<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_17_1650214</id>
	<title>California's Revised Pay-As-You-Drive Insurance Draws Continued Objections</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1247859840000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>The EFF has restated many of their original privacy objections about California's latest revision to the <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/eff-to-ca-metered-auto-insurance-is-still-a-slippery-slope.ars">Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance proposal</a>.  Admitting that the amended bill is an improvement, privacy advocates are still uneasy about the surveillance implications of this program.  <i>"The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the mileage driven, insurance companies can offer discounts to lower-risk infrequent drivers, and put an appropriate cost penalty on heavy drivers. The state estimates that 30\% adoption of PAYD insurance nationwide would reduce miles driven by at least 10\% among subscribers, and save 55 million tons of CO2 over the next ten years. The benefits of such a system could be quite dramatic, as California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is sure to emphasize.  Such insurance plans first became available in 2004, and are now available as a limited option in 30 US states from insurance companies like Progressive and Liberty Mutual."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>The EFF has restated many of their original privacy objections about California 's latest revision to the Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance proposal .
Admitting that the amended bill is an improvement , privacy advocates are still uneasy about the surveillance implications of this program .
" The proposal centers on a simple idea : infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk .
By pricing policies according to the mileage driven , insurance companies can offer discounts to lower-risk infrequent drivers , and put an appropriate cost penalty on heavy drivers .
The state estimates that 30 \ % adoption of PAYD insurance nationwide would reduce miles driven by at least 10 \ % among subscribers , and save 55 million tons of CO2 over the next ten years .
The benefits of such a system could be quite dramatic , as California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is sure to emphasize .
Such insurance plans first became available in 2004 , and are now available as a limited option in 30 US states from insurance companies like Progressive and Liberty Mutual .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The EFF has restated many of their original privacy objections about California's latest revision to the Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance proposal.
Admitting that the amended bill is an improvement, privacy advocates are still uneasy about the surveillance implications of this program.
"The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk.
By pricing policies according to the mileage driven, insurance companies can offer discounts to lower-risk infrequent drivers, and put an appropriate cost penalty on heavy drivers.
The state estimates that 30\% adoption of PAYD insurance nationwide would reduce miles driven by at least 10\% among subscribers, and save 55 million tons of CO2 over the next ten years.
The benefits of such a system could be quite dramatic, as California Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is sure to emphasize.
Such insurance plans first became available in 2004, and are now available as a limited option in 30 US states from insurance companies like Progressive and Liberty Mutual.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</id>
	<title>Wait until health insurance companies hear this.</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1247864100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see health insurance companies adopting this logic:</p><p>People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see health insurance companies adopting this logic : People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk .
By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets , insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people , and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds , obese people , and other physically-unfit people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see health insurance companies adopting this logic:People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk.
By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734525</id>
	<title>Sounds pretty wrong</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1247822820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The annual estimates used by my current insurance provider seems to work well enough.  And if that isn't proof enough, they could simply track my odometer readings when they do the emissions inspections or something.</p><p>Being an infrequent (and thus probably inexperienced) driver doesn't necessarily make you less of a risk.  My car insurance is currently pretty dirt cheap ($400 / yr.) due to many factors (it's our only car, we're married and over 25, and our speeding and accident record has been clean for the past 5+ years).  But we drive plenty, both for work and recreation... at least 15k / yr.</p><p>In fact, the one time I did get into an accident, it took two other morons acting in concert... one in front of me to stop at a green light, and one in a fully-loaded Mack behind me to stop not.</p><p>Anyway, I'm all in favor of using technology to improve things like traffic reporting and stuff like that, but I don't think insurance is one of the primary applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The annual estimates used by my current insurance provider seems to work well enough .
And if that is n't proof enough , they could simply track my odometer readings when they do the emissions inspections or something.Being an infrequent ( and thus probably inexperienced ) driver does n't necessarily make you less of a risk .
My car insurance is currently pretty dirt cheap ( $ 400 / yr. ) due to many factors ( it 's our only car , we 're married and over 25 , and our speeding and accident record has been clean for the past 5 + years ) .
But we drive plenty , both for work and recreation... at least 15k / yr.In fact , the one time I did get into an accident , it took two other morons acting in concert... one in front of me to stop at a green light , and one in a fully-loaded Mack behind me to stop not.Anyway , I 'm all in favor of using technology to improve things like traffic reporting and stuff like that , but I do n't think insurance is one of the primary applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The annual estimates used by my current insurance provider seems to work well enough.
And if that isn't proof enough, they could simply track my odometer readings when they do the emissions inspections or something.Being an infrequent (and thus probably inexperienced) driver doesn't necessarily make you less of a risk.
My car insurance is currently pretty dirt cheap ($400 / yr.) due to many factors (it's our only car, we're married and over 25, and our speeding and accident record has been clean for the past 5+ years).
But we drive plenty, both for work and recreation... at least 15k / yr.In fact, the one time I did get into an accident, it took two other morons acting in concert... one in front of me to stop at a green light, and one in a fully-loaded Mack behind me to stop not.Anyway, I'm all in favor of using technology to improve things like traffic reporting and stuff like that, but I don't think insurance is one of the primary applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734263</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247821800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>how do you measure the length of a router? is it the distance between the i/o ports or something?</htmltext>
<tokenext>how do you measure the length of a router ?
is it the distance between the i/o ports or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>how do you measure the length of a router?
is it the distance between the i/o ports or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735741</id>
	<title>Re:**Privacy** is the issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read the bit about privacy, but frankly I don't give a stuff who knows how many miles I drive.  Neither do those 108 other guys I guess. We are more concerned about effects on our insurance premiums.</p><p>My annual milage is already in databases (in UK) because it is recorded at each MoT (roadworthiness) test.  Knowing *where* I drive might be a different matter, but how can you tell that from a mileage figure? Even whether that is an issue depends on *who* knows where you drive. I might be a bit more concerned if it were my wife who knew rather than an insurance company, but she can read my odometer any time anyway.</p><p>Until quite recent model of car, any car odometer could be read by a passer-by - did that worry anyone here?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read the bit about privacy , but frankly I do n't give a stuff who knows how many miles I drive .
Neither do those 108 other guys I guess .
We are more concerned about effects on our insurance premiums.My annual milage is already in databases ( in UK ) because it is recorded at each MoT ( roadworthiness ) test .
Knowing * where * I drive might be a different matter , but how can you tell that from a mileage figure ?
Even whether that is an issue depends on * who * knows where you drive .
I might be a bit more concerned if it were my wife who knew rather than an insurance company , but she can read my odometer any time anyway.Until quite recent model of car , any car odometer could be read by a passer-by - did that worry anyone here ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read the bit about privacy, but frankly I don't give a stuff who knows how many miles I drive.
Neither do those 108 other guys I guess.
We are more concerned about effects on our insurance premiums.My annual milage is already in databases (in UK) because it is recorded at each MoT (roadworthiness) test.
Knowing *where* I drive might be a different matter, but how can you tell that from a mileage figure?
Even whether that is an issue depends on *who* knows where you drive.
I might be a bit more concerned if it were my wife who knew rather than an insurance company, but she can read my odometer any time anyway.Until quite recent model of car, any car odometer could be read by a passer-by - did that worry anyone here?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735429</id>
	<title>Re:Distribution of Risk + Cost?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247827620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Also, as a customer, the point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of an adverse event. The insurance company is able to sell this mitigation at a low cost because they sell similar coverage to large groups of people with similar risks. There is no way to distribute risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , as a customer , the point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of an adverse event .
The insurance company is able to sell this mitigation at a low cost because they sell similar coverage to large groups of people with similar risks .
There is no way to distribute risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, as a customer, the point of insurance is to mitigate the consequences of an adverse event.
The insurance company is able to sell this mitigation at a low cost because they sell similar coverage to large groups of people with similar risks.
There is no way to distribute risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737519</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Because you know what a bell curve is doesn't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone's understanding of anything. Not even your own.</i> </p><p>If you're so fucking smart, you should know the difference between "in league with" and "in the same league as".</p><p>Are you some kind of mental health professional who is qualified to assess a stranger's behavior as passive-aggressive (note the hyphen, asshole)?</p><p>Further your own understanding -- sit the hell down, shut up and listen to your betters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you know what a bell curve is does n't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone 's understanding of anything .
Not even your own .
If you 're so fucking smart , you should know the difference between " in league with " and " in the same league as " .Are you some kind of mental health professional who is qualified to assess a stranger 's behavior as passive-aggressive ( note the hyphen , asshole ) ? Further your own understanding -- sit the hell down , shut up and listen to your betters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you know what a bell curve is doesn't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone's understanding of anything.
Not even your own.
If you're so fucking smart, you should know the difference between "in league with" and "in the same league as".Are you some kind of mental health professional who is qualified to assess a stranger's behavior as passive-aggressive (note the hyphen, asshole)?Further your own understanding -- sit the hell down, shut up and listen to your betters.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28742675</id>
	<title>FFS Why not just fund insurance with a petrol tax?</title>
	<author>anw</author>
	<datestamp>1247947680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No privacy concerns, far cheaper to administer, and within a couple of percent it will give you exactly the same outcome.</p><p>It's such an obvious and simple solution that I find myself siding with the tin-foil-hat brigade in thinking this is just another excuse for more control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No privacy concerns , far cheaper to administer , and within a couple of percent it will give you exactly the same outcome.It 's such an obvious and simple solution that I find myself siding with the tin-foil-hat brigade in thinking this is just another excuse for more control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No privacy concerns, far cheaper to administer, and within a couple of percent it will give you exactly the same outcome.It's such an obvious and simple solution that I find myself siding with the tin-foil-hat brigade in thinking this is just another excuse for more control.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734843</id>
	<title>Re:Milliage RISK</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I'm at far less risk than grandma"</p><p>that's a self selected bias.</p><p>"fault."<br>irrelevant. The more time on the road, the more likely you are to be in an accident, regardless of fault.</p><p>Of course, this is just ONE factor when determining premium prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm at far less risk than grandma " that 's a self selected bias. " fault. " irrelevant .
The more time on the road , the more likely you are to be in an accident , regardless of fault.Of course , this is just ONE factor when determining premium prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I'm at far less risk than grandma"that's a self selected bias."fault."irrelevant.
The more time on the road, the more likely you are to be in an accident, regardless of fault.Of course, this is just ONE factor when determining premium prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735857</id>
	<title>Re:Rush Hour?</title>
	<author>xmundt</author>
	<datestamp>1247830500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>     Greetings and Salutations...<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Frankly, the bigger issue I see is that America has a really crappy driver's education program.   Most of the collisions I have seen have involved at least one driver being REALLY STUPID.    There is one simple rule that should be the #1 commandment when driving.  That is :  Treat EVERYONE else as a homicidal maniac with YOUR picture on their dashboard.    Over the past 20 years or more I have seen a terrible drop in the use of defensive driving techniques and, more and more people doing stupid, ill-considered things that put them and the others around them at risk.    Who among us has not seen people whip from the left lane of the Interstate across three or more lanes, to BARELY make it to the exit?   Or   people ignoring the posted speed limit, and, slaloming through the traffic at a high rate of speed?   Or  reading a book/newspaper/etc while rolling down the road?   Or texting on their cell phones?  (just to hit a few high points of stupidity).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; As a matter of fact, just the other day I had a little bump from behind on my trailer hitch (i have a goodly-sized truck) from a soccer mom in a van.   I was stopped at a red light, and, she just rolled right into me.    The cause?    She had just heard over the radio that Michael Jackson was dead.   No damage to speak of, so I suggested she be a bit more careful the next time, and we moved on.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Speaking of clearance at intersection stops....My rule is that if I cannot see the tires on the car in front of me when I come to a halt, then, I am stopping TOO CLOSE to it.   If everyone would use this rule, intersections would be a lot safer.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Of course, the whole idea of driving at the speed limit seems to be a shock to American drivers...Please try and remember that the traffic control folks do not put those signs up simply because they got a good deal on them at a surplus auction.  Those numbers MEAN something, and, it is a much safer drive if one sticks to them.   They are, by the by, the maximum safe speed for that section of road under average to poor conditions (wet road, rain, etc).<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Waiting for the flames<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; dave mundt<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greetings and Salutations.. .           Frankly , the bigger issue I see is that America has a really crappy driver 's education program .
Most of the collisions I have seen have involved at least one driver being REALLY STUPID .
There is one simple rule that should be the # 1 commandment when driving .
That is : Treat EVERYONE else as a homicidal maniac with YOUR picture on their dashboard .
Over the past 20 years or more I have seen a terrible drop in the use of defensive driving techniques and , more and more people doing stupid , ill-considered things that put them and the others around them at risk .
Who among us has not seen people whip from the left lane of the Interstate across three or more lanes , to BARELY make it to the exit ?
Or people ignoring the posted speed limit , and , slaloming through the traffic at a high rate of speed ?
Or reading a book/newspaper/etc while rolling down the road ?
Or texting on their cell phones ?
( just to hit a few high points of stupidity ) .
          As a matter of fact , just the other day I had a little bump from behind on my trailer hitch ( i have a goodly-sized truck ) from a soccer mom in a van .
I was stopped at a red light , and , she just rolled right into me .
The cause ?
She had just heard over the radio that Michael Jackson was dead .
No damage to speak of , so I suggested she be a bit more careful the next time , and we moved on .
            Speaking of clearance at intersection stops....My rule is that if I can not see the tires on the car in front of me when I come to a halt , then , I am stopping TOO CLOSE to it .
If everyone would use this rule , intersections would be a lot safer .
          Of course , the whole idea of driving at the speed limit seems to be a shock to American drivers...Please try and remember that the traffic control folks do not put those signs up simply because they got a good deal on them at a surplus auction .
Those numbers MEAN something , and , it is a much safer drive if one sticks to them .
They are , by the by , the maximum safe speed for that section of road under average to poor conditions ( wet road , rain , etc ) .
            Waiting for the flames             dave mundt    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>     Greetings and Salutations...
          Frankly, the bigger issue I see is that America has a really crappy driver's education program.
Most of the collisions I have seen have involved at least one driver being REALLY STUPID.
There is one simple rule that should be the #1 commandment when driving.
That is :  Treat EVERYONE else as a homicidal maniac with YOUR picture on their dashboard.
Over the past 20 years or more I have seen a terrible drop in the use of defensive driving techniques and, more and more people doing stupid, ill-considered things that put them and the others around them at risk.
Who among us has not seen people whip from the left lane of the Interstate across three or more lanes, to BARELY make it to the exit?
Or   people ignoring the posted speed limit, and, slaloming through the traffic at a high rate of speed?
Or  reading a book/newspaper/etc while rolling down the road?
Or texting on their cell phones?
(just to hit a few high points of stupidity).
          As a matter of fact, just the other day I had a little bump from behind on my trailer hitch (i have a goodly-sized truck) from a soccer mom in a van.
I was stopped at a red light, and, she just rolled right into me.
The cause?
She had just heard over the radio that Michael Jackson was dead.
No damage to speak of, so I suggested she be a bit more careful the next time, and we moved on.
            Speaking of clearance at intersection stops....My rule is that if I cannot see the tires on the car in front of me when I come to a halt, then, I am stopping TOO CLOSE to it.
If everyone would use this rule, intersections would be a lot safer.
          Of course, the whole idea of driving at the speed limit seems to be a shock to American drivers...Please try and remember that the traffic control folks do not put those signs up simply because they got a good deal on them at a surplus auction.
Those numbers MEAN something, and, it is a much safer drive if one sticks to them.
They are, by the by, the maximum safe speed for that section of road under average to poor conditions (wet road, rain, etc).
            Waiting for the flames
            dave mundt
   </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734789</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247823840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? "</p><p>yes.</p><p>"Or differentiating between different cars. A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra. Same insurance rate at the pump?"</p><p>Sure.</p><p>Maybe the real answer is a better licensing program.</p><p>In the first case, revoke the licenses of the 19 year old for 2 years.<br>In the second require people to get a drivers license with a 'sports car' rating for the driver of the Cobra. I think this should happen anyways, but that's a different issue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents ?
" yes. " Or differentiating between different cars .
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra .
Same insurance rate at the pump ?
" Sure.Maybe the real answer is a better licensing program.In the first case , revoke the licenses of the 19 year old for 2 years.In the second require people to get a drivers license with a 'sports car ' rating for the driver of the Cobra .
I think this should happen anyways , but that 's a different issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents?
"yes."Or differentiating between different cars.
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra.
Same insurance rate at the pump?
"Sure.Maybe the real answer is a better licensing program.In the first case, revoke the licenses of the 19 year old for 2 years.In the second require people to get a drivers license with a 'sports car' rating for the driver of the Cobra.
I think this should happen anyways, but that's a different issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</id>
	<title>insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>hypethetica</author>
	<datestamp>1247863920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump.  No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving.  obviously LOTS of holes in the plan, but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump .
No more uninsured drivers , plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving .
obviously LOTS of holes in the plan , but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump.
No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving.
obviously LOTS of holes in the plan, but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734705</id>
	<title>Not really</title>
	<author>nokiator</author>
	<datestamp>1247823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What is being proposed here is exactly the opposite of one size fits all. Insurance companies already discriminate based on driver's age, gender or marital status. If insurance companies could come up with some actual data that shows some degree of correlation between miles driven and accident or claim rate, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they will offer insurance rates based on this. <p>
What I am wondering is this: If the data shows that people with a certain age group that drive less than a certain number of miles per year have the highest accident and claim rate, would the insurance rates for that group go up? Will the politicians have the guts to counter the outcry from the AARP?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is being proposed here is exactly the opposite of one size fits all .
Insurance companies already discriminate based on driver 's age , gender or marital status .
If insurance companies could come up with some actual data that shows some degree of correlation between miles driven and accident or claim rate , it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they will offer insurance rates based on this .
What I am wondering is this : If the data shows that people with a certain age group that drive less than a certain number of miles per year have the highest accident and claim rate , would the insurance rates for that group go up ?
Will the politicians have the guts to counter the outcry from the AARP ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is being proposed here is exactly the opposite of one size fits all.
Insurance companies already discriminate based on driver's age, gender or marital status.
If insurance companies could come up with some actual data that shows some degree of correlation between miles driven and accident or claim rate, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that they will offer insurance rates based on this.
What I am wondering is this: If the data shows that people with a certain age group that drive less than a certain number of miles per year have the highest accident and claim rate, would the insurance rates for that group go up?
Will the politicians have the guts to counter the outcry from the AARP?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735449</id>
	<title>NO!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Said it before, I'll say it again: I will NOT consent to tracking devices of ANY sort installed on ANY vehicle I own. Period. They can kiss my ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Said it before , I 'll say it again : I will NOT consent to tracking devices of ANY sort installed on ANY vehicle I own .
Period. They can kiss my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Said it before, I'll say it again: I will NOT consent to tracking devices of ANY sort installed on ANY vehicle I own.
Period. They can kiss my ass.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734775</id>
	<title>Re:Milliage RISK</title>
	<author>Albanach</author>
	<datestamp>1247823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal, over 500 miles, one way, several times a year to visit family. I'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month, or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone (even though it is illegal already) or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>THIS is the problem with Government. It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that doesn't fit anyone. I've been driving over 20 years, with exactly 4 accidents, none of them my fault.</p></div></blockquote><p>You're trying to use a one size fits all excuse to criticise the government and in this case it doesn't fit.</p><p>You see, insurers employ very highly paid guys to work out your risk to them as an individual. If your driving history shows you to be low risk, that will be reflected in your premium - insurers want your business, but equally don't want to lose money by providing you with insurance.</p><p>I can understand concerns about getting the privacy aspects sorted - why doesn't the state simply automatically report each year as part of your annual inspection? But the principle of using miles driven as an aid to calculating risk is one everyone with insurance already subscribes to.</p><p>Thanks to the interweb, shopping around for insurance is trivial. I myself have seen a 6 month premium reduced by over $1,000 through 20 minutes shopping around on the internet. As long as you still have plenty of insurers to choose from, you'll be able to find someone that offers a fair price for the risk you reflect.</p><p>All this proposal means is that every insurer will be required to factor in the risk the miles you drive presents, and I can't imagine a single insurer that doesn't already use the mileage you reported to them when taking out the policy as a risk factor.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal , over 500 miles , one way , several times a year to visit family .
I 'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month , or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone ( even though it is illegal already ) or ....THIS is the problem with Government .
It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that does n't fit anyone .
I 've been driving over 20 years , with exactly 4 accidents , none of them my fault.You 're trying to use a one size fits all excuse to criticise the government and in this case it does n't fit.You see , insurers employ very highly paid guys to work out your risk to them as an individual .
If your driving history shows you to be low risk , that will be reflected in your premium - insurers want your business , but equally do n't want to lose money by providing you with insurance.I can understand concerns about getting the privacy aspects sorted - why does n't the state simply automatically report each year as part of your annual inspection ?
But the principle of using miles driven as an aid to calculating risk is one everyone with insurance already subscribes to.Thanks to the interweb , shopping around for insurance is trivial .
I myself have seen a 6 month premium reduced by over $ 1,000 through 20 minutes shopping around on the internet .
As long as you still have plenty of insurers to choose from , you 'll be able to find someone that offers a fair price for the risk you reflect.All this proposal means is that every insurer will be required to factor in the risk the miles you drive presents , and I ca n't imagine a single insurer that does n't already use the mileage you reported to them when taking out the policy as a risk factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal, over 500 miles, one way, several times a year to visit family.
I'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month, or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone (even though it is illegal already) or ....THIS is the problem with Government.
It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that doesn't fit anyone.
I've been driving over 20 years, with exactly 4 accidents, none of them my fault.You're trying to use a one size fits all excuse to criticise the government and in this case it doesn't fit.You see, insurers employ very highly paid guys to work out your risk to them as an individual.
If your driving history shows you to be low risk, that will be reflected in your premium - insurers want your business, but equally don't want to lose money by providing you with insurance.I can understand concerns about getting the privacy aspects sorted - why doesn't the state simply automatically report each year as part of your annual inspection?
But the principle of using miles driven as an aid to calculating risk is one everyone with insurance already subscribes to.Thanks to the interweb, shopping around for insurance is trivial.
I myself have seen a 6 month premium reduced by over $1,000 through 20 minutes shopping around on the internet.
As long as you still have plenty of insurers to choose from, you'll be able to find someone that offers a fair price for the risk you reflect.All this proposal means is that every insurer will be required to factor in the risk the miles you drive presents, and I can't imagine a single insurer that doesn't already use the mileage you reported to them when taking out the policy as a risk factor.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735241</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>beej</author>
	<datestamp>1247826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But per-mile, the expressway/freeway should be a lot safer than surface streets, so they should charge less for that.  This is where fine-grained positional tracking would help the consumer's bottom line.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But per-mile , the expressway/freeway should be a lot safer than surface streets , so they should charge less for that .
This is where fine-grained positional tracking would help the consumer 's bottom line .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But per-mile, the expressway/freeway should be a lot safer than surface streets, so they should charge less for that.
This is where fine-grained positional tracking would help the consumer's bottom line.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736021</id>
	<title>Re:Lower Prices my Ass</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1247831520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this?</p></div></blockquote><p>No, they will lower prices for "lower-risk infrequent drivers", according to the synopsis. The average Joe would see no change, until he realizes that it's in his best interest to drive less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this ? No , they will lower prices for " lower-risk infrequent drivers " , according to the synopsis .
The average Joe would see no change , until he realizes that it 's in his best interest to drive less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this?No, they will lower prices for "lower-risk infrequent drivers", according to the synopsis.
The average Joe would see no change, until he realizes that it's in his best interest to drive less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734319</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247821920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well, i think there are 2 parameters to get a complete picture or risk - time spent driving, and ability. the problem is that ability depends on time spent driving, among other things. it's like a messy bayes net, only worse.</htmltext>
<tokenext>well , i think there are 2 parameters to get a complete picture or risk - time spent driving , and ability .
the problem is that ability depends on time spent driving , among other things .
it 's like a messy bayes net , only worse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well, i think there are 2 parameters to get a complete picture or risk - time spent driving, and ability.
the problem is that ability depends on time spent driving, among other things.
it's like a messy bayes net, only worse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035</id>
	<title>But that is nonsensical!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sunday drivers have got to be the most dangerous people on the road.</p><p>Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sunday drivers have got to be the most dangerous people on the road.Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sunday drivers have got to be the most dangerous people on the road.Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736243</id>
	<title>I can see health insurance companies adopting this</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247832900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk. By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.</i></p><p>I wish.  If only health insurance premiums were at least partially based on the life styles of the insured.  The one problem I have with it is that insurance companies will want to monitor people.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk .
By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets , insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people , and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds , obese people , and other physically-unfit people.I wish .
If only health insurance premiums were at least partially based on the life styles of the insured .
The one problem I have with it is that insurance companies will want to monitor people .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who frequently exercise are less of an insurance risk.
By pricing policies according to the amount of physical activity a person gets, insurance companies can offer discounts to healthier people, and put an appropriate cost penalty on basement-dwelling nerds, obese people, and other physically-unfit people.I wish.
If only health insurance premiums were at least partially based on the life styles of the insured.
The one problem I have with it is that insurance companies will want to monitor people.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734383</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1247822280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.</p></div></blockquote><p>The government can and should mandate insurance on PUBLIC roads.</p><p>But to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite frankly , if the Government is going to mandate insurance , then it should also offer a base insurance program , at cost.The government can and should mandate insurance on PUBLIC roads.But to make travel affordable , it should have more public transit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.The government can and should mandate insurance on PUBLIC roads.But to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091</id>
	<title>**Privacy** is the issue.</title>
	<author>bcrowell</author>
	<datestamp>1247825400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
I've combed through the 108 comments so far that have been modded 2 or above, and not a single one of them shows any awareness of what the article actually talks about. Has anybody actually read the article? Oh, wait, this is slashdot...
</p><p>
The article helpfully explains that the main issue being raised by the EFF is <b>privacy</b>. Um, it's not exactly subtle...the article has a big image of a poster with a man's face, with the slogan "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU."
</p><p>
What the EFF is objecting to is the idea of using electronic monitoring to measure the number of miles driven. The article (remember that article thingie? it's got that little underlining thingie, with the text in a different color, so you can click on it, and it's, like, a hyperlink, so you can go and read it?) lays out some objections to this, such as the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens. The concern is that the government will then be able to tell where every citizen drives. That's pretty darn scary, if you think about it.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've combed through the 108 comments so far that have been modded 2 or above , and not a single one of them shows any awareness of what the article actually talks about .
Has anybody actually read the article ?
Oh , wait , this is slashdot.. . The article helpfully explains that the main issue being raised by the EFF is privacy .
Um , it 's not exactly subtle...the article has a big image of a poster with a man 's face , with the slogan " BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU .
" What the EFF is objecting to is the idea of using electronic monitoring to measure the number of miles driven .
The article ( remember that article thingie ?
it 's got that little underlining thingie , with the text in a different color , so you can click on it , and it 's , like , a hyperlink , so you can go and read it ?
) lays out some objections to this , such as the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens .
The concern is that the government will then be able to tell where every citizen drives .
That 's pretty darn scary , if you think about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
I've combed through the 108 comments so far that have been modded 2 or above, and not a single one of them shows any awareness of what the article actually talks about.
Has anybody actually read the article?
Oh, wait, this is slashdot...

