measuring acceleration and hard braking? WTF? BS like this will only create more cars that drive up the hill at 30km/h.

On the other hand, I totally agree insurance premiums need to be tied to the distance the car gets driven. More time on the road = greater exposure to road risks = higher premiums.

Dumb idea. Imagine how hard the people who commute 100+KM a day for work would get hit?

[Traum]

Originally Posted by dared3vil0

Dumb idea. Imagine how hard the people who commute 100+KM a day for work would get hit?

If I have the [FAIL] button, I would totally fail your nonsense posting here. Your line of reasoning here is essentially saying that people who do 100km+ commutes should only need to pay the same amount of money for gas as those who do 10km commutes. Yes, it really is as illogical as that.

Auto insurance isn't about favouring those who spend a massive amount of time on the road. It's about risk management and amourtization, and in that regard, it is also about spreading that risk in a fair and reasonable manner. This is why repeat offenders get hit with significantly higher insurance premiums -- it's because they are high risk!

The overwhelming amount of vehicular accidents happen on the road. By natural extension, the more time a car spends on the road, the more it exposes itself to the risks on the road. And guess what, the greater the risk the car faces, the more likely the car will find itself in an accident.

Tying insurance premiums to annual mileage simply means you pay for however much you use a certain service. The more you use that service, the more you need to pay. It really is as simple as that.

But I suppose this idea is too difficult for you to grasp. Obviously, paying for the amount of service you used is a dumb idea.

[dvst8]

I think its great idea and gives more choice for drivers. IMO, tracking mileage travelled is all they need. They don't need to know the other details.

[dared3vil0]

Originally Posted by Traum

If I have the [FAIL] button, I would totally fail your nonsense posting here. Your line of reasoning here is essentially saying that people who do 100km+ commutes should only need to pay the same amount of money for gas as those who do 10km commutes. Yes, it really is as illogical as that.

Auto insurance isn't about favouring those who spend a massive amount of time on the road. It's about risk management and amourtization, and in that regard, it is also about spreading that risk in a fair and reasonable manner. This is why repeat offenders get hit with significantly higher insurance premiums -- it's because they are high risk!

The overwhelming amount of vehicular accidents happen on the road. By natural extension, the more time a car spends on the road, the more it exposes itself to the risks on the road. And guess what, the greater the risk the car faces, the more likely the car will find itself in an accident.

Tying insurance premiums to annual mileage simply means you pay for however much you use a certain service. The more you use that service, the more you need to pay. It really is as simple as that.

But I suppose this idea is too difficult for you to grasp. Obviously, paying for the amount of service you used is a dumb idea.

Notice how i'm not the only one to fail you? It's because your so called "idea" is short sighted and would mean the vast majority of people on the road would pay higher insurance rates. If you try to relate it to gas consumption consider this; One can buy a very fuel efficient car (Say perhaps a Jetta TDI) to counteract having to drive longer distances every day, What can they do to counteract this insurance rate coinciding with amount driven? Move closer? Find a new job...?

[Traum]

Originally Posted by dared3vil0

Notice how i'm not the only one to fail you? It's because your so called "idea" is short sighted and would mean the vast majority of people on the road would pay higher insurance rates. If you try to relate it to gas consumption consider this; One can buy a very fuel efficient car (Say perhaps a Jetta TDI) to counteract having to drive longer distances every day, What can they do to counteract this insurance rate coinciding with amount driven? Move closer? Find a new job...?

Notice how I wasn't the only one who supported the idea of user paying for their share of road usage. It's because your so called "idea" is short sighted and unfairly shifts the burden of road risks from high usage vehicles to low usage vehicles. Do you have an idea of what fair use means?

Also, in case you are completely oblivious to how auto insurance works, usage would obviously only make up for part of the insurance equation. Driver record will continue to be a major factor. Anyone can drive in a safer and less risky manner to counteract the higher risk premium.

Given your remarks, I suppose you can't understand why new drivers pay higher insurance premiums that veteran drivers either.

If you want to play, you gotta pay. The more you use something (vehicle insurance in this case), the more you gotta pay for it. It is really as simple as that. But obviously, this simple concept is beyond your comprehension.

