GM shared our driving data with insurers without consent, lawsuit claims Two New Jersey drivers claim they now pay more for their car insurance because General Motors (GM) and its OnStar app snooped on their driving behavior without their consent and sent metrics to "various insurance carriers." Chevy is discontinuing the Bolt EV and EUV after the 2023 model year Chevy is discontinuing the Bolt EV …
For new cars you are enrolled for one year free. With out your consent. And that might include when you buy a used car.
That is the business model Sirius radio uses. PITA to get Sirius to stop hounding you to sign up. As of a year or so ago you had to call support to get them to stop mailing you letters every week. If you tried to do it online, you had to sign into "your account"* to ask them to stop mailing you. Yes, the account you didn't create or want, you would have to make one to close it and tell them to .... off.
I've not driven an automatic with stop/start, but in a manual gearbox car, start/stop only happens if you stop and put the gear stick in neutral. I'd expect an automatic gearbox car to have something vaguely similar in that the driver needs to perform some action for the engine to stop. Or have they gone so far as to stop the engine if "car not moving + foot on break pedal = stop engine"? I've had that driving a hybrid, but then I expect the ICE engine to stop anyway when it's using the battery.
You don't want to be burning fuel when stationary. But, when the thing stumbles if you need to take off in a hurry to avoid getting hit (or carjacked) you're f**ked. Rare? Yes. SO it's down to the numbers game again. A couple of unfortunate or serious events per year against the fuel savings. I have to admit though, at least all the lazy people going through the Starbucks and Burger King drive throughs aren't sh*tting crap into the air while they wait to parade through.
In which case I assume it would be a good idea to get as much on the record as possible showing that you explicitly made clear that you didn't want that- so that if they try it on regardless you stand a better chance of (a) successfully suing them full stop and (depending upon where you live) (b) successfully suing them up the wazoo for punitive damages.
(Disclaimer: IANAL and I may be talking complete shite).
The question is, will these modern spymobiles even run if a person removes the radio unit?
I have a 2010 Chevrolet vehicle, and I removed the the RF transceiver from the OnStar radio unit. I did this soon after buying the vehicle, and I haven't had any issues in the years since.
I only use the dealership for things like recalls, and never for any other repairs. Mostly, I do my own work on my cars.
My other car is a 2013 Chrysler product, and it does not have any kind of radio unit in it. Only a GPS receiver for the nav system that is not enabled because I would not pay the ransom fee for the option.
I keep thinking I will need to buy a replacement vehicle or two before I retire, but I won't have anything that is "connected". Maybe I'm out of luck, and will have to keep these forever? Maybe some friendly car hackers will have patched software for these new cars that allow the removal of the radio transceiver?
I don't count on any government rules to stop this nonsense. It looks like the feds are actually encouraging more privacy violations with their requirements for driver monitoring.
I used to laugh when I saw retirees driving 30+ year old cars. Now I see the point.
My current car is a 2008 Honda Accord EX... it's mostly a dumb car, the blutooth failed ages ago and because it's got the built in satnav unit... also controls all the audio & HVAC. So it's a pin to work around. If I had the simpler version with the radio/cd player... the HVAC controls are separate and I could get an adapter and install a nice double din unit of my own.
Even though it's 16yrs old, it runs sweet... has only failed it's MOT once under my ownership of 6yrs and that was for a headlight alignment caused by me refurbishing a set of headlights, upgrading the HID units to better ones and forgetting to clip the motor back in properly on one side.
5 mins of reaching into a tiny gap and some hand scrapes later... headlight aligned and MOT sorted for another 12 months.
Until that car keels over... or becomes so uneconomical to repair that it's just not worth it... I won't be replacing it.
What, you don't want to take out a 10 year loan to buy a new car that will only last 5-7 years before it needs a new engine, transmission, headlight computer or maybe taillight computer, whatever? Some of the tail lights come with the 'module' for the rear park assist or radar units attached, only sold as one piece, married to the vehicle when installed, good thing they are only like $1300 each right?
I haven't taken out a loan to buy a car since I was 26 and that was a mistake... Ever since I sold that car 5yrs later... I've practised bangernomics. I buy the best, most luxurious 2nd hand car I can afford and run it until it gives up and becomes to uneconomical to repair anymore.
I worked out that over almost 15yrs, I've spent an avg of £1000 a year on purchase and repair/maintenance of my cars (under £84 month). I have had just 1 lemon (Ford Mondeo).
In comparison, friends and family who have had new cars frequently every 3-4yrs and complain about the costs... spend a minimum of £350 a month over 3-4yrs per car... and these aren't flashy, fancy cars or sports cars.
They spend 4x as much just to 'lease' the car for 3-4yrs and then have to find thousands more to actually own it... or give it back and own nothing like they have for the last 3-4yrs.
For what? The 'status' of saying you have a newer car... the badge on the body that gives you magical class status upgrades?
I know which choice I'd make every time... cash, saved up and paid for the whole car... I own it outright at all times. Never will I get a loan or lease on a car ever again. I'd rather drive around in a £500 shitbox every year for the rest of my life than do that.
"When is it an idiot doing a "brake check" in a road rage incident, and when is it simply evidence that a vehicle is coming to a safe stop in a short period of time"
Like any thorough data analysis you would hope a single outlier wouldn't immediately skew your insurance premiums. ie. The safe but sharp stop.
However, the `idiot` is likely performing constant aggressive manoeuvers which builds an overall picture of their perceived riskier driving.
nb. This is just a technical point, the idea itself is horrendous.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