The article helpfully explains that the main issue being raised by the EFF is privacy.
Um, it's not exactly subtle...the article has a big image of a poster with a man's face, with the slogan "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU.
"

What the EFF is objecting to is the idea of using electronic monitoring to measure the number of miles driven.
The article (remember that article thingie?
it's got that little underlining thingie, with the text in a different color, so you can click on it, and it's, like, a hyperlink, so you can go and read it?
) lays out some objections to this, such as the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens.
The concern is that the government will then be able to tell where every citizen drives.
That's pretty darn scary, if you think about it.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121</id>
	<title>Lower Prices my Ass</title>
	<author>RayMarron</author>
	<datestamp>1247821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this?  I think not.  Their claim experience isn't going to change, and they need to charge X dollars to all customers combined so they make a profit.  They're still going to need to charge X dollars, so what's going to happen?  Heavy drivers will pay *more*, and everybody else will pay about the same as they are now.  Bah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this ?
I think not .
Their claim experience is n't going to change , and they need to charge X dollars to all customers combined so they make a profit .
They 're still going to need to charge X dollars , so what 's going to happen ?
Heavy drivers will pay * more * , and everybody else will pay about the same as they are now .
Bah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You think insurance companies will lower prices for the average Joe with this?
I think not.
Their claim experience isn't going to change, and they need to charge X dollars to all customers combined so they make a profit.
They're still going to need to charge X dollars, so what's going to happen?
Heavy drivers will pay *more*, and everybody else will pay about the same as they are now.
Bah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734043</id>
	<title>Choice</title>
	<author>Will Work For Joules</author>
	<datestamp>1247864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would have no problem with this if people were actually given the choice of whether to sign up for a pay-as-you-drive plan, but as it stands, this hurts consumer choice without any real benefits. It is unlikely that people will really drive less, because they still need to get to their jobs and to stores that are miles away from their homes. If we want people to drive less, we should be investing in mass-transit systems which will help them do that, thereby increasing consumer choice rather than decreasing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would have no problem with this if people were actually given the choice of whether to sign up for a pay-as-you-drive plan , but as it stands , this hurts consumer choice without any real benefits .
It is unlikely that people will really drive less , because they still need to get to their jobs and to stores that are miles away from their homes .
If we want people to drive less , we should be investing in mass-transit systems which will help them do that , thereby increasing consumer choice rather than decreasing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would have no problem with this if people were actually given the choice of whether to sign up for a pay-as-you-drive plan, but as it stands, this hurts consumer choice without any real benefits.
It is unlikely that people will really drive less, because they still need to get to their jobs and to stores that are miles away from their homes.
If we want people to drive less, we should be investing in mass-transit systems which will help them do that, thereby increasing consumer choice rather than decreasing it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734815</id>
	<title>Central Valley</title>
	<author>mjayde</author>
	<datestamp>1247823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shouldn't California be concerned for those growing central valley towns and cities like Tracy?<br>
There are hordes of people commuting daily from central valley to silicon valley for work.<br> <br>

There would be even less incentive for people to move out there if PAYD was mandatory, which would cause the property values to drop even more than they have.<br> <br>

I'll go out on a limb here and also say that with the amount of miles these commuters drive daily, I bet you they have better intuition in how to drive well to avoid accidents vs. the occasional inner-city driver who drives twice a week to the grocery store...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't California be concerned for those growing central valley towns and cities like Tracy ?
There are hordes of people commuting daily from central valley to silicon valley for work .
There would be even less incentive for people to move out there if PAYD was mandatory , which would cause the property values to drop even more than they have .
I 'll go out on a limb here and also say that with the amount of miles these commuters drive daily , I bet you they have better intuition in how to drive well to avoid accidents vs. the occasional inner-city driver who drives twice a week to the grocery store.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't California be concerned for those growing central valley towns and cities like Tracy?
There are hordes of people commuting daily from central valley to silicon valley for work.
There would be even less incentive for people to move out there if PAYD was mandatory, which would cause the property values to drop even more than they have.
I'll go out on a limb here and also say that with the amount of miles these commuters drive daily, I bet you they have better intuition in how to drive well to avoid accidents vs. the occasional inner-city driver who drives twice a week to the grocery store...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28742557</id>
	<title>Re:**Privacy** is the issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247946720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When man calls an animal "vicious", he usually means that it will attempt to defend itself when he tries to kill it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When man calls an animal " vicious " , he usually means that it will attempt to defend itself when he tries to kill it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When man calls an animal "vicious", he usually means that it will attempt to defend itself when he tries to kill it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734655</id>
	<title>does mileage really make sense?</title>
	<author>hideouspenguinboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems like mileage might be a poor indicator for this (though part of a valid equation). Wouldn't a better system involve the number of 'instances' of driving? Or perhaps actual time spent driving? Are people who commute on a highway every day for an hour (like me) really more likely to have an accident overall? Seems like we'd at least average safer on a per mile basis. Also, since this would require robots to know more me my driving habits, we hates it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems like mileage might be a poor indicator for this ( though part of a valid equation ) .
Would n't a better system involve the number of 'instances ' of driving ?
Or perhaps actual time spent driving ?
Are people who commute on a highway every day for an hour ( like me ) really more likely to have an accident overall ?
Seems like we 'd at least average safer on a per mile basis .
Also , since this would require robots to know more me my driving habits , we hates it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems like mileage might be a poor indicator for this (though part of a valid equation).
Wouldn't a better system involve the number of 'instances' of driving?
Or perhaps actual time spent driving?
Are people who commute on a highway every day for an hour (like me) really more likely to have an accident overall?
Seems like we'd at least average safer on a per mile basis.
Also, since this would require robots to know more me my driving habits, we hates it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734169</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I agree</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1247821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Shouldn't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions?</p></div><p>No. It should be (and almost certainly is) weighted by statistical analysis of actual insurance payouts.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Should n't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions ? No .
It should be ( and almost certainly is ) weighted by statistical analysis of actual insurance payouts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shouldn't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions?No.
It should be (and almost certainly is) weighted by statistical analysis of actual insurance payouts.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734915</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>Wisconsingod</author>
	<datestamp>1247824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many medical options already do, via incentives.  My insurance company pays 20\% of any gym membership I want to sign up for.  I have a friend whose insurance company sponsored a contest for individuals reducing their blood pressure, and he ended up winning a high end exercise bike. They don't typically charge less, but they are actively increasing their "Value added" features to reduce the cost of claims.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many medical options already do , via incentives .
My insurance company pays 20 \ % of any gym membership I want to sign up for .
I have a friend whose insurance company sponsored a contest for individuals reducing their blood pressure , and he ended up winning a high end exercise bike .
They do n't typically charge less , but they are actively increasing their " Value added " features to reduce the cost of claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many medical options already do, via incentives.
My insurance company pays 20\% of any gym membership I want to sign up for.
I have a friend whose insurance company sponsored a contest for individuals reducing their blood pressure, and he ended up winning a high end exercise bike.
They don't typically charge less, but they are actively increasing their "Value added" features to reduce the cost of claims.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735053</id>
	<title>Re:Lower Prices my Ass</title>
	<author>LurkerXXX</author>
	<datestamp>1247825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Umm, a lot of them already do.  I live in the midwest.  If I drive below x number of miles/year, my insurance gives a bit of a discount.  It's not a lot, but neither is the one California is talking about.</p><p>Why is this on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. ? It's already done lots of places by lots of companies.  It's not news for nerds. It's not really news at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Umm , a lot of them already do .
I live in the midwest .
If I drive below x number of miles/year , my insurance gives a bit of a discount .
It 's not a lot , but neither is the one California is talking about.Why is this on / .
? It 's already done lots of places by lots of companies .
It 's not news for nerds .
It 's not really news at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Umm, a lot of them already do.
I live in the midwest.
If I drive below x number of miles/year, my insurance gives a bit of a discount.
It's not a lot, but neither is the one California is talking about.Why is this on /.
? It's already done lots of places by lots of companies.
It's not news for nerds.
It's not really news at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734699</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1247823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because Jim was born a girl.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Bob 's insurance cost almost as much as Jim 's , currently ? Because Jim was born a girl .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?Because Jim was born a girl.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737339</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>mysidia</author>
	<datestamp>1247840820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
People who drive less often but have the baseline experience could be more cautious which may make accidents less likely.    Also, the sum of their interactions with other drivers  (other drivers who may cause accidents)  is less in number.
</p><p>
Overconfidence and unnecessary risk-taking behaviors that more 'familiar' drivers sometimes practice (e.g. gunning yellow lights) can cause accidents.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who drive less often but have the baseline experience could be more cautious which may make accidents less likely .
Also , the sum of their interactions with other drivers ( other drivers who may cause accidents ) is less in number .
Overconfidence and unnecessary risk-taking behaviors that more 'familiar ' drivers sometimes practice ( e.g .
gunning yellow lights ) can cause accidents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
People who drive less often but have the baseline experience could be more cautious which may make accidents less likely.
Also, the sum of their interactions with other drivers  (other drivers who may cause accidents)  is less in number.
Overconfidence and unnecessary risk-taking behaviors that more 'familiar' drivers sometimes practice (e.g.
gunning yellow lights) can cause accidents.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177</id>
	<title>This system is already in place!</title>
	<author>jtownatpunk.net</author>
	<datestamp>1247821320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF?  Am I missing something?  Last time I got insurance for a vehicle (in California!), the guy writing the policy asked me how many miles I expect to drive per year.  They have a number of mileage brackets that are used in the calculation of your premium.  The more miles you drive in a year, the more money you pay.  Back in the before time, I had a classic car that was a weekend ride.  Insurance was cheap because it was classified as "pleasure use" and driven less than a thousand miles per year.  I don't think I've ever had a situation where the estimated annual mileage wasn't used to calculate the premium.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
Am I missing something ?
Last time I got insurance for a vehicle ( in California !
) , the guy writing the policy asked me how many miles I expect to drive per year .
They have a number of mileage brackets that are used in the calculation of your premium .
The more miles you drive in a year , the more money you pay .
Back in the before time , I had a classic car that was a weekend ride .
Insurance was cheap because it was classified as " pleasure use " and driven less than a thousand miles per year .
I do n't think I 've ever had a situation where the estimated annual mileage was n't used to calculate the premium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
Am I missing something?
Last time I got insurance for a vehicle (in California!
), the guy writing the policy asked me how many miles I expect to drive per year.
They have a number of mileage brackets that are used in the calculation of your premium.
The more miles you drive in a year, the more money you pay.
Back in the before time, I had a classic car that was a weekend ride.
Insurance was cheap because it was classified as "pleasure use" and driven less than a thousand miles per year.
I don't think I've ever had a situation where the estimated annual mileage wasn't used to calculate the premium.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734379</id>
	<title>proposal</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>let's just stick a gps chip in everybody's skull, make its location publicly available, and be done with the whole privacy thing. then we wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>let 's just stick a gps chip in everybody 's skull , make its location publicly available , and be done with the whole privacy thing .
then we would n't have to spend so much time worrying about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>let's just stick a gps chip in everybody's skull, make its location publicly available, and be done with the whole privacy thing.
then we wouldn't have to spend so much time worrying about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734435</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>rolfwind</author>
	<datestamp>1247822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?</p></div></blockquote><p>It probably doesn't, but are there things like comprehensive attached to the bill?  If a tree falls on the car, is it covered?  In that case, it doesn't matter how much the car is driven, both cars exist and thus have relatively the same chance of something happening to it while parked.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Bob 's insurance cost almost as much as Jim 's , currently ? It probably does n't , but are there things like comprehensive attached to the bill ?
If a tree falls on the car , is it covered ?
In that case , it does n't matter how much the car is driven , both cars exist and thus have relatively the same chance of something happening to it while parked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?It probably doesn't, but are there things like comprehensive attached to the bill?
If a tree falls on the car, is it covered?
In that case, it doesn't matter how much the car is driven, both cars exist and thus have relatively the same chance of something happening to it while parked.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737639</id>
	<title>Direct and honest taxes are better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247843760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tax what you want to reduce directly, not indirectly.</p><p>If heavier vehicles cause more damage to roads, then charge them more by gas tax, diesel tax, annual registration and on toll roads.</p><p>If excessive CO2 is what you want to reduce, tax vehicles that produce it on a graduated scale.</p><p>If unsafe driving is to be taxed, have a fine for every accident regardless of fault, but the fine should be higher for the 'at fault' party.  The other vehicle may have been responsible in some way too, so fine them for being at the wrong place/time.</p><p>Directly tax what you want to discourage so there's no way to game the system to avoid producing the actual desired outcomes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tax what you want to reduce directly , not indirectly.If heavier vehicles cause more damage to roads , then charge them more by gas tax , diesel tax , annual registration and on toll roads.If excessive CO2 is what you want to reduce , tax vehicles that produce it on a graduated scale.If unsafe driving is to be taxed , have a fine for every accident regardless of fault , but the fine should be higher for the 'at fault ' party .
The other vehicle may have been responsible in some way too , so fine them for being at the wrong place/time.Directly tax what you want to discourage so there 's no way to game the system to avoid producing the actual desired outcomes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tax what you want to reduce directly, not indirectly.If heavier vehicles cause more damage to roads, then charge them more by gas tax, diesel tax, annual registration and on toll roads.If excessive CO2 is what you want to reduce, tax vehicles that produce it on a graduated scale.If unsafe driving is to be taxed, have a fine for every accident regardless of fault, but the fine should be higher for the 'at fault' party.
The other vehicle may have been responsible in some way too, so fine them for being at the wrong place/time.Directly tax what you want to discourage so there's no way to game the system to avoid producing the actual desired outcomes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734431</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you monitor this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you monitor this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you monitor this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247864340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course a driver who drives more is higher risk.  Suppose that over my lifetime I drive one million miles.  And my friend, who likes hugging trees, saving whales and composting his lunch leftovers in his pocket, only drives a lifetime total of 100k miles.<br>
Why would his first 100k miles be any less risky than my first 100k miles?  The risk of my first 100k miles will not be lessened by the fact that I intend to drive more in the future.<br>
Therefore, unless I have zero risk of an accicident in my final 900k miles, my lifetime risks are higher than his, all other things being equal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course a driver who drives more is higher risk .
Suppose that over my lifetime I drive one million miles .
And my friend , who likes hugging trees , saving whales and composting his lunch leftovers in his pocket , only drives a lifetime total of 100k miles .
Why would his first 100k miles be any less risky than my first 100k miles ?
The risk of my first 100k miles will not be lessened by the fact that I intend to drive more in the future .
Therefore , unless I have zero risk of an accicident in my final 900k miles , my lifetime risks are higher than his , all other things being equal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course a driver who drives more is higher risk.
Suppose that over my lifetime I drive one million miles.
And my friend, who likes hugging trees, saving whales and composting his lunch leftovers in his pocket, only drives a lifetime total of 100k miles.
Why would his first 100k miles be any less risky than my first 100k miles?
The risk of my first 100k miles will not be lessened by the fact that I intend to drive more in the future.
Therefore, unless I have zero risk of an accicident in my final 900k miles, my lifetime risks are higher than his, all other things being equal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737163</id>
	<title>Re:This system is already in place!</title>
	<author>anyaristow</author>
	<datestamp>1247839320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The lowest bracket available to me is 6000 miles/yr, but I only drive 1500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The lowest bracket available to me is 6000 miles/yr , but I only drive 1500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lowest bracket available to me is 6000 miles/yr, but I only drive 1500.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247864280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know it is common practice on Slashdot to speculate beased on no more information than your initial gut reaction, but this sort of thing is actually the core business of insurance companies. They have people who are quite skilled statisticians, call actuaries, who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums.</p><p>Because you know what a bell curve is doesn't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone's understanding of anything. Not even your own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know it is common practice on Slashdot to speculate beased on no more information than your initial gut reaction , but this sort of thing is actually the core business of insurance companies .
They have people who are quite skilled statisticians , call actuaries , who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums.Because you know what a bell curve is does n't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone 's understanding of anything .
Not even your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know it is common practice on Slashdot to speculate beased on no more information than your initial gut reaction, but this sort of thing is actually the core business of insurance companies.
They have people who are quite skilled statisticians, call actuaries, who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums.Because you know what a bell curve is doesn't put you in league with these people and your elementary passive aggressive questions do nothing to further anyone's understanding of anything.
Not even your own.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737003</id>
	<title>The schemes can be combined.</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1247837880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>On the surface, that sounds good. But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates? Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? Or differentiating between different cars. A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra. Same insurance rate at the pump?</p></div></blockquote><p>There's a decent chance that a combination of <i>both</i> approaches is more efficient than either on its own, though.  This would involve a fixed rate at the pump that provides a baseline level of insurance, <i>plus</i> compulsory supplementary coverage whose rate depends on the actuarial tables on age, record, car model, etc.  The pump insurance might pay only up to a fixed amount per incident (or victim, perhaps?), and the rest of the coverage then would have to come from the supplementary policy.  This way, a portion of the claims paid for each accident comes from taxes based on distance driven, and another from insurance rates based on the driver's record, car model, etc.
</p><p>This is not to say that this is necessarily better than having insurers just check your odometer periodically; rather, the point is to remind us all that insurance schemes can be composed to produce different outcomes than each of them independently.  It all comes down to whether the cost of the extra complexity is lower than the savings from the improved measurement and pricing of the risk factors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface , that sounds good .
But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates ?
Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents ?
Or differentiating between different cars .
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra .
Same insurance rate at the pump ? There 's a decent chance that a combination of both approaches is more efficient than either on its own , though .
This would involve a fixed rate at the pump that provides a baseline level of insurance , plus compulsory supplementary coverage whose rate depends on the actuarial tables on age , record , car model , etc .
The pump insurance might pay only up to a fixed amount per incident ( or victim , perhaps ?
) , and the rest of the coverage then would have to come from the supplementary policy .
This way , a portion of the claims paid for each accident comes from taxes based on distance driven , and another from insurance rates based on the driver 's record , car model , etc .
This is not to say that this is necessarily better than having insurers just check your odometer periodically ; rather , the point is to remind us all that insurance schemes can be composed to produce different outcomes than each of them independently .
It all comes down to whether the cost of the extra complexity is lower than the savings from the improved measurement and pricing of the risk factors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface, that sounds good.
But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates?
Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents?
Or differentiating between different cars.
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra.
Same insurance rate at the pump?There's a decent chance that a combination of both approaches is more efficient than either on its own, though.
This would involve a fixed rate at the pump that provides a baseline level of insurance, plus compulsory supplementary coverage whose rate depends on the actuarial tables on age, record, car model, etc.
The pump insurance might pay only up to a fixed amount per incident (or victim, perhaps?
), and the rest of the coverage then would have to come from the supplementary policy.
This way, a portion of the claims paid for each accident comes from taxes based on distance driven, and another from insurance rates based on the driver's record, car model, etc.
This is not to say that this is necessarily better than having insurers just check your odometer periodically; rather, the point is to remind us all that insurance schemes can be composed to produce different outcomes than each of them independently.
It all comes down to whether the cost of the extra complexity is lower than the savings from the improved measurement and pricing of the risk factors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736259</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>INT\_QRK</author>
	<datestamp>1247833020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't want to sound intemperate, but I'm getting sick and tired of stinking rotten lousy communist-bastard-leftist constantly assaulting my freedoms, fortune and sanity. There, I said it, and I can envision a scene from the movie Network, where millions of people sticks their head out of their windows and shout, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!" Then, at that not-so-far-away point of terminal crazy fed-up, one or two terrible things can happen. In the first scenario, the pendulum swings, and stinking rotten lousy right-wing nuts take over. We lose. Or, in the second scenario, it's 1860 all over again, and we split in two, but with a pacifist socialist republic ruling the Northeast, northern Midwest, and West Coast, and the rest of us just happy to be rid of the other group remaining in a slightly less insane fly-over country. Both scenarios suck. But, I guess I'd better start looking at houses in fly-over country as a precaution. In the mean time, could someone please counsel California, and Washington DC while you're at it, to take a breath, and hold it. Keep holding it. No, keep holding it...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't want to sound intemperate , but I 'm getting sick and tired of stinking rotten lousy communist-bastard-leftist constantly assaulting my freedoms , fortune and sanity .
There , I said it , and I can envision a scene from the movie Network , where millions of people sticks their head out of their windows and shout , " I 'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore !
" Then , at that not-so-far-away point of terminal crazy fed-up , one or two terrible things can happen .
In the first scenario , the pendulum swings , and stinking rotten lousy right-wing nuts take over .
We lose .
Or , in the second scenario , it 's 1860 all over again , and we split in two , but with a pacifist socialist republic ruling the Northeast , northern Midwest , and West Coast , and the rest of us just happy to be rid of the other group remaining in a slightly less insane fly-over country .
Both scenarios suck .
But , I guess I 'd better start looking at houses in fly-over country as a precaution .
In the mean time , could someone please counsel California , and Washington DC while you 're at it , to take a breath , and hold it .
Keep holding it .
No , keep holding it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't want to sound intemperate, but I'm getting sick and tired of stinking rotten lousy communist-bastard-leftist constantly assaulting my freedoms, fortune and sanity.
There, I said it, and I can envision a scene from the movie Network, where millions of people sticks their head out of their windows and shout, "I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!
" Then, at that not-so-far-away point of terminal crazy fed-up, one or two terrible things can happen.
In the first scenario, the pendulum swings, and stinking rotten lousy right-wing nuts take over.
We lose.
Or, in the second scenario, it's 1860 all over again, and we split in two, but with a pacifist socialist republic ruling the Northeast, northern Midwest, and West Coast, and the rest of us just happy to be rid of the other group remaining in a slightly less insane fly-over country.
Both scenarios suck.
But, I guess I'd better start looking at houses in fly-over country as a precaution.
In the mean time, could someone please counsel California, and Washington DC while you're at it, to take a breath, and hold it.
Keep holding it.
No, keep holding it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734541</id>
	<title>why don't they just</title>
	<author>shingwedzi</author>
	<datestamp>1247822880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>give everyone free auto insurance and increase gas taxes by enough to cover it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>give everyone free auto insurance and increase gas taxes by enough to cover it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>give everyone free auto insurance and increase gas taxes by enough to cover it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734953</id>
	<title>Think of the Children! er LOW INCOME FAMILIES!</title>
	<author>Spy Handler</author>
	<datestamp>1247824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously, whining about "low income families" everytime something useful gets proposed is getting a bit old. Won't somebody please think of the children!!<br> <br>