Some people choose to live closer to their work place for one reason or another. Some people choose to live further away from their work place for other reasons of their own choosing. Is it too much to ask for someone to live and react responsibly to their own decisions?

Hmm... Maybe you can't understand that either.

[heleu]

I would never use this because I like to accelerate hard once in a while on a open road.

I can see my wife signing up for it, and getting a big discount though...she drives an Echo. lol. She would definitely save a few hundred every year....could pay for my speeding tickets!

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by dared3vil0

Notice how i'm not the only one to fail you? It's because your so called "idea" is short sighted and would mean the vast majority of people on the road would pay higher insurance rates. If you try to relate it to gas consumption consider this; One can buy a very fuel efficient car (Say perhaps a Jetta TDI) to counteract having to drive longer distances every day, What can they do to counteract this insurance rate coinciding with amount driven? Move closer? Find a new job...?

Um no. The overall amount of insurance money paid in by all drivers wouldn't change so for the total amount that people were charged more, other drivers would pay the same amount less.

Does it suck if you have to commute 100km a day? Yes, of course. But that is what makes it fair - if you drive 10 times as much me, your risk IS higher and you SHOULD pay more. It sucks for you but it is FAIR.

If you don't like it, your options are exactly what you said they are - move, or change jobs. I calculated the cost of my insurance difference (between pleasure and to/from work), fuel consumption, parking, and time and it was MUCH cheaper for me to pay $300/month more to live downtown. I save approximately $20/month in insurance, $65 in gas, $150 in parking, and 25 hours a month by living downtown. This works out to $235 in cash plus whatever my time is worth - even at minimum wage this is a positive and I value my spare time much higher than that.

It's the exact same reason why I am perfectly thrilled to have the Port Mann be tolled - I have never even driven over the new bridge so why should I be expected to pay for something I don't need, didn't ask for, and don't use? The same is true for insurance. My car gets driven around 500km per MONTH, of course I should be entitled to pay less money for insurance than somebody who drives 5,000km per month, it's simple math for the expected cost of providing that insurance.

Mark

[jlenko]

I'd love to throw one of those in the car and head to Mission Raceway... or do some autoX...

Watch 'em freak out

[Mr.C]

Originally Posted by lowside67

Um no. The overall amount of insurance money paid in by all drivers wouldn't change so for the total amount that people were charged more, other drivers would pay the same amount less.

Does it suck if you have to commute 100km a day? Yes, of course. But that is what makes it fair - if you drive 10 times as much me, your risk IS higher and you SHOULD pay more. It sucks for you but it is FAIR.

If you don't like it, your options are exactly what you said they are - move, or change jobs. I calculated the cost of my insurance difference (between pleasure and to/from work), fuel consumption, parking, and time and it was MUCH cheaper for me to pay $300/month more to live downtown. I save approximately $20/month in insurance, $65 in gas, $150 in parking, and 25 hours a month by living downtown. This works out to $235 in cash plus whatever my time is worth - even at minimum wage this is a positive and I value my spare time much higher than that.

It's the exact same reason why I am perfectly thrilled to have the Port Mann be tolled - I have never even driven over the new bridge so why should I be expected to pay for something I don't need, didn't ask for, and don't use? The same is true for insurance. My car gets driven around 500km per MONTH, of course I should be entitled to pay less money for insurance than somebody who drives 5,000km per month, it's simple math for the expected cost of providing that insurance.

Mark

So a guy that commutes 100km per day in the interior is at greater risk for a claim than a guy that commutes from, oh, Steveston to Downtown Vancouver everyday?

Suuure.

[lowside67]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

So a guy that commutes 100km per day in the interior is at greater risk for a claim than a guy that commutes from, oh, Steveston to Downtown Vancouver everyday?

Suuure.

Looks like a pretty thinly veiled comment about Asians from Richmond to me, but lets just assume you are taking the high road and talking about somebody commuting 50km per day rather than 100km per day with no other comment about it...

