State Farm's "Drive Safe & Save"

I will also be following this thread to see what kind on experiences others may have had...

I just switched to State Farm Auto Insurance after getting a good online quote, and for now I have chosen to decline the Drive Safe and Save program. The up front discount was just not enough (5%) to entice me into being monitored forever.

I consider myself a pretty safe driver, so I am also thinking about trying it for a 1 year free trial. I am interested to hear what kind of discounts people have received. If the discounts amount to a significant amount more than the cost of the In-drive service, then it seems like it the savings and added features of the In-Drive subscription would be worth it. I'll report back if I end up talking myself into giving the program a trial run.

Welcome to The Factory.

Just curious--did you find this site through an internet seach for "Drive Safe & Save?"

Now that you're here, you may well find some more useful info for your nuvi.

I've had State Farm since 1986.
I received the mailer about DS&S last week.

So they want me to tattle tail on myself for 5% off.
Wait; Let me think about that,,,,
Yeah; It's not going to happen.

Jay

I'd save $20/year with my State Farm Insurance. That's not worth it to invite Big Brother into my car.

Does anyone have the device offered by Progressive?

You can always look at the spy cam in a positive light. It's not Big Brother - it's the Hawthorne Effect.

Thank you very much.

Actually, I think I came across this site while I was searching for information about SD cards and my nuvi 350. This topic just happened to be timely and relevant to me as well

If it was free forever, not just the first year, I'd probably sign up for the program. The costs after the first year offset any savings I would probably be eligible for.

I don't like the idea of being monitored forever.

As a longtime State Farm auto and home policyholder, I looked at this when it first came out in Illinois a year or so ago and concluded that it was a better deal for State Farm than for me. It looked like I would end up paying them more money in the long run with the device than without it, and it would give them a lot of information about me without them paying me for it. Thanks but no thanks.

If you really think you're a better and lower-risk driver than most others (80% of drivers out there do, by the way, speaking of numbers that don't add up), you can probably find a better price deal for agreeing to be tracked by a different insurer than you can at State Farm.

Keep in mind that this is expected to be a growing trend. New cars are coming with increasing amounts of tracking technology built in, and insurers and legal authorities are expected to insist on capitalizing. These things rarely work out in the consumer's favor. You might want to hang on to a Model A Ford, or just walk.

I agree with you. These companies do not provide these services unless it helps their bottom line.

I agree with you.

If the device makes you a safer driver (as it likely would all of the other people who agreed to the device), then the result would be beneficial for all of us, including the companies that offer such devices, wouldn't it?

State Farm would have to repair fewer cars; and, most of the drivers with the device would have no wrecks (of course, some might be involved in accidents caused by other drivers).

On balance, it would seem to me to be a good deal for all parties. Those concerned about privacy or "big brother" can refuse the benefits if they so choose.

Although insurance companies may prefer reduced motor vehicles accidents and injuries - their primary focus is PROFIT.

If you think about it, they're betting you won't have an accident and you're betting you will... and if they lose, the insurance company will raise your rates. By allowing a black box to be put in your own car, the insurance company is hoping that you will drive safer knowing that someone is watching. Or, they will use the evidence from the device to refuse a claim.

So the insurance company will get you coming or going - and make a profit!

Used the Black Box against you. They make you jump thorugh hoops already to prove that you were not quilty.

They need to provide audio feedback from these kinds of devices...

When you plug one into a turbocharged Mini Cooper, it emits laughter -- you think YOU'RE gonna get a break?

And then it goes "WHEEE!!!" as you accelerate through the twisty curves...

Nah, don't think I'm going to try one...

I'm sure I could write a provision that would refuse to pay a claim when the insured was at fault - but I am unaware that such is now the case. My grandsons have both had accidents that were their fault. The insurance paid.

Is this not the general case? In most accidents, there is generally someone at fault - but it is the insurance company of the person at fault which pays for the repairs of the vehicles

I thought it was Maxwell from the Lizard's company that went WHEE WHEE all the way home through the twisty curves.

Two people that I know had claims refused by their insurance. Neither had a black box in the car though.

What were the details on those two claims - in particular, the reasons for being denied?

I don't think that I am paranoid, but this invasive technology scares me. No thanks.

Well said!

If folks accept this sort of thing, it will become more and more difficult to avoid.

Business executives don't spend time cooking up schemes to lower their profits, despite what their marketing campaigns might lead you to believe. This is only an attempt to increase their bottom line, as others have already so aptly stated.

Flo is cute when she makes the change purse say "Feed me", but that message is really coming from the execs.

- Phil

1) It's a round-about way to say that if you don't let them monitor everything you do every second your behind the wheel, they are going to charge you more for insurance.
2) It's a discount which will just be compensated for the next year when their rates again anyway.
3) It's a way for them to increase their profits if they can research your history and find you ever did anything wrong so they can claim you are a dangerous driver.

1 My nephew was delivering pizzas.
2 A friend picking up office mail on her lunch hour.
My (and theirs I presume} policy states

The boy got fired when he submitted the unpaid claim to his boss. He was not paid.
The lady was informed that if she submitted her claim to her boss, she would be fired. She decided to keep her job.
Lesson learned.

I've already been forced to give up too much freedom and am already monitored too much. Not interested in volunteering to give up more privacy and freedom - not for sale.

Thanks for the info on why the insurance company had refused to pay the claims. As you already stated, any data recorder would not have mattered in those instances.

My 40 year old daughter has State Farm and I think this discount is something we will look into. She is a safe driver.

You drive too many miles per year, you're a risk because you're on the road too much. You drive too few miles per year, you're a risk because you aren't getting enough experience. Give me a break... There's no way to win with those folks sometimes...

I know I'm paranoid, but this sounds too much like Big Brother to me.

Any time anyone tells me "law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about," I think of my privacy. I may not be breaking any laws by using a public restroom, but I still rather not announce that I'm there.

What would be worth it???

That is exactly the time when you need to start worrying. A lot.

That info can only be useful for a year or two to them because your record of claims (or not) & whether you get tickets will tell them all they need to know about your record over a longer time period.

It's the new people buying insurance that they have to worry about.

I, for one, would never let them monitor me. I'd switch insurance companies first & I've kept the same insurance company for 30 + years.

Fred