"<i>All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families</i>"<br> <br>
Well then the low income families need to <b>drive less</b>. Actually everybody needs to drive less, regardless of income.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , whining about " low income families " everytime something useful gets proposed is getting a bit old .
Wo n't somebody please think of the children ! !
" All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families " Well then the low income families need to drive less .
Actually everybody needs to drive less , regardless of income .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, whining about "low income families" everytime something useful gets proposed is getting a bit old.
Won't somebody please think of the children!!
"All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families" 
Well then the low income families need to drive less.
Actually everybody needs to drive less, regardless of income.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737549</id>
	<title>Re:But that is nonsensical!</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1247842860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe, but are they going to have fewer accidents per billing period? Right now, they get paid every month (or six months). In the new system they would get paid by the mile, which might equalize the costs quite a bit. Probably not in anyone's favor, though, since you know damned well that they won't reduce rates for the safer driver.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe , but are they going to have fewer accidents per billing period ?
Right now , they get paid every month ( or six months ) .
In the new system they would get paid by the mile , which might equalize the costs quite a bit .
Probably not in anyone 's favor , though , since you know damned well that they wo n't reduce rates for the safer driver.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe, but are they going to have fewer accidents per billing period?
Right now, they get paid every month (or six months).
In the new system they would get paid by the mile, which might equalize the costs quite a bit.
Probably not in anyone's favor, though, since you know damned well that they won't reduce rates for the safer driver.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740309</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1247928000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I drive 800miles a week and have had 1 accident in 5 years.</p><p>I know people who have had 2-3 accidents in this time and only drive 50-60 miles a week.</p><p>Why does my insurance cost more per mile?</p><p>In fact scrap the per mile thing: Why does my insurance cost the same as theirs?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I drive 800miles a week and have had 1 accident in 5 years.I know people who have had 2-3 accidents in this time and only drive 50-60 miles a week.Why does my insurance cost more per mile ? In fact scrap the per mile thing : Why does my insurance cost the same as theirs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drive 800miles a week and have had 1 accident in 5 years.I know people who have had 2-3 accidents in this time and only drive 50-60 miles a week.Why does my insurance cost more per mile?In fact scrap the per mile thing: Why does my insurance cost the same as theirs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734701</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Talennor</author>
	<datestamp>1247823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I know!  Personally my rates are pretty low since I drive only once or twice a week.  I'm under the impression that they verify with the DMV here (we have yearly emissions inspections that also verify odometer readings) that the car is only traveling my self-rated low mileage per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I know !
Personally my rates are pretty low since I drive only once or twice a week .
I 'm under the impression that they verify with the DMV here ( we have yearly emissions inspections that also verify odometer readings ) that the car is only traveling my self-rated low mileage per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know!
Personally my rates are pretty low since I drive only once or twice a week.
I'm under the impression that they verify with the DMV here (we have yearly emissions inspections that also verify odometer readings) that the car is only traveling my self-rated low mileage per year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734647</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As well as using more gasoline and causing more pollution. When you're stopped at a red light you get zero mpg. Unless you're in a hybrid, travelling down a street where there's a stop sign at every block could cause your 35 mpg car to get more like 5 mpg. If I go to the Walmart on the north side of town using Dirkson Drive, It's a shorter route, but as there are traffic lights and a 30-45 mph (varying) speed limit, I can use I-55 doing a legal 65 mph and get there faster, more safely, and using less gasoline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As well as using more gasoline and causing more pollution .
When you 're stopped at a red light you get zero mpg .
Unless you 're in a hybrid , travelling down a street where there 's a stop sign at every block could cause your 35 mpg car to get more like 5 mpg .
If I go to the Walmart on the north side of town using Dirkson Drive , It 's a shorter route , but as there are traffic lights and a 30-45 mph ( varying ) speed limit , I can use I-55 doing a legal 65 mph and get there faster , more safely , and using less gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As well as using more gasoline and causing more pollution.
When you're stopped at a red light you get zero mpg.
Unless you're in a hybrid, travelling down a street where there's a stop sign at every block could cause your 35 mpg car to get more like 5 mpg.
If I go to the Walmart on the north side of town using Dirkson Drive, It's a shorter route, but as there are traffic lights and a 30-45 mph (varying) speed limit, I can use I-55 doing a legal 65 mph and get there faster, more safely, and using less gasoline.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907</id>
	<title>Rush Hour?</title>
	<author>Jaeph</author>
	<datestamp>1247824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The premise is faulty.  Open highway driving is far safer than inner-city rush hour traffic.</p><p>You need to consider the conditions, not just the distance.</p><p>-Jeff</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The premise is faulty .
Open highway driving is far safer than inner-city rush hour traffic.You need to consider the conditions , not just the distance.-Jeff</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The premise is faulty.
Open highway driving is far safer than inner-city rush hour traffic.You need to consider the conditions, not just the distance.-Jeff</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734311</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate to break it to you, but many already offer discounts for active lifestyles and quitting smoking, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate to break it to you , but many already offer discounts for active lifestyles and quitting smoking , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate to break it to you, but many already offer discounts for active lifestyles and quitting smoking, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734485</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You young whippersnapper!  I have been driving for 96 years and never get into any of those accidents I always keep hearing right behind me the few times I drive. It is unsafe to drive any faster then my standard 15 miles per hour in the fast lane on the freeway so just don't do it. now I don't want to hear you anymore so I am turning off my hearing aid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You young whippersnapper !
I have been driving for 96 years and never get into any of those accidents I always keep hearing right behind me the few times I drive .
It is unsafe to drive any faster then my standard 15 miles per hour in the fast lane on the freeway so just do n't do it .
now I do n't want to hear you anymore so I am turning off my hearing aid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You young whippersnapper!
I have been driving for 96 years and never get into any of those accidents I always keep hearing right behind me the few times I drive.
It is unsafe to drive any faster then my standard 15 miles per hour in the fast lane on the freeway so just don't do it.
now I don't want to hear you anymore so I am turning off my hearing aid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740095</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1247925960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I drive for a living and have had one crash in the past 5 years (Backed a truck into a car). I know people who have had more than 1 crash in the last 5 years and they do almost no driving at all, compared to me at least.</p><p>The highest risk people are the inexperienced they are the most likely to cause accidents. I drive around my city 5 days a week for about 7-8 hours a day and the shit I see never ceases to amaze me. Cars turning the wrong way into one way streets, people not indicating to change lanes and people changing lanes to close to the intersection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I drive for a living and have had one crash in the past 5 years ( Backed a truck into a car ) .
I know people who have had more than 1 crash in the last 5 years and they do almost no driving at all , compared to me at least.The highest risk people are the inexperienced they are the most likely to cause accidents .
I drive around my city 5 days a week for about 7-8 hours a day and the shit I see never ceases to amaze me .
Cars turning the wrong way into one way streets , people not indicating to change lanes and people changing lanes to close to the intersection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drive for a living and have had one crash in the past 5 years (Backed a truck into a car).
I know people who have had more than 1 crash in the last 5 years and they do almost no driving at all, compared to me at least.The highest risk people are the inexperienced they are the most likely to cause accidents.
I drive around my city 5 days a week for about 7-8 hours a day and the shit I see never ceases to amaze me.
Cars turning the wrong way into one way streets, people not indicating to change lanes and people changing lanes to close to the intersection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735711</id>
	<title>Not here they don't.</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1247829600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Must be your insurance company.  Mine has never asked how much I drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Must be your insurance company .
Mine has never asked how much I drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Must be your insurance company.
Mine has never asked how much I drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736051</id>
	<title>What's next?</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1247831700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insurance companies are very much interested in looking for ways to profile drivers into high risk categories. What's next after having GPS devices?</p><p>- Variable rates based on how close you are to home? (Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home!)<br>- Variable rates based on what kind of road you are on (I like to ride my motorcycle in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Lots of accidents up happen up there.)<br>- Increased premiums for driving at night, or in the rain?<br>- Variable rates for the speed you drive at?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance companies are very much interested in looking for ways to profile drivers into high risk categories .
What 's next after having GPS devices ? - Variable rates based on how close you are to home ?
( Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home !
) - Variable rates based on what kind of road you are on ( I like to ride my motorcycle in the Santa Cruz Mountains .
Lots of accidents up happen up there .
) - Increased premiums for driving at night , or in the rain ? - Variable rates for the speed you drive at ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance companies are very much interested in looking for ways to profile drivers into high risk categories.
What's next after having GPS devices?- Variable rates based on how close you are to home?
(Most accidents happen within 10 miles of home!
)- Variable rates based on what kind of road you are on (I like to ride my motorcycle in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
Lots of accidents up happen up there.
)- Increased premiums for driving at night, or in the rain?- Variable rates for the speed you drive at?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735329</id>
	<title>Re:Distribution of Risk + Cost?</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247826900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If an insurance company is unwilling to underwrite a policy, at any cost, for the 'high risk' individual you just made up, but perfectly willing to underwrite a policy for 99\% of the population, I'm happy not letting that guy drive (If he does, take away his car. If he borrows a car with someone's knowledge, levy them a hefty fine).</p><p>For medical, it would make far more sense to simply use taxes to pay for people that have high, fixed care costs than it does to pretend that those costs are insurable (for one thing, using taxes helps people that have fallen out of the insurance system).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If an insurance company is unwilling to underwrite a policy , at any cost , for the 'high risk ' individual you just made up , but perfectly willing to underwrite a policy for 99 \ % of the population , I 'm happy not letting that guy drive ( If he does , take away his car .
If he borrows a car with someone 's knowledge , levy them a hefty fine ) .For medical , it would make far more sense to simply use taxes to pay for people that have high , fixed care costs than it does to pretend that those costs are insurable ( for one thing , using taxes helps people that have fallen out of the insurance system ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If an insurance company is unwilling to underwrite a policy, at any cost, for the 'high risk' individual you just made up, but perfectly willing to underwrite a policy for 99\% of the population, I'm happy not letting that guy drive (If he does, take away his car.
If he borrows a car with someone's knowledge, levy them a hefty fine).For medical, it would make far more sense to simply use taxes to pay for people that have high, fixed care costs than it does to pretend that those costs are insurable (for one thing, using taxes helps people that have fallen out of the insurance system).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741871</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247941260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Meaning more uninsured motorists.</p></div><p>The myriad of anti-business laws in California, including insurance laws, already results in a very high number of uninsured motorists driving around this state. These are the cash-only no-credit people (frequently illegal aliens) who buy some $300 beater car and just drive it until it quits with no insurance and no drivers license. They don't care if the car gets impounded for no insurance, they just go find another junk car and drive that instead. These people don't give a damn about our laws, so those of us who have credit, a mortgage, and actually have some skin the in the game have to pay more for our insurance for the "uninsured motorist protection" (i.e. our insurance company pays medical or disability and gets the car fixed or totaled out even though they will have essentially no recourse and never be able to track down the uninsured party to collect the debt). If the goal of California legislators is to expand the illegal underclass, increase the level of crime in this state, and reduce the amount of business then they certainly are doing a fine job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning more uninsured motorists.The myriad of anti-business laws in California , including insurance laws , already results in a very high number of uninsured motorists driving around this state .
These are the cash-only no-credit people ( frequently illegal aliens ) who buy some $ 300 beater car and just drive it until it quits with no insurance and no drivers license .
They do n't care if the car gets impounded for no insurance , they just go find another junk car and drive that instead .
These people do n't give a damn about our laws , so those of us who have credit , a mortgage , and actually have some skin the in the game have to pay more for our insurance for the " uninsured motorist protection " ( i.e .
our insurance company pays medical or disability and gets the car fixed or totaled out even though they will have essentially no recourse and never be able to track down the uninsured party to collect the debt ) .
If the goal of California legislators is to expand the illegal underclass , increase the level of crime in this state , and reduce the amount of business then they certainly are doing a fine job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meaning more uninsured motorists.The myriad of anti-business laws in California, including insurance laws, already results in a very high number of uninsured motorists driving around this state.
These are the cash-only no-credit people (frequently illegal aliens) who buy some $300 beater car and just drive it until it quits with no insurance and no drivers license.
They don't care if the car gets impounded for no insurance, they just go find another junk car and drive that instead.
These people don't give a damn about our laws, so those of us who have credit, a mortgage, and actually have some skin the in the game have to pay more for our insurance for the "uninsured motorist protection" (i.e.
our insurance company pays medical or disability and gets the car fixed or totaled out even though they will have essentially no recourse and never be able to track down the uninsured party to collect the debt).
If the goal of California legislators is to expand the illegal underclass, increase the level of crime in this state, and reduce the amount of business then they certainly are doing a fine job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735743</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1247829780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>They have people who are quite skilled statisticians, call actuaries, who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums.</i> </p><p>The problem is, they're just guessing and going by gut reactions too.  Case in point - older drivers get cheaper insurance because they make fewer insurance claims.  They're not safer - in fact, they are more likely to cause an accident that results in an inexperienced driver to make an insurance claim.  More experienced drivers who are still in possession of their faculties (basically anyone under the age of 60 who has had a licence for at least a few years) will be able to avoid the extremely dangerous situations that older drivers create on the roads.</p><p>The flip side of this is that if you are a young and inexperienced driver, stay away from old people.  Give them a lot of room, give them four times as much braking distance as you'd normally need, and expect them to do things like slow down and look as though they're turning off the road out of your way, but then suddenly swing across in front of you.  Older drivers (anyone over the age of 60) are fundamentally dangerous, because their reaction times are impaired, their vision is impaired and they have not had any driver training for possibly three decades or more.  Treat them as though they were deliberately trying to crash into you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have people who are quite skilled statisticians , call actuaries , who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums .
The problem is , they 're just guessing and going by gut reactions too .
Case in point - older drivers get cheaper insurance because they make fewer insurance claims .
They 're not safer - in fact , they are more likely to cause an accident that results in an inexperienced driver to make an insurance claim .
More experienced drivers who are still in possession of their faculties ( basically anyone under the age of 60 who has had a licence for at least a few years ) will be able to avoid the extremely dangerous situations that older drivers create on the roads.The flip side of this is that if you are a young and inexperienced driver , stay away from old people .
Give them a lot of room , give them four times as much braking distance as you 'd normally need , and expect them to do things like slow down and look as though they 're turning off the road out of your way , but then suddenly swing across in front of you .
Older drivers ( anyone over the age of 60 ) are fundamentally dangerous , because their reaction times are impaired , their vision is impaired and they have not had any driver training for possibly three decades or more .
Treat them as though they were deliberately trying to crash into you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have people who are quite skilled statisticians, call actuaries, who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums.
The problem is, they're just guessing and going by gut reactions too.
Case in point - older drivers get cheaper insurance because they make fewer insurance claims.
They're not safer - in fact, they are more likely to cause an accident that results in an inexperienced driver to make an insurance claim.
More experienced drivers who are still in possession of their faculties (basically anyone under the age of 60 who has had a licence for at least a few years) will be able to avoid the extremely dangerous situations that older drivers create on the roads.The flip side of this is that if you are a young and inexperienced driver, stay away from old people.
Give them a lot of room, give them four times as much braking distance as you'd normally need, and expect them to do things like slow down and look as though they're turning off the road out of your way, but then suddenly swing across in front of you.
Older drivers (anyone over the age of 60) are fundamentally dangerous, because their reaction times are impaired, their vision is impaired and they have not had any driver training for possibly three decades or more.
Treat them as though they were deliberately trying to crash into you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734087</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Hope Thelps</author>
	<datestamp>1247864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How is someone who drives less better at driving?</p> </div><p>Not better at driving. Less of an insurance risk. At one extreme end of the scale you have the person who doesn't drive at all - just leaves his car in the driveway. Almost zero risk. At the opposite extreme end you have people who spend most of their lives driving - almost certainly higher risk of being in an accident even if it's a freak accident that you can't really blame them for. I don't have the stats so maybe I'm wrong but it does seem likely that you can identify a class of low freqency drivers that are unlikely to have an accident because they spend little time driving.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is someone who drives less better at driving ?
Not better at driving .
Less of an insurance risk .
At one extreme end of the scale you have the person who does n't drive at all - just leaves his car in the driveway .
Almost zero risk .
At the opposite extreme end you have people who spend most of their lives driving - almost certainly higher risk of being in an accident even if it 's a freak accident that you ca n't really blame them for .
I do n't have the stats so maybe I 'm wrong but it does seem likely that you can identify a class of low freqency drivers that are unlikely to have an accident because they spend little time driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is someone who drives less better at driving?
Not better at driving.
Less of an insurance risk.
At one extreme end of the scale you have the person who doesn't drive at all - just leaves his car in the driveway.
Almost zero risk.
At the opposite extreme end you have people who spend most of their lives driving - almost certainly higher risk of being in an accident even if it's a freak accident that you can't really blame them for.
I don't have the stats so maybe I'm wrong but it does seem likely that you can identify a class of low freqency drivers that are unlikely to have an accident because they spend little time driving.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734935</id>
	<title>Risk and incidence</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247824620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drivers that drive infrequently are probably not a lower risk.  At least not a lower risk in terms damage done per miles driven.  If anything they are probably a Greater risk, since they get less practice behind the wheel.  However, since they don't drive much, they will have fewer potential incidents of damage compared to people that drive many miles and encounter much more traffic and potential obstacles.</p><p>The only risk being managed here is the pocketbook of the insurance company.  The infrequent drivers are only a lower risk from the point of view of the threat of having to pay out.  But that would be true for all of us.  If no one drove, auto insurance would rarely have to pay for anything, and all those premiums would be pure profit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drivers that drive infrequently are probably not a lower risk .
At least not a lower risk in terms damage done per miles driven .
If anything they are probably a Greater risk , since they get less practice behind the wheel .
However , since they do n't drive much , they will have fewer potential incidents of damage compared to people that drive many miles and encounter much more traffic and potential obstacles.The only risk being managed here is the pocketbook of the insurance company .
The infrequent drivers are only a lower risk from the point of view of the threat of having to pay out .
But that would be true for all of us .
If no one drove , auto insurance would rarely have to pay for anything , and all those premiums would be pure profit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drivers that drive infrequently are probably not a lower risk.
At least not a lower risk in terms damage done per miles driven.
If anything they are probably a Greater risk, since they get less practice behind the wheel.
However, since they don't drive much, they will have fewer potential incidents of damage compared to people that drive many miles and encounter much more traffic and potential obstacles.The only risk being managed here is the pocketbook of the insurance company.
The infrequent drivers are only a lower risk from the point of view of the threat of having to pay out.
But that would be true for all of us.
If no one drove, auto insurance would rarely have to pay for anything, and all those premiums would be pure profit.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735335</id>
	<title>Re:The Most Interesting Man in the World</title>
	<author>oatworm</author>
	<datestamp>1247826960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Drive thirsty, my friend.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drive thirsty , my friend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drive thirsty, my friend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734005</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734629</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>Ichijo</author>
	<datestamp>1247823180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute. Meaning more uninsured motorists.</p></div></blockquote><p>No, only those families who continue to drive more than the average will have higher insurance premiums than they do today. Those who drive less than the average will automatically have lower premiums, and those who drive the average will modify their behavior to take advantage of this new incentive by driving less.</p><p>In the end, most people will pay less for insurance under the new plan.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute .
Meaning more uninsured motorists.No , only those families who continue to drive more than the average will have higher insurance premiums than they do today .
Those who drive less than the average will automatically have lower premiums , and those who drive the average will modify their behavior to take advantage of this new incentive by driving less.In the end , most people will pay less for insurance under the new plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute.
Meaning more uninsured motorists.No, only those families who continue to drive more than the average will have higher insurance premiums than they do today.
Those who drive less than the average will automatically have lower premiums, and those who drive the average will modify their behavior to take advantage of this new incentive by driving less.In the end, most people will pay less for insurance under the new plan.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739057</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>RightSaidFred99</author>
	<datestamp>1247908320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What part of "the multibillion dollar insurance industry has people who do this for a living who are far, far better at it than you" don't you understand?  They are not "guessing".  They have numbers and math to back up their expectations of risk.  I'm not sure why you are arguing with the grandparent's unarguable post.</p><p>Only on Slashdot...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What part of " the multibillion dollar insurance industry has people who do this for a living who are far , far better at it than you " do n't you understand ?
They are not " guessing " .
They have numbers and math to back up their expectations of risk .
I 'm not sure why you are arguing with the grandparent 's unarguable post.Only on Slashdot.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What part of "the multibillion dollar insurance industry has people who do this for a living who are far, far better at it than you" don't you understand?
They are not "guessing".
They have numbers and math to back up their expectations of risk.
I'm not sure why you are arguing with the grandparent's unarguable post.Only on Slashdot...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735743</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734945</id>
	<title>Re:Milliage RISK</title>
	<author>NonSequor</author>
	<datestamp>1247824680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The insurance companies can, will, and do account for that. This stuff isn't hard to model. The basic idea is that you have a hazard rate per mile driven. More miles driven means more hazard. However, that hazard rate doesn't have to be the same for all drivers. The hazard rate they'll use to model your cost will be based on the experience of drivers in your same risk class, i.e. pretty low.</p><p>I am not a property/casualty actuary, but I am an actuary.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The insurance companies can , will , and do account for that .
This stuff is n't hard to model .
The basic idea is that you have a hazard rate per mile driven .
More miles driven means more hazard .
However , that hazard rate does n't have to be the same for all drivers .
The hazard rate they 'll use to model your cost will be based on the experience of drivers in your same risk class , i.e .
pretty low.I am not a property/casualty actuary , but I am an actuary .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The insurance companies can, will, and do account for that.
This stuff isn't hard to model.
The basic idea is that you have a hazard rate per mile driven.
More miles driven means more hazard.
However, that hazard rate doesn't have to be the same for all drivers.
The hazard rate they'll use to model your cost will be based on the experience of drivers in your same risk class, i.e.
pretty low.I am not a property/casualty actuary, but I am an actuary.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013</id>
	<title>I'm not sure I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People that drive less are less of an insurance risk? Perhaps as the time driven approaches zero<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but I would think people that drive well are way less of an insurance risk. This assumes of course that they only need to pay out when at fault. Shouldn't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions?</htmltext>
<tokenext>People that drive less are less of an insurance risk ?
Perhaps as the time driven approaches zero ... but I would think people that drive well are way less of an insurance risk .
This assumes of course that they only need to pay out when at fault .
Should n't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People that drive less are less of an insurance risk?
Perhaps as the time driven approaches zero ... but I would think people that drive well are way less of an insurance risk.
This assumes of course that they only need to pay out when at fault.
Shouldn't this at least be weighted by some sort of driving test that evaluated real-world conditions?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735243</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1247826360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I knew a girl in high school who was a tremendous athlete.  She played on the school's basketball team and come senior year all kinds of universities were knocking on her door to get her to play for them.  However, the offers dramatically decreased when she blew out her knee and needed to get surgery.  She probably got more exercise in one semester of high school than I did the whole four years, but also needed way more expensive medical care than I ever needed.  My point is, even though exercise may prevent some health problems (eg problems related to being overweight like diabetes), people who exercise a lot are prone to injuries.  Not to knock exercising, though, I'd much rather be an otherwise healthy person with a bad knee than someone who is dependent on insulin just to stay alive, but I'm not sure how effective that strategy would be at saving money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I knew a girl in high school who was a tremendous athlete .
She played on the school 's basketball team and come senior year all kinds of universities were knocking on her door to get her to play for them .
However , the offers dramatically decreased when she blew out her knee and needed to get surgery .
She probably got more exercise in one semester of high school than I did the whole four years , but also needed way more expensive medical care than I ever needed .
My point is , even though exercise may prevent some health problems ( eg problems related to being overweight like diabetes ) , people who exercise a lot are prone to injuries .
Not to knock exercising , though , I 'd much rather be an otherwise healthy person with a bad knee than someone who is dependent on insulin just to stay alive , but I 'm not sure how effective that strategy would be at saving money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I knew a girl in high school who was a tremendous athlete.
She played on the school's basketball team and come senior year all kinds of universities were knocking on her door to get her to play for them.
However, the offers dramatically decreased when she blew out her knee and needed to get surgery.
She probably got more exercise in one semester of high school than I did the whole four years, but also needed way more expensive medical care than I ever needed.
My point is, even though exercise may prevent some health problems (eg problems related to being overweight like diabetes), people who exercise a lot are prone to injuries.
Not to knock exercising, though, I'd much rather be an otherwise healthy person with a bad knee than someone who is dependent on insulin just to stay alive, but I'm not sure how effective that strategy would be at saving money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735199</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1247826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can anybody clarify for me?</i></p><p>It is all very clear, just Amend Title 10, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5  <a href="http://www.eff.org/files/PROPOSED\%20AMENDED\%20REGULATION\%20TEXT.pdf" title="eff.org">to read as follows</a> [eff.org].</p><p>(Will someone mod this funny?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anybody clarify for me ? It is all very clear , just Amend Title 10 , California Code of Regulations , Chapter 5 , Subchapter 4.7 , Section 2632.5 to read as follows [ eff.org ] .
( Will someone mod this funny ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anybody clarify for me?It is all very clear, just Amend Title 10, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5  to read as follows [eff.org].
(Will someone mod this funny?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734375</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247822220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies.  Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies .
Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that we do know this to be true... its been proven in scientific studies.
Do you have a study that shows driving more increases your risk for an accident?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734197</id>
	<title>What's so difficult about it?</title>
	<author>matt4077</author>
	<datestamp>1247821440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not going to RTFA article, but I can't see how you could screw this up. Let everyone self-report their mileage and then recover whatever you had to pay out if an accident occurs and mileage is off by more than 20\% or so. That's the system used here (Europe) and I've never heard anyone complain about it. No privacy violations involved, either.