I would say they are absolutely more likely to have an accident. It's not rocket science - if the driver is the same and has the same chance of crashing, then if he's on the road twice as much, his chance of having an accident is twice as high. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. You realize that premiums wouldn't be based JUST on distance driven right? You'd still have a discount or surcharge depending on your record...

Not sure if you are racist or just genuinely confused but in either of those cases...

[MindBomber]

Originally Posted by Mr.C

So a guy that commutes 100km per day in the interior is at greater risk for a claim than a guy that commutes from, oh, Steveston to Downtown Vancouver everyday?

Suuure.

Originally Posted by lowside67

Looks like a pretty thinly veiled comment about Asians from Richmond to me, but lets just assume you are taking the high road and talking about somebody commuting 50km per day rather than 100km per day with no other comment about it...

I would say they are absolutely more likely to have an accident. It's not rocket science - if the driver is the same and has the same chance of crashing, then if he's on the road twice as much, his chance of having an accident is twice as high. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. You realize that premiums wouldn't be based JUST on distance driven right? You'd still have a discount or surcharge depending on your record...

Not sure if you are racist or just genuinely confused but in either of those cases...

Insurance risk calculations do consider region, and residents of (sub)urban areas, such as, Richmond and Vancouver, pay a significant premium in comparison to rural areas. The conditions (road design, traffic density, and so on) a vehicle is operated within significantly affects the likelihood of accidents or theft.

[lowside67]

I agree that there are many other contributors to the likelihood of an accident, my point was just that if you took those as constant and the only variable is distance driven, then you'd expect to find a linear relationship between those two. Also unrelated but relevant, as far as I know, only ICBC Comprehensive coverage - theft/fire/vandalism is tied to your geographic area. I believe your moving coverages - basic, collision, etc. are not dependent on where you live.

Mark

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by lowside67

Looks like a pretty thinly veiled comment about Asians from Richmond to me, but lets just assume you are taking the high road and talking about somebody commuting 50km per day rather than 100km per day with no other comment about it...

I would say they are absolutely more likely to have an accident. It's not rocket science - if the driver is the same and has the same chance of crashing, then if he's on the road twice as much, his chance of having an accident is twice as high. Not sure how you can argue otherwise. You realize that premiums wouldn't be based JUST on distance driven right? You'd still have a discount or surcharge depending on your record...

Not sure if you are racist or just genuinely confused but in either of those cases...

Driving from Salmon Arm to Kelowna during rush hour, which is about an hour and a half drive, will yield about the same amount of traffic as me driving from Langley to Surrey, which is about a fifteen minute drive.

Distance doesn't necessarily mean you're at a higher risk.

Also, not everyone has the luxury of being able to move to a home closer to their work, or find a job closer to their home. Many people, especially in the trades and film industry will find themselves with wildly varying degree of traveling distances every day. One day you may work two blocks from home; the next, two hours away. It's not practical for these sort of people to constantly move, nor are they able to take public transportation.

I usually don't have an issue with a pay-for-what-you-use system. As you said about the Port Mann, even though I live on the right (read as either way, your choice ) side of the Fraser River, I don't mind paying the toll in order to get to Coquitlam or Vancouver. However, being charged by miles driven has many factors involved that's hard to calculate.

As an aside, the OBD cell-based meter reader they're using over there definitely wouldn't work up in our Interior. There are waaaaay too many dead zones on all the major highways.

[Lomac]

Originally Posted by lowside67

I agree that there are many other contributors to the likelihood of an accident, my point was just that if you took those as constant and the only variable is distance driven, then you'd expect to find a linear relationship between those two. Also unrelated but relevant, as far as I know, only ICBC Comprehensive coverage - theft/fire/vandalism is tied to your geographic area. I believe your moving coverages - basic, collision, etc. are not dependent on where you live.

Mark

Nope; my basic insurance for living in the Interior is far cheaper than for me living on the Coast.

[saucywoman]

Originally Posted by Lomac

Nope; my basic insurance for living in the Interior is far cheaper than for me living on the Coast.

True story... More accidents, thefts down here than interior. I went up quite a bit when I moved
Posted via RS Mobile