If you don't trust the self-reporting, it'd be easy to verify mileage in regular intervals by tying it to i. e. existing mandatory emissions &amp; safety checks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not going to RTFA article , but I ca n't see how you could screw this up .
Let everyone self-report their mileage and then recover whatever you had to pay out if an accident occurs and mileage is off by more than 20 \ % or so .
That 's the system used here ( Europe ) and I 've never heard anyone complain about it .
No privacy violations involved , either .
If you do n't trust the self-reporting , it 'd be easy to verify mileage in regular intervals by tying it to i. e. existing mandatory emissions &amp; safety checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not going to RTFA article, but I can't see how you could screw this up.
Let everyone self-report their mileage and then recover whatever you had to pay out if an accident occurs and mileage is off by more than 20\% or so.
That's the system used here (Europe) and I've never heard anyone complain about it.
No privacy violations involved, either.
If you don't trust the self-reporting, it'd be easy to verify mileage in regular intervals by tying it to i. e. existing mandatory emissions &amp; safety checks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</id>
	<title>Milliage  RISK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal, over 500 miles, one way, several times a year to visit family. I'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month, or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone (even though it is illegal already) or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p><p>THIS is the problem with Government. It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that doesn't fit anyone. I've been driving over 20 years, with exactly 4 accidents, none of them my fault.</p><p>I have a 13 year old vehicle, bought new, with 150,000 miles on it, that hasn't had one insurance claim. I know some people who can't make 40K without totalling their vehicle.</p><p>Everytime someone says<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... "there ought to be a law" get ready to bend over!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal , over 500 miles , one way , several times a year to visit family .
I 'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month , or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone ( even though it is illegal already ) or ....THIS is the problem with Government .
It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that does n't fit anyone .
I 've been driving over 20 years , with exactly 4 accidents , none of them my fault.I have a 13 year old vehicle , bought new , with 150,000 miles on it , that has n't had one insurance claim .
I know some people who ca n't make 40K without totalling their vehicle.Everytime someone says ... " there ought to be a law " get ready to bend over !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I drive from Nor Cal to So Cal, over 500 miles, one way, several times a year to visit family.
I'm at far less risk than grandma Owho barely drives 500 miles in a month, or the teen who is an idiot with her cell phone (even though it is illegal already) or ....THIS is the problem with Government.
It is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL program that doesn't fit anyone.
I've been driving over 20 years, with exactly 4 accidents, none of them my fault.I have a 13 year old vehicle, bought new, with 150,000 miles on it, that hasn't had one insurance claim.
I know some people who can't make 40K without totalling their vehicle.Everytime someone says ... "there ought to be a law" get ready to bend over!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736123</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247832180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The same thing happens with free healthcare and that, more or less works.</p><p>If everyone pays a decent average then it won't matter.</p><p>Yes it is unfair to those who are poor but so is the tobacco tax that supposedly covers health costs but in reality goes towards other things completely unrelated to healthcare. Fact is a lot of smokers are poor and they're funding things they may or may not even need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The same thing happens with free healthcare and that , more or less works.If everyone pays a decent average then it wo n't matter.Yes it is unfair to those who are poor but so is the tobacco tax that supposedly covers health costs but in reality goes towards other things completely unrelated to healthcare .
Fact is a lot of smokers are poor and they 're funding things they may or may not even need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The same thing happens with free healthcare and that, more or less works.If everyone pays a decent average then it won't matter.Yes it is unfair to those who are poor but so is the tobacco tax that supposedly covers health costs but in reality goes towards other things completely unrelated to healthcare.
Fact is a lot of smokers are poor and they're funding things they may or may not even need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735267</id>
	<title>How is more hardware cheaper</title>
	<author>SirLanse</author>
	<datestamp>1247826480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So how is making me buy a tracking device in my car and the central tracking system going to save me money?
Perhaps making every mile more expensive will get me to cut back some, but 10\% is not going to be cut.
Who is selling these tracking devices?  Are they contributing to election campaigns?
Are they going to be "FREE" ie I will pay for them in hight taxes?
Will the logs of where your car has been be available for review and dispute.
It could be fun to attach the tracker id of Ahnold to a city bus.
If the logs are kept, can they be sold to advertisers?
Will I get smut adverts because I cut through a bad section of town?
Will the road taxes become flexible based on which route I take?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So how is making me buy a tracking device in my car and the central tracking system going to save me money ?
Perhaps making every mile more expensive will get me to cut back some , but 10 \ % is not going to be cut .
Who is selling these tracking devices ?
Are they contributing to election campaigns ?
Are they going to be " FREE " ie I will pay for them in hight taxes ?
Will the logs of where your car has been be available for review and dispute .
It could be fun to attach the tracker id of Ahnold to a city bus .
If the logs are kept , can they be sold to advertisers ?
Will I get smut adverts because I cut through a bad section of town ?
Will the road taxes become flexible based on which route I take ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how is making me buy a tracking device in my car and the central tracking system going to save me money?
Perhaps making every mile more expensive will get me to cut back some, but 10\% is not going to be cut.
Who is selling these tracking devices?
Are they contributing to election campaigns?
Are they going to be "FREE" ie I will pay for them in hight taxes?
Will the logs of where your car has been be available for review and dispute.
It could be fun to attach the tracker id of Ahnold to a city bus.
If the logs are kept, can they be sold to advertisers?
Will I get smut adverts because I cut through a bad section of town?
Will the road taxes become flexible based on which route I take?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735127</id>
	<title>Why not let the market decide?</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1247825640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The proposed regulation states "Amend Title 10, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5 to read as follows:<br>Sec. 2632.5 Rating Factors<br>(a) Every insurer offering or issuing a policy of automobile insurance shall establish a class<br>plan for the calculation of rates that specifies rating factors in accordance with this section and<br>which complies with the good driver discount requirements of California Insurance Code Section<br>1861.02 and all other statutes providing discounts in automobile insurance rates and premiums."</p><p>Why the heck is the state micro-managing this?  For that matter, why does the state mandate "good driver discounts"?</p><p>The state should perhaps set the mandatory minimum level of insurance per driver to drive on the public roads, and then leave it to the insurance marketplace to figure out how best to parcel out the risks (flat rate, GPS, good driver discounts, etc.)</p><p>This kind of state regulation and mandates is why health insurance costs so much!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The proposed regulation states " Amend Title 10 , Chapter 5 , Subchapter 4.7 , Section 2632.5 to read as follows : Sec .
2632.5 Rating Factors ( a ) Every insurer offering or issuing a policy of automobile insurance shall establish a classplan for the calculation of rates that specifies rating factors in accordance with this section andwhich complies with the good driver discount requirements of California Insurance Code Section1861.02 and all other statutes providing discounts in automobile insurance rates and premiums .
" Why the heck is the state micro-managing this ?
For that matter , why does the state mandate " good driver discounts " ? The state should perhaps set the mandatory minimum level of insurance per driver to drive on the public roads , and then leave it to the insurance marketplace to figure out how best to parcel out the risks ( flat rate , GPS , good driver discounts , etc .
) This kind of state regulation and mandates is why health insurance costs so much !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The proposed regulation states "Amend Title 10, Chapter 5, Subchapter 4.7, Section 2632.5 to read as follows:Sec.
2632.5 Rating Factors(a) Every insurer offering or issuing a policy of automobile insurance shall establish a classplan for the calculation of rates that specifies rating factors in accordance with this section andwhich complies with the good driver discount requirements of California Insurance Code Section1861.02 and all other statutes providing discounts in automobile insurance rates and premiums.
"Why the heck is the state micro-managing this?
For that matter, why does the state mandate "good driver discounts"?The state should perhaps set the mandatory minimum level of insurance per driver to drive on the public roads, and then leave it to the insurance marketplace to figure out how best to parcel out the risks (flat rate, GPS, good driver discounts, etc.
)This kind of state regulation and mandates is why health insurance costs so much!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734465</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247822580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"How is someone who drives less better at driving?"</p><p>The same way someone who's learned how to ride a bike doesn't suddenly stop knowing how to ride a bike.  Driving is not difficult, and I imagine if you did a study of infrequent drivers, there would be small re-adjustment period (for things like parallel parking, etc) before they reached the levels of long time drivers, but for regular driving their would be a negligible difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" How is someone who drives less better at driving ?
" The same way someone who 's learned how to ride a bike does n't suddenly stop knowing how to ride a bike .
Driving is not difficult , and I imagine if you did a study of infrequent drivers , there would be small re-adjustment period ( for things like parallel parking , etc ) before they reached the levels of long time drivers , but for regular driving their would be a negligible difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"How is someone who drives less better at driving?
"The same way someone who's learned how to ride a bike doesn't suddenly stop knowing how to ride a bike.
Driving is not difficult, and I imagine if you did a study of infrequent drivers, there would be small re-adjustment period (for things like parallel parking, etc) before they reached the levels of long time drivers, but for regular driving their would be a negligible difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734137</id>
	<title>maybe but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, it sorta makes sense... but then again it also doesn't.</p><p>First I would point out that someone who drives 20k miles a year for 5 years drives 100k miles. A person who drives 5 k miles a year only drives 25k miles. So essentially, the 20k miles driver has 75k miles more driving experience than the lower milliage driver....</p><p>I would expect that sort of difference to start to really add up.</p><p>That said, the point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it over many individuals. While it makes some amount of sense to charge relatively higher risk people more, doesn't it, eventually, start to defeat the purpose when you keep looking for more and more ways to do that?</p><p>Of course, it mostly makes sense if you assume the higher prices for the more risky people actually means lower prices for the less risky, when I would bet the reality is that the only way low miliage drivers will "pay less" is that they will "pay less than the new surcharge on the high milliage drivers" and not in any way, "less than what they pay now"</p><p>Kind o flike here in MA where the insurance companies are given license to surcharge for "offenses" like "not having the registration paper in the car" (sure its an offence, but its still a valid registration with valid insurance.... how exactly is not having the paper itself in the car... which contains no infomration that a police officer can't look up from his car in under 20 seconds... is a problem for them)</p><p>or how they support "traffic safety cameras" which have been shown to increase accidents at intersections. Makes sense.... major accidents cost money. However, the massive number of tickets and minor fender benders those cameras generate are an absolute windfall for the insurance company when they can hit you with YEARS of surcharges.</p><p>-Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , it sorta makes sense... but then again it also does n't.First I would point out that someone who drives 20k miles a year for 5 years drives 100k miles .
A person who drives 5 k miles a year only drives 25k miles .
So essentially , the 20k miles driver has 75k miles more driving experience than the lower milliage driver....I would expect that sort of difference to start to really add up.That said , the point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it over many individuals .
While it makes some amount of sense to charge relatively higher risk people more , does n't it , eventually , start to defeat the purpose when you keep looking for more and more ways to do that ? Of course , it mostly makes sense if you assume the higher prices for the more risky people actually means lower prices for the less risky , when I would bet the reality is that the only way low miliage drivers will " pay less " is that they will " pay less than the new surcharge on the high milliage drivers " and not in any way , " less than what they pay now " Kind o flike here in MA where the insurance companies are given license to surcharge for " offenses " like " not having the registration paper in the car " ( sure its an offence , but its still a valid registration with valid insurance.... how exactly is not having the paper itself in the car... which contains no infomration that a police officer ca n't look up from his car in under 20 seconds... is a problem for them ) or how they support " traffic safety cameras " which have been shown to increase accidents at intersections .
Makes sense.... major accidents cost money .
However , the massive number of tickets and minor fender benders those cameras generate are an absolute windfall for the insurance company when they can hit you with YEARS of surcharges.-Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, it sorta makes sense... but then again it also doesn't.First I would point out that someone who drives 20k miles a year for 5 years drives 100k miles.
A person who drives 5 k miles a year only drives 25k miles.
So essentially, the 20k miles driver has 75k miles more driving experience than the lower milliage driver....I would expect that sort of difference to start to really add up.That said, the point of insurance is to mitigate risk by spreading it over many individuals.
While it makes some amount of sense to charge relatively higher risk people more, doesn't it, eventually, start to defeat the purpose when you keep looking for more and more ways to do that?Of course, it mostly makes sense if you assume the higher prices for the more risky people actually means lower prices for the less risky, when I would bet the reality is that the only way low miliage drivers will "pay less" is that they will "pay less than the new surcharge on the high milliage drivers" and not in any way, "less than what they pay now"Kind o flike here in MA where the insurance companies are given license to surcharge for "offenses" like "not having the registration paper in the car" (sure its an offence, but its still a valid registration with valid insurance.... how exactly is not having the paper itself in the car... which contains no infomration that a police officer can't look up from his car in under 20 seconds... is a problem for them)or how they support "traffic safety cameras" which have been shown to increase accidents at intersections.
Makes sense.... major accidents cost money.
However, the massive number of tickets and minor fender benders those cameras generate are an absolute windfall for the insurance company when they can hit you with YEARS of surcharges.-Steve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if driver safety is inversely proportional to driving time, it is so at some ratio less than 1:1.</p><p>That is, consider 3 people.  Bob drives 1 mile a year, and has a 1\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.  Tom drives 100 miles a year and has a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.  Jim drives 10000 miles a year and has a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.01\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.</p><p>Bob is going to get in one accident every 100 years.  Tom is going to get in 1 accident every 10 years.  Jim is going to get in 1 accident every year.</p><p>To be more realistic I would say decrease the \%s by a factor of 1000, and increase the miles by a factor of 10.</p><p>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if driver safety is inversely proportional to driving time , it is so at some ratio less than 1 : 1.That is , consider 3 people .
Bob drives 1 mile a year , and has a 1 \ % chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives .
Tom drives 100 miles a year and has a .1 \ % chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives .
Jim drives 10000 miles a year and has a .01 \ % chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.Bob is going to get in one accident every 100 years .
Tom is going to get in 1 accident every 10 years .
Jim is going to get in 1 accident every year.To be more realistic I would say decrease the \ % s by a factor of 1000 , and increase the miles by a factor of 10.Why does Bob 's insurance cost almost as much as Jim 's , currently ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if driver safety is inversely proportional to driving time, it is so at some ratio less than 1:1.That is, consider 3 people.
Bob drives 1 mile a year, and has a 1\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.
Tom drives 100 miles a year and has a .1\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.
Jim drives 10000 miles a year and has a .01\% chance of getting in an accident for every mile he drives.Bob is going to get in one accident every 100 years.
Tom is going to get in 1 accident every 10 years.
Jim is going to get in 1 accident every year.To be more realistic I would say decrease the \%s by a factor of 1000, and increase the miles by a factor of 10.Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734555</id>
	<title>Free market?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's a free-market proposal to this "problem":</p><p>- Require vehicles to have insurance to certain minimum levels. Allow the insurance companies to bill however they want: flat-rate, per-mile, or GPS-tracked, and based on any criteria they want to use. Let customers pick their own insurance companies. Any driver found to not have insurance would face an extremely steep penalty [steep enough to make then wish they had insurance]. A negligent driver who causes an accident and doesn't have insurance will find themselves bankrupt, thus setting examples for everyone else.</p><p>- That's it.</p><p>There are already drivers who will cancel their insurance the second they get their proof-of-insurance card, so they have something to show when they get pulled over. This won't stop--they'll just buy something like 100 miles of insurance. It's "enforced" the same way: if you cause an accident and your insurance has lapsed due to time or miles, you're on your own.</p><p>If you're willing to let your insurance company put a GPS tracker in your car, you could potentially have very low insurance rates if you're a safe driver and don't drive very much. If you don't want a GPS, you could at least submit odometer readings--again, lying about your odometer means you're on your own if an accident happens. If you value your privacy so much you don't even want your odometer read, just get flat-rate insurance.</p><p>Yes, I know there are GPS "jammers" out there, and insurance companies would probably develop ways to detect this--if it's obvious you're jamming the signal, you get dropped. It's called a "contract"; insurance companies tend to make you sign them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's a free-market proposal to this " problem " : - Require vehicles to have insurance to certain minimum levels .
Allow the insurance companies to bill however they want : flat-rate , per-mile , or GPS-tracked , and based on any criteria they want to use .
Let customers pick their own insurance companies .
Any driver found to not have insurance would face an extremely steep penalty [ steep enough to make then wish they had insurance ] .
A negligent driver who causes an accident and does n't have insurance will find themselves bankrupt , thus setting examples for everyone else.- That 's it.There are already drivers who will cancel their insurance the second they get their proof-of-insurance card , so they have something to show when they get pulled over .
This wo n't stop--they 'll just buy something like 100 miles of insurance .
It 's " enforced " the same way : if you cause an accident and your insurance has lapsed due to time or miles , you 're on your own.If you 're willing to let your insurance company put a GPS tracker in your car , you could potentially have very low insurance rates if you 're a safe driver and do n't drive very much .
If you do n't want a GPS , you could at least submit odometer readings--again , lying about your odometer means you 're on your own if an accident happens .
If you value your privacy so much you do n't even want your odometer read , just get flat-rate insurance.Yes , I know there are GPS " jammers " out there , and insurance companies would probably develop ways to detect this--if it 's obvious you 're jamming the signal , you get dropped .
It 's called a " contract " ; insurance companies tend to make you sign them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's a free-market proposal to this "problem":- Require vehicles to have insurance to certain minimum levels.
Allow the insurance companies to bill however they want: flat-rate, per-mile, or GPS-tracked, and based on any criteria they want to use.
Let customers pick their own insurance companies.
Any driver found to not have insurance would face an extremely steep penalty [steep enough to make then wish they had insurance].
A negligent driver who causes an accident and doesn't have insurance will find themselves bankrupt, thus setting examples for everyone else.- That's it.There are already drivers who will cancel their insurance the second they get their proof-of-insurance card, so they have something to show when they get pulled over.
This won't stop--they'll just buy something like 100 miles of insurance.
It's "enforced" the same way: if you cause an accident and your insurance has lapsed due to time or miles, you're on your own.If you're willing to let your insurance company put a GPS tracker in your car, you could potentially have very low insurance rates if you're a safe driver and don't drive very much.
If you don't want a GPS, you could at least submit odometer readings--again, lying about your odometer means you're on your own if an accident happens.
If you value your privacy so much you don't even want your odometer read, just get flat-rate insurance.Yes, I know there are GPS "jammers" out there, and insurance companies would probably develop ways to detect this--if it's obvious you're jamming the signal, you get dropped.
It's called a "contract"; insurance companies tend to make you sign them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734979</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Al Dimond</author>
	<datestamp>1247824800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've never been asked about my yearly driving mileage for a car insurance quote.  Given how little I drive I might be able to save money if I found an insurer that adjusted my rates based on that.  According to TFA most people's insurance rates don't take into account how much they drive.</p><p>The big story is that the state of California wants to mandate pay-as-you-drive.  A justification for this might be that people that don't drive much are subsidizing insurance for people that drive a lot, making it falsely economical, with regards to total risk caused, to drive a lot.  And California wants to eliminate that.  In theory, since the overall risk of accidents remains the same, the total amount of money paid in insurance premiums shouldn't change initially (as long as the market for insurance is perfectly competitive), but as people adjust to the new incentives they'll tend to drive somewhat less.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've never been asked about my yearly driving mileage for a car insurance quote .
Given how little I drive I might be able to save money if I found an insurer that adjusted my rates based on that .
According to TFA most people 's insurance rates do n't take into account how much they drive.The big story is that the state of California wants to mandate pay-as-you-drive .
A justification for this might be that people that do n't drive much are subsidizing insurance for people that drive a lot , making it falsely economical , with regards to total risk caused , to drive a lot .
And California wants to eliminate that .
In theory , since the overall risk of accidents remains the same , the total amount of money paid in insurance premiums should n't change initially ( as long as the market for insurance is perfectly competitive ) , but as people adjust to the new incentives they 'll tend to drive somewhat less .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've never been asked about my yearly driving mileage for a car insurance quote.
Given how little I drive I might be able to save money if I found an insurer that adjusted my rates based on that.
According to TFA most people's insurance rates don't take into account how much they drive.The big story is that the state of California wants to mandate pay-as-you-drive.
A justification for this might be that people that don't drive much are subsidizing insurance for people that drive a lot, making it falsely economical, with regards to total risk caused, to drive a lot.
And California wants to eliminate that.
In theory, since the overall risk of accidents remains the same, the total amount of money paid in insurance premiums shouldn't change initially (as long as the market for insurance is perfectly competitive), but as people adjust to the new incentives they'll tend to drive somewhat less.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736133</id>
	<title>Re:But that is nonsensical!</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247832240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.</i></p><p>Where did you get your data and stats?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.Where did you get your data and stats ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone who drives 100K miles a year is going to have a lot more miles between accidents than someone who does 5K.Where did you get your data and stats?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735693</id>
	<title>California needs to back off.</title>
	<author>cyn1c77</author>
	<datestamp>1247829540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's good to see that California isn't letting their impending bankruptcy hold back their socialist agenda.</p><p>I lived in LA for 6 years.  California is probably one of the worst places to try to implement this program as: (1) they have a massive amount of urban sprawl, (2) Los Angeles has incredibly inefficient public transportation, (3) and there are broad swaths of the state where driving is almost a necessity for people who can't afford to live in the communities that they work in. </p><p> Is this really such a problem that is needs to be addressed right now?  As others have said, there are going to be no deals here.  Insurance companies will make sure that they profit over this little experiment.  Furthermore, the state officials may mean well, but the federal government has shown that they will not hesitate to violate our privacy.  Why give them another mechanism to do so?  </p><p>But what really puts the cherry on the cake are the little comments that this will reduce CO2 emissions.  Newsflash:  Most people don't drive more than they need to, and the ones that drive for fun are just going to pay the tax and keep driving.  Why does every method for reducing CO2 emissions have to involve punishing people while giving money to industry for absolutely no innovation?  Do you think I like sitting in traffic with 3 other carpoolers?  Build some efficient public transportation that actually works and people will take it.  Reduce urban sprawl by not allowing people to build homes anywhere they feel like.  Those are the techniques to reduce driving.  Look at NY city.  Look at all of Europe.  </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to see that California is n't letting their impending bankruptcy hold back their socialist agenda.I lived in LA for 6 years .
California is probably one of the worst places to try to implement this program as : ( 1 ) they have a massive amount of urban sprawl , ( 2 ) Los Angeles has incredibly inefficient public transportation , ( 3 ) and there are broad swaths of the state where driving is almost a necessity for people who ca n't afford to live in the communities that they work in .
Is this really such a problem that is needs to be addressed right now ?
As others have said , there are going to be no deals here .
Insurance companies will make sure that they profit over this little experiment .
Furthermore , the state officials may mean well , but the federal government has shown that they will not hesitate to violate our privacy .
Why give them another mechanism to do so ?
But what really puts the cherry on the cake are the little comments that this will reduce CO2 emissions .
Newsflash : Most people do n't drive more than they need to , and the ones that drive for fun are just going to pay the tax and keep driving .
Why does every method for reducing CO2 emissions have to involve punishing people while giving money to industry for absolutely no innovation ?
Do you think I like sitting in traffic with 3 other carpoolers ?
Build some efficient public transportation that actually works and people will take it .
Reduce urban sprawl by not allowing people to build homes anywhere they feel like .
Those are the techniques to reduce driving .
Look at NY city .
Look at all of Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to see that California isn't letting their impending bankruptcy hold back their socialist agenda.I lived in LA for 6 years.
California is probably one of the worst places to try to implement this program as: (1) they have a massive amount of urban sprawl, (2) Los Angeles has incredibly inefficient public transportation, (3) and there are broad swaths of the state where driving is almost a necessity for people who can't afford to live in the communities that they work in.
Is this really such a problem that is needs to be addressed right now?
As others have said, there are going to be no deals here.
Insurance companies will make sure that they profit over this little experiment.
Furthermore, the state officials may mean well, but the federal government has shown that they will not hesitate to violate our privacy.
Why give them another mechanism to do so?
But what really puts the cherry on the cake are the little comments that this will reduce CO2 emissions.
Newsflash:  Most people don't drive more than they need to, and the ones that drive for fun are just going to pay the tax and keep driving.
Why does every method for reducing CO2 emissions have to involve punishing people while giving money to industry for absolutely no innovation?
Do you think I like sitting in traffic with 3 other carpoolers?
Build some efficient public transportation that actually works and people will take it.
Reduce urban sprawl by not allowing people to build homes anywhere they feel like.
Those are the techniques to reduce driving.
Look at NY city.
Look at all of Europe.  </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734657</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247823300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Anther oppressive government plan to require people to pay for roads they use.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Anther oppressive government plan to require people to pay for roads they use .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anther oppressive government plan to require people to pay for roads they use.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738549</id>
	<title>The D- In Practical Math</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247856900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.</i> </p><p>This is an incentive?</p><p> The expressway is safe. You and you car are now at <b>much</b> higher risk - and your premiums skyrocket. </p><p>Your fuel costs go up.</p><p> Your maintenance costs go up.</p><p>The federal minimum wage rises to $6.55/hr on July 24. That's the minimum you lose for each hour wasted in your daily commute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be sitting in heavy traffic , clogging up the streets , taking longer to reach my destination , and probably causing more accidents and safety issues .
This is an incentive ?
The expressway is safe .
You and you car are now at much higher risk - and your premiums skyrocket .
Your fuel costs go up .
Your maintenance costs go up.The federal minimum wage rises to $ 6.55/hr on July 24 .
That 's the minimum you lose for each hour wasted in your daily commute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.
This is an incentive?
The expressway is safe.
You and you car are now at much higher risk - and your premiums skyrocket.
Your fuel costs go up.
Your maintenance costs go up.The federal minimum wage rises to $6.55/hr on July 24.
That's the minimum you lose for each hour wasted in your daily commute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734711</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No, another oppressive government plan to increase the profits of insurance companies.
</p><p>
The (R) half of the aisle will vote for it because an insurance company lobbyist is saying "And as a fringe benefit, you can tell your constitutents you're huntin' terrists and pedophiles by datamining the driving habits of all your citizens!  Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!"
</p><p>
The (D) half of the aisle will vote for it because the <em>other</em> insurance company lobbyist says "And as a fringe benefit, you can tell your constituents you're trying to get people to drive less.  Fight global warming!"
</p><p>
The plan gets "bipartisan" support, because there's something in there for politicians of <em>both</em> wings of the Party to crow about.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide .
No , another oppressive government plan to increase the profits of insurance companies .
The ( R ) half of the aisle will vote for it because an insurance company lobbyist is saying " And as a fringe benefit , you can tell your constitutents you 're huntin ' terrists and pedophiles by datamining the driving habits of all your citizens !
Nothing to hide , nothing to fear !
" The ( D ) half of the aisle will vote for it because the other insurance company lobbyist says " And as a fringe benefit , you can tell your constituents you 're trying to get people to drive less .
Fight global warming !
" The plan gets " bipartisan " support , because there 's something in there for politicians of both wings of the Party to crow about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide.
No, another oppressive government plan to increase the profits of insurance companies.
The (R) half of the aisle will vote for it because an insurance company lobbyist is saying "And as a fringe benefit, you can tell your constitutents you're huntin' terrists and pedophiles by datamining the driving habits of all your citizens!
Nothing to hide, nothing to fear!
"

The (D) half of the aisle will vote for it because the other insurance company lobbyist says "And as a fringe benefit, you can tell your constituents you're trying to get people to drive less.
Fight global warming!
"

The plan gets "bipartisan" support, because there's something in there for politicians of both wings of the Party to crow about.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735725</id>
	<title>Not here it isn't.</title>
	<author>Chirs</author>
	<datestamp>1247829660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This will depend on where you live and which insurance you have.</p><p>I've never been asked how many miles I'll be driving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This will depend on where you live and which insurance you have.I 've never been asked how many miles I 'll be driving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will depend on where you live and which insurance you have.I've never been asked how many miles I'll be driving.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736935</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247837460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?</p></div><p>Probably because you have no concept of insurance.</p><p>The fact that Bob, Tom, and Jim drive different distances has much less to do with how many accidents they get in than when they drive, where they drive, how often, and for what purpose. Rereading your post it appears that this was your point.</p><p>Driving in the city vs on the highway<br>Driving in rush hour traffic vs sunday afternoon<br>Angled indoor concrete parking lot vs outdoor flat grass field<br>Every morning during the week for an hour a day or one 5 hour cross state expedition<br>30 years vs 30 days of total driving experience</p><p>You don't even have to be driving to get in an accident. About a month ago, my parked car was hit in my parking lot.</p><p>Bob's insurance costs just as much as Jim's because Bob is an idiot and doesn't need a car. Tom definitely doesn't need a car; it would cheaper to spend $300 a year on taxis.</p><p>Bob and Tom are much, much more likely to cause an accident while driving, because they hardly ever do it.</p><p>As for pay by the mile insurance, only those who dont drive much (distance) will get this insurance when the competition allows for drive all you want insurance. At some point, you are better off not paying by the mile. Furthermore, I know I would be inclined to keep drive all you want insurance because I prefer insurance to be a fixed cost, based on time. I certainly don't ever want to be in a situation where I think "I better not take a vacation this year, I can't afford the car insurance because I drove too much going to work everyday."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does Bob 's insurance cost almost as much as Jim 's , currently ? Probably because you have no concept of insurance.The fact that Bob , Tom , and Jim drive different distances has much less to do with how many accidents they get in than when they drive , where they drive , how often , and for what purpose .
Rereading your post it appears that this was your point.Driving in the city vs on the highwayDriving in rush hour traffic vs sunday afternoonAngled indoor concrete parking lot vs outdoor flat grass fieldEvery morning during the week for an hour a day or one 5 hour cross state expedition30 years vs 30 days of total driving experienceYou do n't even have to be driving to get in an accident .
About a month ago , my parked car was hit in my parking lot.Bob 's insurance costs just as much as Jim 's because Bob is an idiot and does n't need a car .
Tom definitely does n't need a car ; it would cheaper to spend $ 300 a year on taxis.Bob and Tom are much , much more likely to cause an accident while driving , because they hardly ever do it.As for pay by the mile insurance , only those who dont drive much ( distance ) will get this insurance when the competition allows for drive all you want insurance .
At some point , you are better off not paying by the mile .
Furthermore , I know I would be inclined to keep drive all you want insurance because I prefer insurance to be a fixed cost , based on time .
I certainly do n't ever want to be in a situation where I think " I better not take a vacation this year , I ca n't afford the car insurance because I drove too much going to work everyday .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does Bob's insurance cost almost as much as Jim's, currently?Probably because you have no concept of insurance.The fact that Bob, Tom, and Jim drive different distances has much less to do with how many accidents they get in than when they drive, where they drive, how often, and for what purpose.
Rereading your post it appears that this was your point.Driving in the city vs on the highwayDriving in rush hour traffic vs sunday afternoonAngled indoor concrete parking lot vs outdoor flat grass fieldEvery morning during the week for an hour a day or one 5 hour cross state expedition30 years vs 30 days of total driving experienceYou don't even have to be driving to get in an accident.
About a month ago, my parked car was hit in my parking lot.Bob's insurance costs just as much as Jim's because Bob is an idiot and doesn't need a car.
Tom definitely doesn't need a car; it would cheaper to spend $300 a year on taxis.Bob and Tom are much, much more likely to cause an accident while driving, because they hardly ever do it.As for pay by the mile insurance, only those who dont drive much (distance) will get this insurance when the competition allows for drive all you want insurance.
At some point, you are better off not paying by the mile.
Furthermore, I know I would be inclined to keep drive all you want insurance because I prefer insurance to be a fixed cost, based on time.
I certainly don't ever want to be in a situation where I think "I better not take a vacation this year, I can't afford the car insurance because I drove too much going to work everyday.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734519</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>blahplusplus</author>
	<datestamp>1247822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal."</p><p>It wouldn't, you'd just replace one big brother (government) with another (corporation) it amazes me that americans think private corporations have their best interests at heart, ever looked at the kind of security and monitoring equipment in many modern businesses?  The analyze everything about you're shopping for instance.</p><p>Quite frankly there is no privacy once you walk into a corporate building or store for instance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal .
" It would n't , you 'd just replace one big brother ( government ) with another ( corporation ) it amazes me that americans think private corporations have their best interests at heart , ever looked at the kind of security and monitoring equipment in many modern businesses ?
The analyze everything about you 're shopping for instance.Quite frankly there is no privacy once you walk into a corporate building or store for instance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"but it would eliminate the big brother aspect of this proposal.
"It wouldn't, you'd just replace one big brother (government) with another (corporation) it amazes me that americans think private corporations have their best interests at heart, ever looked at the kind of security and monitoring equipment in many modern businesses?
The analyze everything about you're shopping for instance.Quite frankly there is no privacy once you walk into a corporate building or store for instance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734257</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>plague3106</author>
	<datestamp>1247821740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>However, all things are not equal.</p><p>How do you get better at doing anything?  You do it.  You'd be a much better driver, having had more experiences on the road, been in more different areas, and conditioned daily to the rigors of driving.  And that's the problem; there's no way to measure one's experience to offset the amount of miles driven when there should be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , all things are not equal.How do you get better at doing anything ?
You do it .
You 'd be a much better driver , having had more experiences on the road , been in more different areas , and conditioned daily to the rigors of driving .
And that 's the problem ; there 's no way to measure one 's experience to offset the amount of miles driven when there should be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, all things are not equal.How do you get better at doing anything?
You do it.
You'd be a much better driver, having had more experiences on the road, been in more different areas, and conditioned daily to the rigors of driving.
And that's the problem; there's no way to measure one's experience to offset the amount of miles driven when there should be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427</id>
	<title>Distribution of Risk + Cost?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought the point of insurance was to distribute risk and cost over a group for both the insurer and the driver so that no single individual would be overwhelmed from unexpected expenses. This plan reduces the risk and cost to the insurer but transfers cost from one group of drivers to another group of drivers. It's another step toward customizing insurance plans to a single person customized insurance plan--rendering insurance worthless for those at high risk, yet it's required by law. If one were to apply this to medical insurance in that those who use more pay more, there would be public outcry.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought the point of insurance was to distribute risk and cost over a group for both the insurer and the driver so that no single individual would be overwhelmed from unexpected expenses .
This plan reduces the risk and cost to the insurer but transfers cost from one group of drivers to another group of drivers .
It 's another step toward customizing insurance plans to a single person customized insurance plan--rendering insurance worthless for those at high risk , yet it 's required by law .
If one were to apply this to medical insurance in that those who use more pay more , there would be public outcry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought the point of insurance was to distribute risk and cost over a group for both the insurer and the driver so that no single individual would be overwhelmed from unexpected expenses.
This plan reduces the risk and cost to the insurer but transfers cost from one group of drivers to another group of drivers.
It's another step toward customizing insurance plans to a single person customized insurance plan--rendering insurance worthless for those at high risk, yet it's required by law.
If one were to apply this to medical insurance in that those who use more pay more, there would be public outcry.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734331</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>citylivin</author>
	<datestamp>1247821980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well his first 100k miles is more spread out (you are measuring by lifetime, by definition an average). It could be argued that infrequent driving results in less familiarity and therefor makes the person more nervous behind the wheel and more prone to error.</p><p>I know for a fact this can happen as there was a period of my life where I did not have a car for 7 or 8 months and my driving skills definitely deteriorated in that time. It is like a bicycle, in that you never forget HOW to drive, but it still took some weeks for me to feel comfortable driving again.</p><p>That said, I believe insurance should be pretty much flat rate, scaled to the type of car you drive. Higher rates for people who have been convicted of driving while using a phone and children under 20 or so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well his first 100k miles is more spread out ( you are measuring by lifetime , by definition an average ) .
It could be argued that infrequent driving results in less familiarity and therefor makes the person more nervous behind the wheel and more prone to error.I know for a fact this can happen as there was a period of my life where I did not have a car for 7 or 8 months and my driving skills definitely deteriorated in that time .
It is like a bicycle , in that you never forget HOW to drive , but it still took some weeks for me to feel comfortable driving again.That said , I believe insurance should be pretty much flat rate , scaled to the type of car you drive .
Higher rates for people who have been convicted of driving while using a phone and children under 20 or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well his first 100k miles is more spread out (you are measuring by lifetime, by definition an average).
It could be argued that infrequent driving results in less familiarity and therefor makes the person more nervous behind the wheel and more prone to error.I know for a fact this can happen as there was a period of my life where I did not have a car for 7 or 8 months and my driving skills definitely deteriorated in that time.
It is like a bicycle, in that you never forget HOW to drive, but it still took some weeks for me to feel comfortable driving again.That said, I believe insurance should be pretty much flat rate, scaled to the type of car you drive.
Higher rates for people who have been convicted of driving while using a phone and children under 20 or so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973</id>
	<title>Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide.</p><p>--<br>Chuck Norris doesn't need Twitter. He's already following you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide.--Chuck Norris does n't need Twitter .
He 's already following you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another oppressive government plan to coerce people to emit less carbon dioxide.--Chuck Norris doesn't need Twitter.
He's already following you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735151</id>
	<title>Nothing new</title>
	<author>Trevin</author>
	<datestamp>1247825820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already get a low-mileage discount on my auto insurance from State Farm ( 7,000 miles/year), and I imagine other insurance companies would have similar programs.  So what's this bill proposing that insurance companies don't already do?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already get a low-mileage discount on my auto insurance from State Farm ( 7,000 miles/year ) , and I imagine other insurance companies would have similar programs .
So what 's this bill proposing that insurance companies do n't already do ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already get a low-mileage discount on my auto insurance from State Farm ( 7,000 miles/year), and I imagine other insurance companies would have similar programs.
So what's this bill proposing that insurance companies don't already do?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735075</id>
	<title>How will they enforce this?</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1247825340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they will finally use this as an excuse to put a GPS monitor inside every car....</p><p>Lovely...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they will finally use this as an excuse to put a GPS monitor inside every car....Lovely.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they will finally use this as an excuse to put a GPS monitor inside every car....Lovely...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735417</id>
	<title>Re:Lower Prices my Ass</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247827500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The lawmakers behind this don't care - the unspoken intent is to make driving more expensive <em>period</em>.  It's about CO2.  The blather about lowering costs is just a red herring to achieve more buy-in.<br>
<br>
- T</htmltext>
<tokenext>The lawmakers behind this do n't care - the unspoken intent is to make driving more expensive period .
It 's about CO2 .
The blather about lowering costs is just a red herring to achieve more buy-in .
- T</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The lawmakers behind this don't care - the unspoken intent is to make driving more expensive period.
It's about CO2.
The blather about lowering costs is just a red herring to achieve more buy-in.
- T</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737085</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1247838600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps it will create an incentive for an efficient car pooling or bus system.<br> <br> Nothing we've tried yet has encouraged people to work together in this area.<br> <br> Then if people had anything INTERESTING to say it would be good, they'll probably just talk about the weather ("No existentialist, politics, business, philanthropy, philosophy, arts, or other meaningful talk... it's impolite!") and hate each other thinking that they have nothing in common with these poor bastards who can't afford cars! It would also allow the less wealthy (people who can't afford chaufeurs) to read or do something else useful during their commutes, while paying a nominal fee to someone to drive.<br> <br> I think this system is ridiculous. Much more expensive to implement than it'll ever save anyone. However encouraging car pooling is a good idea, I think we should make it men only... nothing is harder on a good man than a scared woman. They get increasingly jumpy the more different they think you are, there's not much risk if you have the vehicle licence #... pretty difficult to register one of those illicitly, much harder than jumping a random person in an alley.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it will create an incentive for an efficient car pooling or bus system .
Nothing we 've tried yet has encouraged people to work together in this area .
Then if people had anything INTERESTING to say it would be good , they 'll probably just talk about the weather ( " No existentialist , politics , business , philanthropy , philosophy , arts , or other meaningful talk... it 's impolite !
" ) and hate each other thinking that they have nothing in common with these poor bastards who ca n't afford cars !
It would also allow the less wealthy ( people who ca n't afford chaufeurs ) to read or do something else useful during their commutes , while paying a nominal fee to someone to drive .
I think this system is ridiculous .
Much more expensive to implement than it 'll ever save anyone .
However encouraging car pooling is a good idea , I think we should make it men only... nothing is harder on a good man than a scared woman .
They get increasingly jumpy the more different they think you are , there 's not much risk if you have the vehicle licence # ... pretty difficult to register one of those illicitly , much harder than jumping a random person in an alley .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it will create an incentive for an efficient car pooling or bus system.
Nothing we've tried yet has encouraged people to work together in this area.
Then if people had anything INTERESTING to say it would be good, they'll probably just talk about the weather ("No existentialist, politics, business, philanthropy, philosophy, arts, or other meaningful talk... it's impolite!
") and hate each other thinking that they have nothing in common with these poor bastards who can't afford cars!
It would also allow the less wealthy (people who can't afford chaufeurs) to read or do something else useful during their commutes, while paying a nominal fee to someone to drive.
I think this system is ridiculous.
Much more expensive to implement than it'll ever save anyone.
However encouraging car pooling is a good idea, I think we should make it men only... nothing is harder on a good man than a scared woman.
They get increasingly jumpy the more different they think you are, there's not much risk if you have the vehicle licence #... pretty difficult to register one of those illicitly, much harder than jumping a random person in an alley.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735105</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247825460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And banks are experts in managing risk...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And banks are experts in managing risk.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And banks are experts in managing risk...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739053</id>
	<title>Re:MyRate by Progressive</title>
	<author>ion.simon.c</author>
	<datestamp>1247908200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>High are times such as rush hour, and overnight, medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour, low is everything else.</p></div><p>Wait, what car has such a reliable clock installed in it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>High are times such as rush hour , and overnight , medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour , low is everything else.Wait , what car has such a reliable clock installed in it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>High are times such as rush hour, and overnight, medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour, low is everything else.Wait, what car has such a reliable clock installed in it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734649</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>dlevitan</author>
	<datestamp>1247823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.<br>Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels. If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.</p></div><p>No, please no. Or at least, raise the insurance requirements in California first. The current requirements are 15/30/5 (one person injury/more than one person injury/property damage). In today's world, that covers nothing. In a serious accident, today's average car won't be paid for with that, nor will anyone's medical expenses be covered. With government provided insurance, we'd have even fewer people having higher coverage limits. They don't need to be 100/300/100 (like I have), but they need to be much higher than the current requirements. Liability coverage isn't that expensive is you're a good driver, and if you're not a good driver, you shouldn't be on the road.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quite frankly , if the Government is going to mandate insurance , then it should also offer a base insurance program , at cost.Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels .
If you want more , then you can buy more from an insurance company.No , please no .
Or at least , raise the insurance requirements in California first .
The current requirements are 15/30/5 ( one person injury/more than one person injury/property damage ) .
In today 's world , that covers nothing .
In a serious accident , today 's average car wo n't be paid for with that , nor will anyone 's medical expenses be covered .
With government provided insurance , we 'd have even fewer people having higher coverage limits .
They do n't need to be 100/300/100 ( like I have ) , but they need to be much higher than the current requirements .
Liability coverage is n't that expensive is you 're a good driver , and if you 're not a good driver , you should n't be on the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels.
If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.No, please no.
Or at least, raise the insurance requirements in California first.
The current requirements are 15/30/5 (one person injury/more than one person injury/property damage).
In today's world, that covers nothing.
In a serious accident, today's average car won't be paid for with that, nor will anyone's medical expenses be covered.
With government provided insurance, we'd have even fewer people having higher coverage limits.
They don't need to be 100/300/100 (like I have), but they need to be much higher than the current requirements.
Liability coverage isn't that expensive is you're a good driver, and if you're not a good driver, you shouldn't be on the road.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734409</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>SoundGuyNoise</author>
	<datestamp>1247822340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do believe that is the etymology of the phrase "Sunday Driver." There were usually less cars on the roads on Sundays so those people drove as if there was no one else on the road with them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do believe that is the etymology of the phrase " Sunday Driver .
" There were usually less cars on the roads on Sundays so those people drove as if there was no one else on the road with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do believe that is the etymology of the phrase "Sunday Driver.
" There were usually less cars on the roads on Sundays so those people drove as if there was no one else on the road with them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734193</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I dunno about others, but all of a sudden, I'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B, even if that means city-streets instead of expressway. This means I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.</p></div><p>Interesting.  Perhaps we should base it on a combination of milage and total engine revolutions.  I've always wanted an RevOdometer (or hours of operation meter) on cars anyway.  That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida, or used as a taxi cab.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about others , but all of a sudden , I 'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B , even if that means city-streets instead of expressway .
This means I 'll be sitting in heavy traffic , clogging up the streets , taking longer to reach my destination , and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.Interesting .
Perhaps we should base it on a combination of milage and total engine revolutions .
I 've always wanted an RevOdometer ( or hours of operation meter ) on cars anyway .
That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you 're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida , or used as a taxi cab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about others, but all of a sudden, I'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B, even if that means city-streets instead of expressway.
This means I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.Interesting.
Perhaps we should base it on a combination of milage and total engine revolutions.
I've always wanted an RevOdometer (or hours of operation meter) on cars anyway.
That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida, or used as a taxi cab.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734727</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Americans get really fussy when the price of petrol goes up, whether or not they get to stop paying for insurance, I think you'll find people freaking when petrol prices go up to cover insurance and jump year to year (potentially) to cover more bad drivers. Otherwise, it's a good idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Americans get really fussy when the price of petrol goes up , whether or not they get to stop paying for insurance , I think you 'll find people freaking when petrol prices go up to cover insurance and jump year to year ( potentially ) to cover more bad drivers .
Otherwise , it 's a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Americans get really fussy when the price of petrol goes up, whether or not they get to stop paying for insurance, I think you'll find people freaking when petrol prices go up to cover insurance and jump year to year (potentially) to cover more bad drivers.
Otherwise, it's a good idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</id>
	<title>I don't get it</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1247863980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Insurance companies already charge more if you drive more; all of them that I know of ask how much you drive. I actually started to RTFA, but there's little to no explanation of what the "pay as you go" does, and as I don't live in California it's not likely to affect me unless it's adopted by other states.</p><p>Can anybody clarify for me?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Insurance companies already charge more if you drive more ; all of them that I know of ask how much you drive .
I actually started to RTFA , but there 's little to no explanation of what the " pay as you go " does , and as I do n't live in California it 's not likely to affect me unless it 's adopted by other states.Can anybody clarify for me ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Insurance companies already charge more if you drive more; all of them that I know of ask how much you drive.
I actually started to RTFA, but there's little to no explanation of what the "pay as you go" does, and as I don't live in California it's not likely to affect me unless it's adopted by other states.Can anybody clarify for me?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734303</id>
	<title>Re:Wait until health insurance companies hear this</title>
	<author>mehrotra.akash</author>
	<datestamp>1247821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>and life insurance companies would charge the active people more as they walk/cycle more and ate therefore at a higher risk of getting run over by a vehicle...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>and life insurance companies would charge the active people more as they walk/cycle more and ate therefore at a higher risk of getting run over by a vehicle.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>and life insurance companies would charge the active people more as they walk/cycle more and ate therefore at a higher risk of getting run over by a vehicle...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735047</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lower gas prices for safer drivers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lower gas prices for safer drivers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lower gas prices for safer drivers?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735603</id>
	<title>Re:Distribution of Risk + Cost?</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1247828820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The point of insurance is to distribute costs while holding individual risks constant. Risk is cost times probability; with an insurance plan you take an event which is low-probability but high-cost (e.g. a hospital visit) and trade it for an event which is low-cost but high-probability (periodic premiums). The risk remains the same, aside from the policy's overhead. In general a pool of individuals with similar risks is an important factor in making the insurance possible, but each individual is still responsible for financing their own projected risk. Those expected to use more <em>should</em> pay more.</p><p>What passes for "insurance" these days would be more accurately known as inefficient "health savings accounts", with part of the losses going to a charity (of sorts) for high-risk individuals. It would be more manageable (not to mention efficient) to just have real insurance with separate charities for those truly in need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of insurance is to distribute costs while holding individual risks constant .
Risk is cost times probability ; with an insurance plan you take an event which is low-probability but high-cost ( e.g .
a hospital visit ) and trade it for an event which is low-cost but high-probability ( periodic premiums ) .
The risk remains the same , aside from the policy 's overhead .
In general a pool of individuals with similar risks is an important factor in making the insurance possible , but each individual is still responsible for financing their own projected risk .
Those expected to use more should pay more.What passes for " insurance " these days would be more accurately known as inefficient " health savings accounts " , with part of the losses going to a charity ( of sorts ) for high-risk individuals .
It would be more manageable ( not to mention efficient ) to just have real insurance with separate charities for those truly in need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of insurance is to distribute costs while holding individual risks constant.
Risk is cost times probability; with an insurance plan you take an event which is low-probability but high-cost (e.g.
a hospital visit) and trade it for an event which is low-cost but high-probability (periodic premiums).
The risk remains the same, aside from the policy's overhead.
In general a pool of individuals with similar risks is an important factor in making the insurance possible, but each individual is still responsible for financing their own projected risk.
Those expected to use more should pay more.What passes for "insurance" these days would be more accurately known as inefficient "health savings accounts", with part of the losses going to a charity (of sorts) for high-risk individuals.
It would be more manageable (not to mention efficient) to just have real insurance with separate charities for those truly in need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734899</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1247824440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.<br>
&gt;Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels. If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p><p>

Almost nobody wants more insurance.  In fact, almost nobody except for people who drive late-model expensive cars want *any* insurance.  You buy insurance on behalf of the people you don't think you're ever going to hit, which is why the government requires it.  If they didn't, nobody would get insurance.  I remember the 1970's, where (in the area I live) the majority of accidents had at least one, and roughly a quarter of the time both, drivers uninsured.  That meant subsequent lawsuits and oftentimes lousy post-emergency room medical care.</p><p>

I think requiring insurance, and not offering a base insurance program, is seen as a way of keeping lousy drivers off the road: they can't get insurance any more.  Of course, the alternate version of that is you have people driving without insurance because they can't get insurance, and that's right back into the bad old days.  But at least it's illegal and they know it, so it might reduce the incidence somewhat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; if the Government is going to mandate insurance , then it should also offer a base insurance program , at cost .
&gt; Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels .
If you want more , then you can buy more from an insurance company .
. Almost nobody wants more insurance .
In fact , almost nobody except for people who drive late-model expensive cars want * any * insurance .
You buy insurance on behalf of the people you do n't think you 're ever going to hit , which is why the government requires it .
If they did n't , nobody would get insurance .
I remember the 1970 's , where ( in the area I live ) the majority of accidents had at least one , and roughly a quarter of the time both , drivers uninsured .
That meant subsequent lawsuits and oftentimes lousy post-emergency room medical care .
I think requiring insurance , and not offering a base insurance program , is seen as a way of keeping lousy drivers off the road : they ca n't get insurance any more .
Of course , the alternate version of that is you have people driving without insurance because they ca n't get insurance , and that 's right back into the bad old days .
But at least it 's illegal and they know it , so it might reduce the incidence somewhat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.
&gt;Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels.
If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.
.

Almost nobody wants more insurance.
In fact, almost nobody except for people who drive late-model expensive cars want *any* insurance.
You buy insurance on behalf of the people you don't think you're ever going to hit, which is why the government requires it.
If they didn't, nobody would get insurance.
I remember the 1970's, where (in the area I live) the majority of accidents had at least one, and roughly a quarter of the time both, drivers uninsured.
That meant subsequent lawsuits and oftentimes lousy post-emergency room medical care.
I think requiring insurance, and not offering a base insurance program, is seen as a way of keeping lousy drivers off the road: they can't get insurance any more.
Of course, the alternate version of that is you have people driving without insurance because they can't get insurance, and that's right back into the bad old days.
But at least it's illegal and they know it, so it might reduce the incidence somewhat.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</id>
	<title>Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is someone who drives less better at driving? It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver. There must be some sort of bell curve where the people on the ends pay more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is someone who drives less better at driving ?
It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver .
There must be some sort of bell curve where the people on the ends pay more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is someone who drives less better at driving?
It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver.
There must be some sort of bell curve where the people on the ends pay more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738265</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1247851500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here in BC we also have compulsive insurance with the Government selling it. Basically you have to buy basic insurance from the government insurance corp, ICBC and can buy extra insurance from private companies or ICBC.<br>The price of insurance seems good compared to other areas that are similar, is fairly stable, usually going up at or slower then inflation, even occasionally sending out rebate cheques when their profits were too large. They are non-discriminatory except against new drivers and most important have got rid of a lot of litigation where 2 insurance companies fight it out in court to make the other one pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here in BC we also have compulsive insurance with the Government selling it .
Basically you have to buy basic insurance from the government insurance corp , ICBC and can buy extra insurance from private companies or ICBC.The price of insurance seems good compared to other areas that are similar , is fairly stable , usually going up at or slower then inflation , even occasionally sending out rebate cheques when their profits were too large .
They are non-discriminatory except against new drivers and most important have got rid of a lot of litigation where 2 insurance companies fight it out in court to make the other one pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here in BC we also have compulsive insurance with the Government selling it.
Basically you have to buy basic insurance from the government insurance corp, ICBC and can buy extra insurance from private companies or ICBC.The price of insurance seems good compared to other areas that are similar, is fairly stable, usually going up at or slower then inflation, even occasionally sending out rebate cheques when their profits were too large.
They are non-discriminatory except against new drivers and most important have got rid of a lot of litigation where 2 insurance companies fight it out in court to make the other one pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735203</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247826060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My time is worth more than the money i would save sitting in heavy traffic and clogging up streets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My time is worth more than the money i would save sitting in heavy traffic and clogging up streets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My time is worth more than the money i would save sitting in heavy traffic and clogging up streets.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734497</id>
	<title>What's wrong with odometer readings?</title>
	<author>hawguy</author>
	<datestamp>1247822760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why does everything have to have a technological fix like an electronic device to track and send in odometer readings? What's the real problem with requiring customers to send in odometer readings at policy renewal time? The California smog check results are already sent electronically to the DMV, so the odometer info can be furnished to the insurance companies to help fight fraud. For areas that don't require a smog check, the insurance company can randomly require some small subset of their drivers to have them odometer reading verified.
<p>
I can't believe  many people will violate federal law to commit fraud by unhooking their odometers. This is already illegal, and somehow the leasing companies are willing to trust the odometer readings, and there is a substantial financial penalty for exceeding lease mileage limits thus creating a large incentive for fraud. And if someone does lie about their odometer reading and has an accident, the insurance adjuster can report the milage to the company so they can verify the mileage.
</p><p>
Besides, I always figured that modern cars wouldn't operate well without a working speed sensor. If the odometer is so easy to bypass, then maybe this issue can be addressed through the car companies. It's already illegal to bypass the odometer, so the car may as well enforce that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everything have to have a technological fix like an electronic device to track and send in odometer readings ?
What 's the real problem with requiring customers to send in odometer readings at policy renewal time ?
The California smog check results are already sent electronically to the DMV , so the odometer info can be furnished to the insurance companies to help fight fraud .
For areas that do n't require a smog check , the insurance company can randomly require some small subset of their drivers to have them odometer reading verified .
I ca n't believe many people will violate federal law to commit fraud by unhooking their odometers .
This is already illegal , and somehow the leasing companies are willing to trust the odometer readings , and there is a substantial financial penalty for exceeding lease mileage limits thus creating a large incentive for fraud .
And if someone does lie about their odometer reading and has an accident , the insurance adjuster can report the milage to the company so they can verify the mileage .
Besides , I always figured that modern cars would n't operate well without a working speed sensor .
If the odometer is so easy to bypass , then maybe this issue can be addressed through the car companies .
It 's already illegal to bypass the odometer , so the car may as well enforce that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everything have to have a technological fix like an electronic device to track and send in odometer readings?
What's the real problem with requiring customers to send in odometer readings at policy renewal time?
The California smog check results are already sent electronically to the DMV, so the odometer info can be furnished to the insurance companies to help fight fraud.
For areas that don't require a smog check, the insurance company can randomly require some small subset of their drivers to have them odometer reading verified.
I can't believe  many people will violate federal law to commit fraud by unhooking their odometers.
This is already illegal, and somehow the leasing companies are willing to trust the odometer readings, and there is a substantial financial penalty for exceeding lease mileage limits thus creating a large incentive for fraud.
And if someone does lie about their odometer reading and has an accident, the insurance adjuster can report the milage to the company so they can verify the mileage.
Besides, I always figured that modern cars wouldn't operate well without a working speed sensor.
If the odometer is so easy to bypass, then maybe this issue can be addressed through the car companies.
It's already illegal to bypass the odometer, so the car may as well enforce that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735451</id>
	<title>public transportation</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247827860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.</i></p><p>While I'd like better public transportation, people in the US will not use it just because it's better.  Many of those who own their own vehicles do not want to and will not give up their vehicles unless they have to.  I've put less than 50,000 miles on the car I've owned almost 9 years yet I am not willing to depart with it.  For me, I don't want to lose the freedom to jump in my car whenever and drive wherever so long as I can afford it.  At the same tyme I'm not against raising fuel taxes, I've actually advocated raising them.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>to make travel affordable , it should have more public transit.While I 'd like better public transportation , people in the US will not use it just because it 's better .
Many of those who own their own vehicles do not want to and will not give up their vehicles unless they have to .
I 've put less than 50,000 miles on the car I 've owned almost 9 years yet I am not willing to depart with it .
For me , I do n't want to lose the freedom to jump in my car whenever and drive wherever so long as I can afford it .
At the same tyme I 'm not against raising fuel taxes , I 've actually advocated raising them .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>to make travel affordable, it should have more public transit.While I'd like better public transportation, people in the US will not use it just because it's better.
Many of those who own their own vehicles do not want to and will not give up their vehicles unless they have to.
I've put less than 50,000 miles on the car I've owned almost 9 years yet I am not willing to depart with it.
For me, I don't want to lose the freedom to jump in my car whenever and drive wherever so long as I can afford it.
At the same tyme I'm not against raising fuel taxes, I've actually advocated raising them.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734051</id>
	<title>Pay as you breathe.</title>
	<author>mfh</author>
	<datestamp>1247864040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have decided that in light of our depleting ozone layer, that I will begin charging for everyone who is breathing my air. You see, it was only my great ancestor Muk'targ of the Great Cave who was in charge of all the sky. His Gods told him so. So therefore he has passed this great gift to me and me alone. So as of right now, the entire population of the Earth owes me for each breath of air they take. Now if you can't pay, that's okay too. Because I will use my new portal device to adapt the air you breathe so you only have to pay for what you use. Now if you happen to die because you don't pay, how could you expect this to be my problem? Oh and the rates will be raised very little. Maybe only 2000\% per year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have decided that in light of our depleting ozone layer , that I will begin charging for everyone who is breathing my air .
You see , it was only my great ancestor Muk'targ of the Great Cave who was in charge of all the sky .
His Gods told him so .
So therefore he has passed this great gift to me and me alone .
So as of right now , the entire population of the Earth owes me for each breath of air they take .
Now if you ca n't pay , that 's okay too .
Because I will use my new portal device to adapt the air you breathe so you only have to pay for what you use .
Now if you happen to die because you do n't pay , how could you expect this to be my problem ?
Oh and the rates will be raised very little .
Maybe only 2000 \ % per year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have decided that in light of our depleting ozone layer, that I will begin charging for everyone who is breathing my air.
You see, it was only my great ancestor Muk'targ of the Great Cave who was in charge of all the sky.
His Gods told him so.
So therefore he has passed this great gift to me and me alone.
So as of right now, the entire population of the Earth owes me for each breath of air they take.
Now if you can't pay, that's okay too.
Because I will use my new portal device to adapt the air you breathe so you only have to pay for what you use.
Now if you happen to die because you don't pay, how could you expect this to be my problem?
Oh and the rates will be raised very little.
Maybe only 2000\% per year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734731</id>
	<title>"California's" Revised  +1, Helpful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your first premise is wrong. California DOES NOT exist because it is paying its current payables with I.O.U.s.</p><p>Other states to follow.</p><p>Yours In Accounting,<br>Kilgore Trout, C.P.A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your first premise is wrong .
California DOES NOT exist because it is paying its current payables with I.O.U.s.Other states to follow.Yours In Accounting,Kilgore Trout , C.P.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your first premise is wrong.
California DOES NOT exist because it is paying its current payables with I.O.U.s.Other states to follow.Yours In Accounting,Kilgore Trout, C.P.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>NiteMair</author>
	<datestamp>1247864160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno about others, but all of a sudden, I'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B, even if that means city-streets instead of expressway. This means I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno about others , but all of a sudden , I 'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B , even if that means city-streets instead of expressway .
This means I 'll be sitting in heavy traffic , clogging up the streets , taking longer to reach my destination , and probably causing more accidents and safety issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno about others, but all of a sudden, I'd have an incentive to find the shortest router from point A to point B, even if that means city-streets instead of expressway.
This means I'll be sitting in heavy traffic, clogging up the streets, taking longer to reach my destination, and probably causing more accidents and safety issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738295</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>dryeo</author>
	<datestamp>1247851980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean by 15/30/5, thousands of dollars? Even your 100/300/100 seems very low in thousands.<br>Here in BC where we do have compulsive government insurance the minimum last time I checked (about 25 years ago) was $100,000 and it was cheap to upgrade that to a million. Put someone into a wheelchair and even a million doesn't go far, even with socialized medical.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean by 15/30/5 , thousands of dollars ?
Even your 100/300/100 seems very low in thousands.Here in BC where we do have compulsive government insurance the minimum last time I checked ( about 25 years ago ) was $ 100,000 and it was cheap to upgrade that to a million .
Put someone into a wheelchair and even a million does n't go far , even with socialized medical .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean by 15/30/5, thousands of dollars?
Even your 100/300/100 seems very low in thousands.Here in BC where we do have compulsive government insurance the minimum last time I checked (about 25 years ago) was $100,000 and it was cheap to upgrade that to a million.
Put someone into a wheelchair and even a million doesn't go far, even with socialized medical.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734649</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738113</id>
	<title>Re:California needs to back off.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247849520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Look at all of Europe.</p></div><p>Have you looked at the gasoline prices in Europe?  That's a large part of the reason why people take public transport.</p><p>Honestly, your argument that increased gasoline prices make absolutely no difference to distance travelled is pure bunk - if you'd studied even high-school economics, that'd be enough for you to know better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Look at all of Europe.Have you looked at the gasoline prices in Europe ?
That 's a large part of the reason why people take public transport.Honestly , your argument that increased gasoline prices make absolutely no difference to distance travelled is pure bunk - if you 'd studied even high-school economics , that 'd be enough for you to know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look at all of Europe.Have you looked at the gasoline prices in Europe?
That's a large part of the reason why people take public transport.Honestly, your argument that increased gasoline prices make absolutely no difference to distance travelled is pure bunk - if you'd studied even high-school economics, that'd be enough for you to know better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734673</id>
	<title>Re:Milliage RISK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? They know the age of your grandma, or some teen. Did they say they were going to throw out every other measurement? Obviously this shouldn't be a law and industry should figure this out as well.. I know the nature of your complaint but I don't agree with the specifics...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
They know the age of your grandma , or some teen .
Did they say they were going to throw out every other measurement ?
Obviously this should n't be a law and industry should figure this out as well.. I know the nature of your complaint but I do n't agree with the specifics.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
They know the age of your grandma, or some teen.
Did they say they were going to throw out every other measurement?
Obviously this shouldn't be a law and industry should figure this out as well.. I know the nature of your complaint but I don't agree with the specifics...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734937</id>
	<title>clearly people don't want this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247824620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My insurance policy in Missouri caps my driving at 13,000 miles per year. If I want to drive more, I "have" to pay more.</p><p>That being said, I've been driving for 13 years. I've been rear ended once which was 100\% on the other guy. I was hit-and-run'd in a parking lot while at work, so that's the only claim I've made against my car: which totaled to about $8-900.</p><p>Yet, as a single white male under 30, I pay more than most people who have worse driving records (via points or accidents.)</p><p>Explain how that is fair, insurance companies?</p><p>I have a strong speculatory sense that this article will bring the average revenue for insurance companies up, and the cost savings will be only for a small margin of drivers. Look at the comments: I'd say the majority of people don't want this. I'm not surprised they support this under the guise of helping mother earth to try to sway people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My insurance policy in Missouri caps my driving at 13,000 miles per year .
If I want to drive more , I " have " to pay more.That being said , I 've been driving for 13 years .
I 've been rear ended once which was 100 \ % on the other guy .
I was hit-and-run 'd in a parking lot while at work , so that 's the only claim I 've made against my car : which totaled to about $ 8-900.Yet , as a single white male under 30 , I pay more than most people who have worse driving records ( via points or accidents .
) Explain how that is fair , insurance companies ? I have a strong speculatory sense that this article will bring the average revenue for insurance companies up , and the cost savings will be only for a small margin of drivers .
Look at the comments : I 'd say the majority of people do n't want this .
I 'm not surprised they support this under the guise of helping mother earth to try to sway people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My insurance policy in Missouri caps my driving at 13,000 miles per year.
If I want to drive more, I "have" to pay more.That being said, I've been driving for 13 years.
I've been rear ended once which was 100\% on the other guy.
I was hit-and-run'd in a parking lot while at work, so that's the only claim I've made against my car: which totaled to about $8-900.Yet, as a single white male under 30, I pay more than most people who have worse driving records (via points or accidents.
)Explain how that is fair, insurance companies?I have a strong speculatory sense that this article will bring the average revenue for insurance companies up, and the cost savings will be only for a small margin of drivers.
Look at the comments: I'd say the majority of people don't want this.
I'm not surprised they support this under the guise of helping mother earth to try to sway people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734005</id>
	<title>The Most Interesting Man in the World</title>
	<author>StikyPad</author>
	<datestamp>1247863860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't drive very often, but when I do drive, I always have a case of Dos Equis with me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't drive very often , but when I do drive , I always have a case of Dos Equis with me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't drive very often, but when I do drive, I always have a case of Dos Equis with me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735019</id>
	<title>Another Solution...</title>
	<author>Efialtis</author>
	<datestamp>1247824980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... That could save money and trouble:

Insure the Driver, not the Car.

In the State of Utah, if you (an individual, no family, etc) have 4 cars that are capable of being driven (registered, etc) you are REQUIRED by law to have insurance on each vehicle...so figure as cheap as you can per vehicle and times that by 4 or as expensive as you can imagine, and times that by 4...

Why not figure the most expensive to insure vehicle that you own, and just charge you that much...then you could drive any other car you own, and it would be covered, because your insurance is geared to the most expensive to insure car...

This makes sense because you can only drive one vehicle at a time. Then I could also drive other people's vehicles (no real special rider needed) because my insurance would be on ME and not on the car...

Rental agencies do this to some degree...

As for this idea...I don't see what the problem is. Each year you go in for Safety and Emissions inspections, just have the agency take the odometer reading and report back to the insurance company, who then figures the miles driven by a simple mathematical operation called "subtraction"...who then sends you a bill for the insurance on the miles driven (or an estimate of the miles you drive per year, making up the difference (to you or to them) in subsequent years...)

How much more simple could it be?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... That could save money and trouble : Insure the Driver , not the Car .
In the State of Utah , if you ( an individual , no family , etc ) have 4 cars that are capable of being driven ( registered , etc ) you are REQUIRED by law to have insurance on each vehicle...so figure as cheap as you can per vehicle and times that by 4 or as expensive as you can imagine , and times that by 4.. . Why not figure the most expensive to insure vehicle that you own , and just charge you that much...then you could drive any other car you own , and it would be covered , because your insurance is geared to the most expensive to insure car.. . This makes sense because you can only drive one vehicle at a time .
Then I could also drive other people 's vehicles ( no real special rider needed ) because my insurance would be on ME and not on the car.. . Rental agencies do this to some degree.. . As for this idea...I do n't see what the problem is .
Each year you go in for Safety and Emissions inspections , just have the agency take the odometer reading and report back to the insurance company , who then figures the miles driven by a simple mathematical operation called " subtraction " ...who then sends you a bill for the insurance on the miles driven ( or an estimate of the miles you drive per year , making up the difference ( to you or to them ) in subsequent years... ) How much more simple could it be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... That could save money and trouble:

Insure the Driver, not the Car.
In the State of Utah, if you (an individual, no family, etc) have 4 cars that are capable of being driven (registered, etc) you are REQUIRED by law to have insurance on each vehicle...so figure as cheap as you can per vehicle and times that by 4 or as expensive as you can imagine, and times that by 4...

Why not figure the most expensive to insure vehicle that you own, and just charge you that much...then you could drive any other car you own, and it would be covered, because your insurance is geared to the most expensive to insure car...

This makes sense because you can only drive one vehicle at a time.
Then I could also drive other people's vehicles (no real special rider needed) because my insurance would be on ME and not on the car...

Rental agencies do this to some degree...

As for this idea...I don't see what the problem is.
Each year you go in for Safety and Emissions inspections, just have the agency take the odometer reading and report back to the insurance company, who then figures the miles driven by a simple mathematical operation called "subtraction"...who then sends you a bill for the insurance on the miles driven (or an estimate of the miles you drive per year, making up the difference (to you or to them) in subsequent years...)

How much more simple could it be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735005</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>subterfuge</author>
	<datestamp>1247824920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can anybody clarify for me?</p></div><p>

To clarify: this has nothing to do with PAYG vs risk - it is a simple mileage tax generated by the Cult of Global Warming so more of your $ can be extracted from you and sacrificed on the alter of Gaia.<br> <br>

No further explanation necessary.<br> <br>

= : ^ \ &gt;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anybody clarify for me ?
To clarify : this has nothing to do with PAYG vs risk - it is a simple mileage tax generated by the Cult of Global Warming so more of your $ can be extracted from you and sacrificed on the alter of Gaia .
No further explanation necessary .
= : ^ \ &gt;</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anybody clarify for me?
To clarify: this has nothing to do with PAYG vs risk - it is a simple mileage tax generated by the Cult of Global Warming so more of your $ can be extracted from you and sacrificed on the alter of Gaia.
No further explanation necessary.
= : ^ \ &gt;
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734099</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247864220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>bah... you could run every car on earth 24/7 and it wouldn't do half the damage as the 2 real issues behind any climate change we may be seeing.</p><p>1. Big AgBusiness.. The crap we're allowing these mega corps to dump into the water, killing a key filter our planet uses for processing O2 and CO2, is a war crime w/o a war.</p><p>Big Agbusines pt 2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..  7 football fields of old growth forest cut down every *day* in South America.</p><p>2. The acre after acre of tropical vegetation we've poured Agent Orange on in central and south america in the name of our 'war on drugs'.. Yes, lil timmy won't be able to get as much pot after school, but he'll need to take a boat to get home.</p><p>I have no issue with the people of our planet collectively tackling the issue of climate change. I do have an issue with making up fake boogy men and ignoring the real ones that only have better lobbyists on their side.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>bah... you could run every car on earth 24/7 and it would n't do half the damage as the 2 real issues behind any climate change we may be seeing.1 .
Big AgBusiness.. The crap we 're allowing these mega corps to dump into the water , killing a key filter our planet uses for processing O2 and CO2 , is a war crime w/o a war.Big Agbusines pt 2 .. 7 football fields of old growth forest cut down every * day * in South America.2 .
The acre after acre of tropical vegetation we 've poured Agent Orange on in central and south america in the name of our 'war on drugs'.. Yes , lil timmy wo n't be able to get as much pot after school , but he 'll need to take a boat to get home.I have no issue with the people of our planet collectively tackling the issue of climate change .
I do have an issue with making up fake boogy men and ignoring the real ones that only have better lobbyists on their side .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>bah... you could run every car on earth 24/7 and it wouldn't do half the damage as the 2 real issues behind any climate change we may be seeing.1.
Big AgBusiness.. The crap we're allowing these mega corps to dump into the water, killing a key filter our planet uses for processing O2 and CO2, is a war crime w/o a war.Big Agbusines pt 2 ..  7 football fields of old growth forest cut down every *day* in South America.2.
The acre after acre of tropical vegetation we've poured Agent Orange on in central and south america in the name of our 'war on drugs'.. Yes, lil timmy won't be able to get as much pot after school, but he'll need to take a boat to get home.I have no issue with the people of our planet collectively tackling the issue of climate change.
I do have an issue with making up fake boogy men and ignoring the real ones that only have better lobbyists on their side.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736965</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Deliveranc3</author>
	<datestamp>1247837640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lol at Americans<br> <br> Do you notice those service fees on your cell phone bill? Those go to monitoring your usage, they should probably be divided based on some arbitrary formula surrounding how difficult it is to calculate your bill... but they are ironically flat.<br> <br> I think people would be amazed what percentage of their costs are spent on simply trying to calculate "fair" pricing, (the price to install and monitor your water meter for example).<br> <br> Consider tipping, "Server's have a hard job! They have to deal with assholes!" well yea, so now I'm paying so assholes can be assholes? Super DUPER!... it seems every time reasonable people encourage people to act in a better manner than they themselves act they get totally fucked... like smoking, we encourage other people not to smoke, allow ourselves to be pariahed and moved into segregated areas and then as fewer and people smoke we're attacked more and more.<br> <br> Shrinkage vs increased security... good security helps because it sends theives to your competitors... so it's worth more than it's savings. Same with destroying your excess product instead of shipping it to dollar stores.<br> <br> China was capitalist for thousands of years, and they remember hating it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lol at Americans Do you notice those service fees on your cell phone bill ?
Those go to monitoring your usage , they should probably be divided based on some arbitrary formula surrounding how difficult it is to calculate your bill... but they are ironically flat .
I think people would be amazed what percentage of their costs are spent on simply trying to calculate " fair " pricing , ( the price to install and monitor your water meter for example ) .
Consider tipping , " Server 's have a hard job !
They have to deal with assholes !
" well yea , so now I 'm paying so assholes can be assholes ?
Super DUPER ! .. .
it seems every time reasonable people encourage people to act in a better manner than they themselves act they get totally fucked... like smoking , we encourage other people not to smoke , allow ourselves to be pariahed and moved into segregated areas and then as fewer and people smoke we 're attacked more and more .
Shrinkage vs increased security... good security helps because it sends theives to your competitors... so it 's worth more than it 's savings .
Same with destroying your excess product instead of shipping it to dollar stores .
China was capitalist for thousands of years , and they remember hating it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lol at Americans  Do you notice those service fees on your cell phone bill?
Those go to monitoring your usage, they should probably be divided based on some arbitrary formula surrounding how difficult it is to calculate your bill... but they are ironically flat.
I think people would be amazed what percentage of their costs are spent on simply trying to calculate "fair" pricing, (the price to install and monitor your water meter for example).
Consider tipping, "Server's have a hard job!
They have to deal with assholes!
" well yea, so now I'm paying so assholes can be assholes?
Super DUPER!...
it seems every time reasonable people encourage people to act in a better manner than they themselves act they get totally fucked... like smoking, we encourage other people not to smoke, allow ourselves to be pariahed and moved into segregated areas and then as fewer and people smoke we're attacked more and more.
Shrinkage vs increased security... good security helps because it sends theives to your competitors... so it's worth more than it's savings.
Same with destroying your excess product instead of shipping it to dollar stores.
China was capitalist for thousands of years, and they remember hating it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</id>
	<title>Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247863920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>but it lacks any practicality fo California.</p><p>All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi  drive due to the distance they must commute. Meaning more uninsured motorists.</p><p>They al ready take it into account some what, and that's enough.</p><p>This is just attempt to squeeze another dime out of people who must have this service.</p><p>Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.<br>Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels. If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>but it lacks any practicality fo California.All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi drive due to the distance they must commute .
Meaning more uninsured motorists.They al ready take it into account some what , and that 's enough.This is just attempt to squeeze another dime out of people who must have this service.Quite frankly , if the Government is going to mandate insurance , then it should also offer a base insurance program , at cost.Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels .
If you want more , then you can buy more from an insurance company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but it lacks any practicality fo California.All this will do is make insurance unaffordable to low income families that have toi  drive due to the distance they must commute.
Meaning more uninsured motorists.They al ready take it into account some what, and that's enough.This is just attempt to squeeze another dime out of people who must have this service.Quite frankly, if the Government is going to mandate insurance, then it should also offer a base insurance program, at cost.Just one that covers the minimum insurance levels.
If you want more, then you can buy more from an insurance company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734779</id>
	<title>Vehicle 'black box' in your car!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I guess you don't want to know about the vehicle 'black box' in all car that have air bags. Insurance companies don't want you to know!</p><p>http://www.crashspeed.com/airbag\_control\_module.htm</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I guess you do n't want to know about the vehicle 'black box ' in all car that have air bags .
Insurance companies do n't want you to know ! http : //www.crashspeed.com/airbag \ _control \ _module.htm</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guess you don't want to know about the vehicle 'black box' in all car that have air bags.
Insurance companies don't want you to know!http://www.crashspeed.com/airbag\_control\_module.htm</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734765</id>
	<title>Insurance and CO2?</title>
	<author>blueg3</author>
	<datestamp>1247823720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Assume for the sake of argument that I think a reduction of CO2 emissions is important and a good idea (I do, basically) and that distance-based insurance premiums are a good idea (not sure).</p><p>Citing a reduction of CO2 emissions as a side effect of distance-based insurance premiums is still stupid and annoying. It's bad and they should feel bad for doing it. They are problems that make more sense to approach separately, since they have very little relation to one another.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Assume for the sake of argument that I think a reduction of CO2 emissions is important and a good idea ( I do , basically ) and that distance-based insurance premiums are a good idea ( not sure ) .Citing a reduction of CO2 emissions as a side effect of distance-based insurance premiums is still stupid and annoying .
It 's bad and they should feel bad for doing it .
They are problems that make more sense to approach separately , since they have very little relation to one another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assume for the sake of argument that I think a reduction of CO2 emissions is important and a good idea (I do, basically) and that distance-based insurance premiums are a good idea (not sure).Citing a reduction of CO2 emissions as a side effect of distance-based insurance premiums is still stupid and annoying.
It's bad and they should feel bad for doing it.
They are problems that make more sense to approach separately, since they have very little relation to one another.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735161</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>Whorhay</author>
	<datestamp>1247825880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the subject of needing a sports car driver's license.</p><p>In my experience the sports cars I have owned have been safer and easier to drive than most sedans. Granted my experience is purely anecdotal and I've never had a powerful sports car.</p><p>I think that earning a drivers license should be a much more difficult or at least prolonged experience. Where a road test is augmented by defensive driving courses and the like. And possibly requiring retesting if you change your vehicle to one in a different category then you have previously tested.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the subject of needing a sports car driver 's license.In my experience the sports cars I have owned have been safer and easier to drive than most sedans .
Granted my experience is purely anecdotal and I 've never had a powerful sports car.I think that earning a drivers license should be a much more difficult or at least prolonged experience .
Where a road test is augmented by defensive driving courses and the like .
And possibly requiring retesting if you change your vehicle to one in a different category then you have previously tested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the subject of needing a sports car driver's license.In my experience the sports cars I have owned have been safer and easier to drive than most sedans.
Granted my experience is purely anecdotal and I've never had a powerful sports car.I think that earning a drivers license should be a much more difficult or at least prolonged experience.
Where a road test is augmented by defensive driving courses and the like.
And possibly requiring retesting if you change your vehicle to one in a different category then you have previously tested.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738473</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247855340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To see the difference you practically have to drive commercially. They ask me the same questions, but whether I tell them a thousand miles a month or ten miles a month, I get charged the same. I even got charged the same when I moved and decided to just garage my car and bike everywhere for the summer, and I ended up just canceling the insurance, because it wasn't worth paying for the off-chance I might need my car one day. Sure, it's more if you're a road warrior, and less if you have a collector's plate, but other than that, you never see a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To see the difference you practically have to drive commercially .
They ask me the same questions , but whether I tell them a thousand miles a month or ten miles a month , I get charged the same .
I even got charged the same when I moved and decided to just garage my car and bike everywhere for the summer , and I ended up just canceling the insurance , because it was n't worth paying for the off-chance I might need my car one day .
Sure , it 's more if you 're a road warrior , and less if you have a collector 's plate , but other than that , you never see a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To see the difference you practically have to drive commercially.
They ask me the same questions, but whether I tell them a thousand miles a month or ten miles a month, I get charged the same.
I even got charged the same when I moved and decided to just garage my car and bike everywhere for the summer, and I ended up just canceling the insurance, because it wasn't worth paying for the off-chance I might need my car one day.
Sure, it's more if you're a road warrior, and less if you have a collector's plate, but other than that, you never see a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741731</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>CodeBuster</author>
	<datestamp>1247940240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, given that insurance companies have such skilled statisticians, call actuaries, and others who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums; why not simply let the <b> <i>private market</i> </b> decide who gets insured and for how much? The insurance companies are under no obligation to insure anyone. I think that the <b> <i>real</i> </b> reason why some people, probably the anti-car green hippie types, support this is because it would place further <b> <i>government</i> </b> non-voluntary restrictions on driving while at the same time cloaking the hand of the government behind "mandated insurance company policies". If the environmentalists want to charge people for C02 emissions, then just come right out and say so, but this law will NOT reduce accidents.</p><p>As others on this thread have already pointed out, How can someone who drives less and is therefore less experienced and less regularly practiced be a better driver than a regular daily driver? I think, all other things being equal, less experienced drivers, who are incentivized to drive less by what amounts to a tax, will be more dangerous on those occasions where they do get out on the roads. Every accident I have ever been involved in has always been the <b> <i>other driver's fault</i></b>  (generally some inexperienced knuckle-dragging idiot who has no business being behind the wheel).</p><p>This whole safety-scissors, namby-pamby, wussy mindset that is permeating California these days is one of the prime factors, IMHO, in the economic death spiral engulfing this state. The idiots are in charge and instead of actually putting the public finances in order they are worried about C02 emissions and people "driving too much" instead of using the craptastic public transportation system (nobody with serious employment actually uses it). The Chinese, Indians, and sensible people everywhere are laughing at the idiots running the State of California.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , given that insurance companies have such skilled statisticians , call actuaries , and others who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums ; why not simply let the private market decide who gets insured and for how much ?
The insurance companies are under no obligation to insure anyone .
I think that the real reason why some people , probably the anti-car green hippie types , support this is because it would place further government non-voluntary restrictions on driving while at the same time cloaking the hand of the government behind " mandated insurance company policies " .
If the environmentalists want to charge people for C02 emissions , then just come right out and say so , but this law will NOT reduce accidents.As others on this thread have already pointed out , How can someone who drives less and is therefore less experienced and less regularly practiced be a better driver than a regular daily driver ?
I think , all other things being equal , less experienced drivers , who are incentivized to drive less by what amounts to a tax , will be more dangerous on those occasions where they do get out on the roads .
Every accident I have ever been involved in has always been the other driver 's fault ( generally some inexperienced knuckle-dragging idiot who has no business being behind the wheel ) .This whole safety-scissors , namby-pamby , wussy mindset that is permeating California these days is one of the prime factors , IMHO , in the economic death spiral engulfing this state .
The idiots are in charge and instead of actually putting the public finances in order they are worried about C02 emissions and people " driving too much " instead of using the craptastic public transportation system ( nobody with serious employment actually uses it ) .
The Chinese , Indians , and sensible people everywhere are laughing at the idiots running the State of California .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, given that insurance companies have such skilled statisticians, call actuaries, and others who fiddle over mountains of data to decide how much to charge who in order to maximize profit while still being able to offer comeptitive premiums; why not simply let the  private market  decide who gets insured and for how much?
The insurance companies are under no obligation to insure anyone.
I think that the  real  reason why some people, probably the anti-car green hippie types, support this is because it would place further  government  non-voluntary restrictions on driving while at the same time cloaking the hand of the government behind "mandated insurance company policies".
If the environmentalists want to charge people for C02 emissions, then just come right out and say so, but this law will NOT reduce accidents.As others on this thread have already pointed out, How can someone who drives less and is therefore less experienced and less regularly practiced be a better driver than a regular daily driver?
I think, all other things being equal, less experienced drivers, who are incentivized to drive less by what amounts to a tax, will be more dangerous on those occasions where they do get out on the roads.
Every accident I have ever been involved in has always been the  other driver's fault  (generally some inexperienced knuckle-dragging idiot who has no business being behind the wheel).This whole safety-scissors, namby-pamby, wussy mindset that is permeating California these days is one of the prime factors, IMHO, in the economic death spiral engulfing this state.
The idiots are in charge and instead of actually putting the public finances in order they are worried about C02 emissions and people "driving too much" instead of using the craptastic public transportation system (nobody with serious employment actually uses it).
The Chinese, Indians, and sensible people everywhere are laughing at the idiots running the State of California.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738825</id>
	<title>Flight insurance</title>
	<author>sl149q</author>
	<datestamp>1247947560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was discussing this a few weeks ago with a pilot... He noted that this was already the way that insurance is charged for planes... Pay as you go based on hours and logbook. If you don't fly you don't pay (well you pay for theft and vandalism etc. that is separate.)


The current insurance regime also penalizes people who want to have more than one car. E.g. get people to use a gas miser for commuting and save that SUV for carting the kids to soccer for the weekend.. If they can have ONLY one car they may end up with ONLY the SUV which is not good for the environment. Pay per use would allow you to optimize your mileage across multiple vehicles without having to pay the huge cost of insurance (with the current models) for both.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was discussing this a few weeks ago with a pilot... He noted that this was already the way that insurance is charged for planes... Pay as you go based on hours and logbook .
If you do n't fly you do n't pay ( well you pay for theft and vandalism etc .
that is separate .
) The current insurance regime also penalizes people who want to have more than one car .
E.g. get people to use a gas miser for commuting and save that SUV for carting the kids to soccer for the weekend.. If they can have ONLY one car they may end up with ONLY the SUV which is not good for the environment .
Pay per use would allow you to optimize your mileage across multiple vehicles without having to pay the huge cost of insurance ( with the current models ) for both .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was discussing this a few weeks ago with a pilot... He noted that this was already the way that insurance is charged for planes... Pay as you go based on hours and logbook.
If you don't fly you don't pay (well you pay for theft and vandalism etc.
that is separate.
)


The current insurance regime also penalizes people who want to have more than one car.
E.g. get people to use a gas miser for commuting and save that SUV for carting the kids to soccer for the weekend.. If they can have ONLY one car they may end up with ONLY the SUV which is not good for the environment.
Pay per use would allow you to optimize your mileage across multiple vehicles without having to pay the huge cost of insurance (with the current models) for both.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736747</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>sootman</author>
	<datestamp>1247836200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver.</em></p><p>That is correct. Also, whenever you drive, you should go as fast as possible to minimize your exposure to danger. Especially in bad weather.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver.That is correct .
Also , whenever you drive , you should go as fast as possible to minimize your exposure to danger .
Especially in bad weather .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would seem someone who drives less frequently is less practiced and would be a greater risk as compared to someone who is a regular driver.That is correct.
Also, whenever you drive, you should go as fast as possible to minimize your exposure to danger.
Especially in bad weather.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734453</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you judge if someone is a good driver? Do you test them, then raise the cost of insurance to cover the cost of testing and also end up with false information because the person drove a hell of a lot better than they normally would because they were being tested by their insurance company and the results can make a big difference in their insurance costs?</p><p>There is no real reliable way to determine if someone is a good driver other than how many accidents they were in and you are much more likely to be in an accident the more you drive. It's not even a case of how good you are. When driving you have to deal with other bad drivers, car faults, road conditions, etc. The more you drive the more you are likely to run into one of these things that can cause an accident.</p><p>So charging people by how much the drive is fair. Certainly more so than charging people more just because of their age or their gender.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you judge if someone is a good driver ?
Do you test them , then raise the cost of insurance to cover the cost of testing and also end up with false information because the person drove a hell of a lot better than they normally would because they were being tested by their insurance company and the results can make a big difference in their insurance costs ? There is no real reliable way to determine if someone is a good driver other than how many accidents they were in and you are much more likely to be in an accident the more you drive .
It 's not even a case of how good you are .
When driving you have to deal with other bad drivers , car faults , road conditions , etc .
The more you drive the more you are likely to run into one of these things that can cause an accident.So charging people by how much the drive is fair .
Certainly more so than charging people more just because of their age or their gender .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you judge if someone is a good driver?
Do you test them, then raise the cost of insurance to cover the cost of testing and also end up with false information because the person drove a hell of a lot better than they normally would because they were being tested by their insurance company and the results can make a big difference in their insurance costs?There is no real reliable way to determine if someone is a good driver other than how many accidents they were in and you are much more likely to be in an accident the more you drive.
It's not even a case of how good you are.
When driving you have to deal with other bad drivers, car faults, road conditions, etc.
The more you drive the more you are likely to run into one of these things that can cause an accident.So charging people by how much the drive is fair.
Certainly more so than charging people more just because of their age or their gender.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740173</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Dan541</author>
	<datestamp>1247926860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But who has a higher accident per mile ratio?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But who has a higher accident per mile ratio ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But who has a higher accident per mile ratio?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734557</id>
	<title>Highway repair funding?</title>
	<author>cliffiecee</author>
	<datestamp>1247822940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Federal Highway Administration is already suffering shortage of funds due to <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/09aprtvt/figure1.cfm" title="dot.gov">fewer vehicle miles driven</a> [dot.gov]. There's been talk of more toll roads, increasing the gas tax, etc.</p><p>As I see it, encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs, more time between repairs, and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new "usage fees". This could end up increasing the total cost- even though you're paying less for insurance, you're paying more for gas, tolls, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Federal Highway Administration is already suffering shortage of funds due to fewer vehicle miles driven [ dot.gov ] .
There 's been talk of more toll roads , increasing the gas tax , etc.As I see it , encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs , more time between repairs , and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new " usage fees " .
This could end up increasing the total cost- even though you 're paying less for insurance , you 're paying more for gas , tolls , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Federal Highway Administration is already suffering shortage of funds due to fewer vehicle miles driven [dot.gov].
There's been talk of more toll roads, increasing the gas tax, etc.As I see it, encouraging people to drive even less will further decrease the revenue collected for road repair- which could mean fewer repairs, more time between repairs, and/or an incentive to raise the gas tax or invent new "usage fees".
This could end up increasing the total cost- even though you're paying less for insurance, you're paying more for gas, tolls, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734967</id>
	<title>Re:This system is already in place!</title>
	<author>theJML</author>
	<datestamp>1247824740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank you! I don't see how this is any different than what I've been paying/signed up for for the last 10 years or more. In College, I only drove the car like once a week, I reported my total miles as like 3k a year and got charged a heck of a lot less than when I started a job and that became 30k a year. Now I only drive 10k a year and it's in the middle. (then I got married and both my wife and my insurance total is half as much as the cheapest of either... however that works. I suppose I'm so much less likely to get hit by an idiot now that I'm married...).  The premiums have always been calculated loosely from this sort of mileage per year estimate. at least as far as I remember back, 10-15 years or so. I'd be annoied if they stopped the practice knowing that it is one of the few things that makes sense. You're basically charged both upon your history and the amount of time that you'll be out on the roads causing/being part of havoc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank you !
I do n't see how this is any different than what I 've been paying/signed up for for the last 10 years or more .
In College , I only drove the car like once a week , I reported my total miles as like 3k a year and got charged a heck of a lot less than when I started a job and that became 30k a year .
Now I only drive 10k a year and it 's in the middle .
( then I got married and both my wife and my insurance total is half as much as the cheapest of either... however that works .
I suppose I 'm so much less likely to get hit by an idiot now that I 'm married... ) .
The premiums have always been calculated loosely from this sort of mileage per year estimate .
at least as far as I remember back , 10-15 years or so .
I 'd be annoied if they stopped the practice knowing that it is one of the few things that makes sense .
You 're basically charged both upon your history and the amount of time that you 'll be out on the roads causing/being part of havoc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank you!
I don't see how this is any different than what I've been paying/signed up for for the last 10 years or more.
In College, I only drove the car like once a week, I reported my total miles as like 3k a year and got charged a heck of a lot less than when I started a job and that became 30k a year.
Now I only drive 10k a year and it's in the middle.
(then I got married and both my wife and my insurance total is half as much as the cheapest of either... however that works.
I suppose I'm so much less likely to get hit by an idiot now that I'm married...).
The premiums have always been calculated loosely from this sort of mileage per year estimate.
at least as far as I remember back, 10-15 years or so.
I'd be annoied if they stopped the practice knowing that it is one of the few things that makes sense.
You're basically charged both upon your history and the amount of time that you'll be out on the roads causing/being part of havoc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734281</id>
	<title>Insurance by the mile is in Texas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247821860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm using Milemeter.com in Texas, it's billed by the mile. I'm paying about half of what I payed my previous company with same coverage.<br>But it only works people driving under 12k a year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm using Milemeter.com in Texas , it 's billed by the mile .
I 'm paying about half of what I payed my previous company with same coverage.But it only works people driving under 12k a year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm using Milemeter.com in Texas, it's billed by the mile.
I'm paying about half of what I payed my previous company with same coverage.But it only works people driving under 12k a year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735967</id>
	<title>This idea fails in the first sentance</title>
	<author>Burning1</author>
	<datestamp>1247831160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk."</p></div></blockquote><p>FAIL. My grandmother drives infrequently. She is not a low insurance risk.</p><p>Driving frequently increases exposure to risk, but it also reduces the risk along a separate curve. Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year tends to be a better driver than someone who only does 5,000 miles a year. Especially if the 40K driver has a record of being accident free.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The proposal centers on a simple idea : infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk. " FAIL .
My grandmother drives infrequently .
She is not a low insurance risk.Driving frequently increases exposure to risk , but it also reduces the risk along a separate curve .
Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year tends to be a better driver than someone who only does 5,000 miles a year .
Especially if the 40K driver has a record of being accident free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The proposal centers on a simple idea: infrequent drivers are less of an insurance risk."FAIL.
My grandmother drives infrequently.
She is not a low insurance risk.Driving frequently increases exposure to risk, but it also reduces the risk along a separate curve.
Someone who drives 40,000 miles a year tends to be a better driver than someone who only does 5,000 miles a year.
Especially if the 40K driver has a record of being accident free.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734797</id>
	<title>I am totally confused.</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247823840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aren't we already charged based on estimated car usage? This article is about privacy objections and laws regarding monitoring miles, is it not?</p><p>I've always assumed the miles I enter when renewing my insurance went towards calculating the total premium. Actually, my insurer even told me so when I thought my rate went up - they said I was driving more.</p><p>If they wanted us to drive less, there are plenty of other ways to do it, rather than hacking our insurance. Idiots.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are n't we already charged based on estimated car usage ?
This article is about privacy objections and laws regarding monitoring miles , is it not ? I 've always assumed the miles I enter when renewing my insurance went towards calculating the total premium .
Actually , my insurer even told me so when I thought my rate went up - they said I was driving more.If they wanted us to drive less , there are plenty of other ways to do it , rather than hacking our insurance .
Idiots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aren't we already charged based on estimated car usage?
This article is about privacy objections and laws regarding monitoring miles, is it not?I've always assumed the miles I enter when renewing my insurance went towards calculating the total premium.
Actually, my insurer even told me so when I thought my rate went up - they said I was driving more.If they wanted us to drive less, there are plenty of other ways to do it, rather than hacking our insurance.
Idiots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741417</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247937600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pay as you drive basically allows insurance companies to accurately measure and charge you premium only for the amount you drive (usually through a component attached to your OBD port).  This is almost guaranteed to come into every other state because it's advantageous to insurance companies, and to good drivers who don't drive a lot.</p><p>As it gets rolled out, you may see your premium go up if you don't use the plan.  This will be because the good drivers who are subsidizing each annual mileage group with see a price decrease when they switch.  Once they switch, the group they left will require a price increase in order to maintain profitability.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pay as you drive basically allows insurance companies to accurately measure and charge you premium only for the amount you drive ( usually through a component attached to your OBD port ) .
This is almost guaranteed to come into every other state because it 's advantageous to insurance companies , and to good drivers who do n't drive a lot.As it gets rolled out , you may see your premium go up if you do n't use the plan .
This will be because the good drivers who are subsidizing each annual mileage group with see a price decrease when they switch .
Once they switch , the group they left will require a price increase in order to maintain profitability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pay as you drive basically allows insurance companies to accurately measure and charge you premium only for the amount you drive (usually through a component attached to your OBD port).
This is almost guaranteed to come into every other state because it's advantageous to insurance companies, and to good drivers who don't drive a lot.As it gets rolled out, you may see your premium go up if you don't use the plan.
This will be because the good drivers who are subsidizing each annual mileage group with see a price decrease when they switch.
Once they switch, the group they left will require a price increase in order to maintain profitability.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734577</id>
	<title>What's the Penalty?</title>
	<author>a-zarkon!</author>
	<datestamp>1247823000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK so assume CA mandates this and then follows up with mandating a law that requires every vehicle in CA to be fitted with some kind of GPS or similar tracking device:<br>1) What happens when the tracker in my car suffers some kind of *mysterious* electronic failure?  Am I going to be fined?<br>2) Who is going to pay for the tracker and the installation?<br>3) What happens when a faulty tracker drains the battery? (Oddly enough I've seen this happen in a fleet vehicle)<br>4) How do I get the lucrative contract to maintain this massive tracking infrastructure system?!!<br>5) Anyone want to bet that this gizmo won't also be recording speed - insurance companies probably value that info more than distance.  Betcha law enforcement will have de facto rights to query your gizmo right there on the spot when they pull you over - probably have a built in blue tooth so they don't even need to get out of the cruiser to write you up.</p><p>We're already paying per mile in the form of taxes on each gallon of gas we buy.  They must be gearing up to address the revenue threat posed by the as-yet impractical plug-in hybrids.  Crappy idea all around in my opinion.</p><p>If there was any kind of mass transit, I would take it vs. the 2 hours I spend behind the wheel each day.  I'll go out on a limb and say I'd take it at the cost of an additional 30-60 minutes transit time; at least I could get stuff done on the bus/train and I bet I'd have lower blood pressure to boot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK so assume CA mandates this and then follows up with mandating a law that requires every vehicle in CA to be fitted with some kind of GPS or similar tracking device : 1 ) What happens when the tracker in my car suffers some kind of * mysterious * electronic failure ?
Am I going to be fined ? 2 ) Who is going to pay for the tracker and the installation ? 3 ) What happens when a faulty tracker drains the battery ?
( Oddly enough I 've seen this happen in a fleet vehicle ) 4 ) How do I get the lucrative contract to maintain this massive tracking infrastructure system ? !
! 5 ) Anyone want to bet that this gizmo wo n't also be recording speed - insurance companies probably value that info more than distance .
Betcha law enforcement will have de facto rights to query your gizmo right there on the spot when they pull you over - probably have a built in blue tooth so they do n't even need to get out of the cruiser to write you up.We 're already paying per mile in the form of taxes on each gallon of gas we buy .
They must be gearing up to address the revenue threat posed by the as-yet impractical plug-in hybrids .
Crappy idea all around in my opinion.If there was any kind of mass transit , I would take it vs. the 2 hours I spend behind the wheel each day .
I 'll go out on a limb and say I 'd take it at the cost of an additional 30-60 minutes transit time ; at least I could get stuff done on the bus/train and I bet I 'd have lower blood pressure to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK so assume CA mandates this and then follows up with mandating a law that requires every vehicle in CA to be fitted with some kind of GPS or similar tracking device:1) What happens when the tracker in my car suffers some kind of *mysterious* electronic failure?
Am I going to be fined?2) Who is going to pay for the tracker and the installation?3) What happens when a faulty tracker drains the battery?
(Oddly enough I've seen this happen in a fleet vehicle)4) How do I get the lucrative contract to maintain this massive tracking infrastructure system?!
!5) Anyone want to bet that this gizmo won't also be recording speed - insurance companies probably value that info more than distance.
Betcha law enforcement will have de facto rights to query your gizmo right there on the spot when they pull you over - probably have a built in blue tooth so they don't even need to get out of the cruiser to write you up.We're already paying per mile in the form of taxes on each gallon of gas we buy.
They must be gearing up to address the revenue threat posed by the as-yet impractical plug-in hybrids.
Crappy idea all around in my opinion.If there was any kind of mass transit, I would take it vs. the 2 hours I spend behind the wheel each day.
I'll go out on a limb and say I'd take it at the cost of an additional 30-60 minutes transit time; at least I could get stuff done on the bus/train and I bet I'd have lower blood pressure to boot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735351</id>
	<title>Re:Rush Hour?</title>
	<author>aukset</author>
	<datestamp>1247827080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you know that highways pass through cities? Guess what happens when inner-city congestion meets highway speeds?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you know that highways pass through cities ?
Guess what happens when inner-city congestion meets highway speeds ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you know that highways pass through cities?
Guess what happens when inner-city congestion meets highway speeds?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735875</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>ArsonSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1247830620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But insurance is suppose to be an assumption of shared risk.  Why should one person have to pay more just because he has to driver father?  Everyone should have to pay the same exact amount for car insurance.  It could be handled by the government just like the soon to be healthcare.  In fact with the healthcare infrastructure already going into place it could be rolled into this as well.  Why stop there we could have one tax bill that covers every possible insurance that we could all want to have.  This way we can make the greedy rich people pay for our stuff if it is lost, stolen, broken or worn out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But insurance is suppose to be an assumption of shared risk .
Why should one person have to pay more just because he has to driver father ?
Everyone should have to pay the same exact amount for car insurance .
It could be handled by the government just like the soon to be healthcare .
In fact with the healthcare infrastructure already going into place it could be rolled into this as well .
Why stop there we could have one tax bill that covers every possible insurance that we could all want to have .
This way we can make the greedy rich people pay for our stuff if it is lost , stolen , broken or worn out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But insurance is suppose to be an assumption of shared risk.
Why should one person have to pay more just because he has to driver father?
Everyone should have to pay the same exact amount for car insurance.
It could be handled by the government just like the soon to be healthcare.
In fact with the healthcare infrastructure already going into place it could be rolled into this as well.
Why stop there we could have one tax bill that covers every possible insurance that we could all want to have.
This way we can make the greedy rich people pay for our stuff if it is lost, stolen, broken or worn out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735057</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>fugue</author>
	<datestamp>1247825220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One more reason to get on a bike.  If you're not going to be going 100km/h anyway, you may as well do something that won't slow you down, won't cost you money, won't cause congestion or pollution, lets you park wherever you want, keeps you healthy...</htmltext>
<tokenext>One more reason to get on a bike .
If you 're not going to be going 100km/h anyway , you may as well do something that wo n't slow you down , wo n't cost you money , wo n't cause congestion or pollution , lets you park wherever you want , keeps you healthy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One more reason to get on a bike.
If you're not going to be going 100km/h anyway, you may as well do something that won't slow you down, won't cost you money, won't cause congestion or pollution, lets you park wherever you want, keeps you healthy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737981</id>
	<title>Re:**Privacy** is the issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247847840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>... the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens.</i> </p><p>Exactly.</p><p>Mission creep is everything with these guys.</p><p>In California we have these things called FastPass or something similar. They're for paying tolls on the fly. Fine, as far as it goes.</p><p>Some time after their introduction, we started seeing these digital highway signs showing the estimated time to upcoming cities, junctions, airports, etc. I wondered what these estimates were based on, since simple car-counting across buried car sensors wouldn't yield such results.</p><p>Then I started noticing these arms extending out over the freeway from the light standards. Each arm had two to four small Yagi antennas pointing at the various lanes. It dawned on me that they were probably reading individual toll passes, so specific cars were being used as traffic-flow indicators.</p><p>This was later confirmed on a local news broadcast. The station runs a short segment called "A Good Question", where viewers submit questions of general interest. One question asked where the signs got their data. The reporter explained that pass ids were recorded at one location and re-read some miles later.</p><p>The reporter was careful to note that th data could not be used to generate speeding tickets as the data was "encrypted".</p><p>When you stop laughing, and if you're any kind of programmer, just how many seconds it would take you to put in a patch to decrypt the info. It's clear that it's a trivial task to do so. As for applications, yes, it could quickly be adapted to generate speeding tickets. More to the point, the data, encrypted or not, can be used to track a particular pass. If LE knows what car was used in an offense, the pass associated with it could be tracked with great precision as it was driven down the freeway. It would also be trivial to enter the ID into a database which would be used to trigger an alert when the pass was detected.</p><p>There was a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article a day or so back about cellphone location data being used to track a phone well in advance of an arrest (without a search warrant). You may be certain that LE would also be very anxious to access the pass location data in the same manner to establish traffic patterns of "persons of interest" so as to build a case based on those patterns.</p><p>Or when an insider wanted to track an errant girlfriend.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens .
Exactly.Mission creep is everything with these guys.In California we have these things called FastPass or something similar .
They 're for paying tolls on the fly .
Fine , as far as it goes.Some time after their introduction , we started seeing these digital highway signs showing the estimated time to upcoming cities , junctions , airports , etc .
I wondered what these estimates were based on , since simple car-counting across buried car sensors would n't yield such results.Then I started noticing these arms extending out over the freeway from the light standards .
Each arm had two to four small Yagi antennas pointing at the various lanes .
It dawned on me that they were probably reading individual toll passes , so specific cars were being used as traffic-flow indicators.This was later confirmed on a local news broadcast .
The station runs a short segment called " A Good Question " , where viewers submit questions of general interest .
One question asked where the signs got their data .
The reporter explained that pass ids were recorded at one location and re-read some miles later.The reporter was careful to note that th data could not be used to generate speeding tickets as the data was " encrypted " .When you stop laughing , and if you 're any kind of programmer , just how many seconds it would take you to put in a patch to decrypt the info .
It 's clear that it 's a trivial task to do so .
As for applications , yes , it could quickly be adapted to generate speeding tickets .
More to the point , the data , encrypted or not , can be used to track a particular pass .
If LE knows what car was used in an offense , the pass associated with it could be tracked with great precision as it was driven down the freeway .
It would also be trivial to enter the ID into a database which would be used to trigger an alert when the pass was detected.There was a / .
article a day or so back about cellphone location data being used to track a phone well in advance of an arrest ( without a search warrant ) .
You may be certain that LE would also be very anxious to access the pass location data in the same manner to establish traffic patterns of " persons of interest " so as to build a case based on those patterns.Or when an insider wanted to track an errant girlfriend .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the tendency the government has demonstrated since 9/11 to go nuts with intrusive monitoring of its citizens.
Exactly.Mission creep is everything with these guys.In California we have these things called FastPass or something similar.
They're for paying tolls on the fly.
Fine, as far as it goes.Some time after their introduction, we started seeing these digital highway signs showing the estimated time to upcoming cities, junctions, airports, etc.
I wondered what these estimates were based on, since simple car-counting across buried car sensors wouldn't yield such results.Then I started noticing these arms extending out over the freeway from the light standards.
Each arm had two to four small Yagi antennas pointing at the various lanes.
It dawned on me that they were probably reading individual toll passes, so specific cars were being used as traffic-flow indicators.This was later confirmed on a local news broadcast.
The station runs a short segment called "A Good Question", where viewers submit questions of general interest.
One question asked where the signs got their data.
The reporter explained that pass ids were recorded at one location and re-read some miles later.The reporter was careful to note that th data could not be used to generate speeding tickets as the data was "encrypted".When you stop laughing, and if you're any kind of programmer, just how many seconds it would take you to put in a patch to decrypt the info.
It's clear that it's a trivial task to do so.
As for applications, yes, it could quickly be adapted to generate speeding tickets.
More to the point, the data, encrypted or not, can be used to track a particular pass.
If LE knows what car was used in an offense, the pass associated with it could be tracked with great precision as it was driven down the freeway.
It would also be trivial to enter the ID into a database which would be used to trigger an alert when the pass was detected.There was a /.
article a day or so back about cellphone location data being used to track a phone well in advance of an arrest (without a search warrant).
You may be certain that LE would also be very anxious to access the pass location data in the same manner to establish traffic patterns of "persons of interest" so as to build a case based on those patterns.Or when an insider wanted to track an errant girlfriend.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737467</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247842020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>How is someone who drives less better at driving?</i> </p><p>Not the issue -- it's a matter of exposure.</p><p>Just this morning I heard a guy on the radio who is a trucker and drives 80 miles to his job. That's about an hour and a half to (early morning) and maybe two hours home, possibly tired after a long day at the wheel.</p><p>In any case, it's not as if minute tracking is needed to see who drives a lot -- just examine the speedo yearly. My insurance company used to just ask me for the reading each year at renewal time. Most people likely have a local branch where they could take the car for verification if required.</p><p>I know it used to be easy to hook up an electric drill to turn it back, but I believe it was over 30 years ago that an indicator was included so you could see if it had been turned back. Not sure how easy it would be with the new digital ones. In any case, I doubt there are that great a number of people willing to go to the trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How is someone who drives less better at driving ?
Not the issue -- it 's a matter of exposure.Just this morning I heard a guy on the radio who is a trucker and drives 80 miles to his job .
That 's about an hour and a half to ( early morning ) and maybe two hours home , possibly tired after a long day at the wheel.In any case , it 's not as if minute tracking is needed to see who drives a lot -- just examine the speedo yearly .
My insurance company used to just ask me for the reading each year at renewal time .
Most people likely have a local branch where they could take the car for verification if required.I know it used to be easy to hook up an electric drill to turn it back , but I believe it was over 30 years ago that an indicator was included so you could see if it had been turned back .
Not sure how easy it would be with the new digital ones .
In any case , I doubt there are that great a number of people willing to go to the trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is someone who drives less better at driving?
Not the issue -- it's a matter of exposure.Just this morning I heard a guy on the radio who is a trucker and drives 80 miles to his job.
That's about an hour and a half to (early morning) and maybe two hours home, possibly tired after a long day at the wheel.In any case, it's not as if minute tracking is needed to see who drives a lot -- just examine the speedo yearly.
My insurance company used to just ask me for the reading each year at renewal time.
Most people likely have a local branch where they could take the car for verification if required.I know it used to be easy to hook up an electric drill to turn it back, but I believe it was over 30 years ago that an indicator was included so you could see if it had been turned back.
Not sure how easy it would be with the new digital ones.
In any case, I doubt there are that great a number of people willing to go to the trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734839</id>
	<title>I'm in the same boat</title>
	<author>SuperKendall</author>
	<datestamp>1247824020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a consultant, I'm not out commuting every day of the week though I do drive a few times.</p><p>However, I like to go on long, multi-hundred mile road trips just like you.  There's no consideration in this plan to say if I'm driving in a city or not, or even accounting for where I put the miles on at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a consultant , I 'm not out commuting every day of the week though I do drive a few times.However , I like to go on long , multi-hundred mile road trips just like you .
There 's no consideration in this plan to say if I 'm driving in a city or not , or even accounting for where I put the miles on at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a consultant, I'm not out commuting every day of the week though I do drive a few times.However, I like to go on long, multi-hundred mile road trips just like you.
There's no consideration in this plan to say if I'm driving in a city or not, or even accounting for where I put the miles on at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734651</id>
	<title>Use trips, not miles</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use number of trips, not miles -- just like when comparing whether airlines are safer than cars:</p><p>http://www.midtod.com/98autumn/airline.phtml</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use number of trips , not miles -- just like when comparing whether airlines are safer than cars : http : //www.midtod.com/98autumn/airline.phtml</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use number of trips, not miles -- just like when comparing whether airlines are safer than cars:http://www.midtod.com/98autumn/airline.phtml</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735801</id>
	<title>Re:Bell curve???</title>
	<author>HeLLFiRe1151</author>
	<datestamp>1247830080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Because Bob lives on the busiest freeway in America, drives a piece of shit that can't go more than 45 downhill. Jim on the other hand lives out in the country, never sees a car on the road, drives 30 miles a day to go to work, on the way home he hits a deer once a year and has supper. I hate Bob's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Because Bob lives on the busiest freeway in America , drives a piece of shit that ca n't go more than 45 downhill .
Jim on the other hand lives out in the country , never sees a car on the road , drives 30 miles a day to go to work , on the way home he hits a deer once a year and has supper .
I hate Bob 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because Bob lives on the busiest freeway in America, drives a piece of shit that can't go more than 45 downhill.
Jim on the other hand lives out in the country, never sees a car on the road, drives 30 miles a day to go to work, on the way home he hits a deer once a year and has supper.
I hate Bob's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>YrWrstNtmr</author>
	<datestamp>1247822400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>On the surface, that sounds good. But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates? Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents? Or differentiating between different cars. A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra. Same insurance rate at the pump?</htmltext>
<tokenext>On the surface , that sounds good .
But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates ?
Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents ?
Or differentiating between different cars .
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra .
Same insurance rate at the pump ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the surface, that sounds good.
But how do you differentiate between drivers and their rates?
Should a driver with a 20 year perfect record pay the same as a 19 year old with 4 speeding tickets and 2 serious accidents?
Or differentiating between different cars.
A VW Beetle vs a Mustang Cobra.
Same insurance rate at the pump?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738171</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247850540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I've always wanted an RevOdometer (or hours of operation meter) on cars anyway. That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida, or used as a taxi cab.</i> </p><p>You are exactly the kind of motherfucking, nanny-state snoop that rational people sneer at. It's none of your bug-fucking business what I do with my car. If I want to hook a hundred gallon tank to my car and leave the son of a bitch in my driveway all day long with the engine racing it's absolutely nothing you have a role in deciding.</p><p>Up your asshole with white-hot barbed wire, you fucking busybody prick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've always wanted an RevOdometer ( or hours of operation meter ) on cars anyway .
That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you 're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida , or used as a taxi cab .
You are exactly the kind of motherfucking , nanny-state snoop that rational people sneer at .
It 's none of your bug-fucking business what I do with my car .
If I want to hook a hundred gallon tank to my car and leave the son of a bitch in my driveway all day long with the engine racing it 's absolutely nothing you have a role in deciding.Up your asshole with white-hot barbed wire , you fucking busybody prick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've always wanted an RevOdometer (or hours of operation meter) on cars anyway.
That way you could tell if the used Crown Vic you're about to buy was used mostly on highway trips to and from Minnesota to Florida, or used as a taxi cab.
You are exactly the kind of motherfucking, nanny-state snoop that rational people sneer at.
It's none of your bug-fucking business what I do with my car.
If I want to hook a hundred gallon tank to my car and leave the son of a bitch in my driveway all day long with the engine racing it's absolutely nothing you have a role in deciding.Up your asshole with white-hot barbed wire, you fucking busybody prick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734193</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734333</id>
	<title>Re:Oh crap.</title>
	<author>CRiMSON</author>
	<datestamp>1247821980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's the insurance on a router? And which model are you using? I could see one of those big 10k systems being road worthy, but puttering around on 2100 series, you sir are a brave man!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's the insurance on a router ?
And which model are you using ?
I could see one of those big 10k systems being road worthy , but puttering around on 2100 series , you sir are a brave man !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's the insurance on a router?
And which model are you using?
I could see one of those big 10k systems being road worthy, but puttering around on 2100 series, you sir are a brave man!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737297</id>
	<title>Re:MyRate by Progressive</title>
	<author>R3d M3rcury</author>
	<datestamp>1247840520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>5\% = safety discount (stay below 75mph and the discount is yours)</p></div><p>Hmm...Nah.  Not worth it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>5 \ % = safety discount ( stay below 75mph and the discount is yours ) Hmm...Nah .
Not worth it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>5\% = safety discount (stay below 75mph and the discount is yours)Hmm...Nah.
Not worth it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734439</id>
	<title>Re:Not just privacy concerns</title>
	<author>tilandal</author>
	<datestamp>1247822520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't be absurd man! If the government offered insurance to people at cost then it would be cheaper then any private insurance company. Soon Big Government insurance will drive all the other insurance companies out of business!</p><p>Really! I mean it!</p><p>Please just ignore all the money insurance lobbyists are paying me.</p><p>Please....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't be absurd man !
If the government offered insurance to people at cost then it would be cheaper then any private insurance company .
Soon Big Government insurance will drive all the other insurance companies out of business ! Really !
I mean it ! Please just ignore all the money insurance lobbyists are paying me.Please... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't be absurd man!
If the government offered insurance to people at cost then it would be cheaper then any private insurance company.
Soon Big Government insurance will drive all the other insurance companies out of business!Really!
I mean it!Please just ignore all the money insurance lobbyists are paying me.Please....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823</id>
	<title>MyRate by Progressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247823960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MyRate by Progressive (as mentioned in the summary) has been around for quite some time (in select states) and I am a longtime customer.   Here is how it works:</p><p>You get a computer chip that installs on the ODBCII port on your computer.   Every 6 months (when you renu your policy), you pull out the chip, plug it into your computer via USB, and upload the data with your policy renewal request.  You can view charts of your driving speeds, times, etc.</p><p>Progressive then offers you a discount percentage off of your base premium.  They have an explicit policy that utilizing this chip cannot INCREASE your premium, only give you the option of a discount (in other words, we overprice our policy, but give you an option to recoup it if you drive less)</p><p>The discounts are as follows:<br>5\% = participation discount<br>5\% = safety discount (stay below 75mph and the discount is yours)<br>up to 10\% = based on driving time / milage.</p><p>The 10\% is calculated roughly as such.<br>At the beginning of the tracking period, you are given a 10\% discount.   then for every mile you drive, that percentage is reduced by a fraction.   That fraction (something around 0.0006\% per mile) is determined based on the time classification you drive.  they have 3 classifications of driving time, low, medium, &amp; high.  High are times such as rush hour, and overnight, medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour, low is everything else.</p><p>Ultimately, with both the safety discount and the amount I drive,  I end up with somewhere around a 16\% discount off my policy renewal.</p><p>It can be compared to the california policy, but in reality the current offered program seems quite different from the proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MyRate by Progressive ( as mentioned in the summary ) has been around for quite some time ( in select states ) and I am a longtime customer .
Here is how it works : You get a computer chip that installs on the ODBCII port on your computer .
Every 6 months ( when you renu your policy ) , you pull out the chip , plug it into your computer via USB , and upload the data with your policy renewal request .
You can view charts of your driving speeds , times , etc.Progressive then offers you a discount percentage off of your base premium .
They have an explicit policy that utilizing this chip can not INCREASE your premium , only give you the option of a discount ( in other words , we overprice our policy , but give you an option to recoup it if you drive less ) The discounts are as follows : 5 \ % = participation discount5 \ % = safety discount ( stay below 75mph and the discount is yours ) up to 10 \ % = based on driving time / milage.The 10 \ % is calculated roughly as such.At the beginning of the tracking period , you are given a 10 \ % discount .
then for every mile you drive , that percentage is reduced by a fraction .
That fraction ( something around 0.0006 \ % per mile ) is determined based on the time classification you drive .
they have 3 classifications of driving time , low , medium , &amp; high .
High are times such as rush hour , and overnight , medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour , low is everything else.Ultimately , with both the safety discount and the amount I drive , I end up with somewhere around a 16 \ % discount off my policy renewal.It can be compared to the california policy , but in reality the current offered program seems quite different from the proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MyRate by Progressive (as mentioned in the summary) has been around for quite some time (in select states) and I am a longtime customer.
Here is how it works:You get a computer chip that installs on the ODBCII port on your computer.
Every 6 months (when you renu your policy), you pull out the chip, plug it into your computer via USB, and upload the data with your policy renewal request.
You can view charts of your driving speeds, times, etc.Progressive then offers you a discount percentage off of your base premium.
They have an explicit policy that utilizing this chip cannot INCREASE your premium, only give you the option of a discount (in other words, we overprice our policy, but give you an option to recoup it if you drive less)The discounts are as follows:5\% = participation discount5\% = safety discount (stay below 75mph and the discount is yours)up to 10\% = based on driving time / milage.The 10\% is calculated roughly as such.At the beginning of the tracking period, you are given a 10\% discount.
then for every mile you drive, that percentage is reduced by a fraction.
That fraction (something around 0.0006\% per mile) is determined based on the time classification you drive.
they have 3 classifications of driving time, low, medium, &amp; high.
High are times such as rush hour, and overnight, medium are weekends &amp; lunch hour, low is everything else.Ultimately, with both the safety discount and the amount I drive,  I end up with somewhere around a 16\% discount off my policy renewal.It can be compared to the california policy, but in reality the current offered program seems quite different from the proposal.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735223</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>Duradin</author>
	<datestamp>1247826240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'd be a great time to get into making your own bio-diesel or alcohol fuels.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be a great time to get into making your own bio-diesel or alcohol fuels .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be a great time to get into making your own bio-diesel or alcohol fuels.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733929</id>
	<title>Bike, nigga stole my bike!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247863560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>aaadddriaaaannn</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>aaadddriaaaannn</tokentext>
<sentencetext>aaadddriaaaannn</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734343</id>
	<title>Just one more reason</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247822100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To avoid Kalifornia.....the Land of Fruits and Nuts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To avoid Kalifornia.....the Land of Fruits and Nuts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To avoid Kalifornia.....the Land of Fruits and Nuts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735077</id>
	<title>Re:I don't get it</title>
	<author>pesho</author>
	<datestamp>1247825340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not just how much you drive. </p><p>I participated in a survey by an insurance company to test the feasibility of all this. They used a device connected to the OBD II port, that collected a lot more data than just the miles driven. They logged every trip for duration, distance and continuously recorded speed, acceleration and braking rates. </p><p>The device didn't have a GPS so they didn't know where I was driving. I understand in Texas some insurance companies also did trials with GPS enabled devices.</p><p>So they can apply really fine grained risk assessment, based on how you drive, where you drive what tome of the day you drive, etc.  On the other hand they can use every single bit of data to jack up your rate - you don't brake smooth enough - 5\% penalty, you press the pedal to the metal - 10\%, you drive on the 404 - 30\%, you do all this between 4 and 6pm - another 20\%.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not just how much you drive .
I participated in a survey by an insurance company to test the feasibility of all this .
They used a device connected to the OBD II port , that collected a lot more data than just the miles driven .
They logged every trip for duration , distance and continuously recorded speed , acceleration and braking rates .
The device did n't have a GPS so they did n't know where I was driving .
I understand in Texas some insurance companies also did trials with GPS enabled devices.So they can apply really fine grained risk assessment , based on how you drive , where you drive what tome of the day you drive , etc .
On the other hand they can use every single bit of data to jack up your rate - you do n't brake smooth enough - 5 \ % penalty , you press the pedal to the metal - 10 \ % , you drive on the 404 - 30 \ % , you do all this between 4 and 6pm - another 20 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not just how much you drive.
I participated in a survey by an insurance company to test the feasibility of all this.
They used a device connected to the OBD II port, that collected a lot more data than just the miles driven.
They logged every trip for duration, distance and continuously recorded speed, acceleration and braking rates.
The device didn't have a GPS so they didn't know where I was driving.
I understand in Texas some insurance companies also did trials with GPS enabled devices.So they can apply really fine grained risk assessment, based on how you drive, where you drive what tome of the day you drive, etc.
On the other hand they can use every single bit of data to jack up your rate - you don't brake smooth enough - 5\% penalty, you press the pedal to the metal - 10\%, you drive on the 404 - 30\%, you do all this between 4 and 6pm - another 20\%.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737775</id>
	<title>Re:insurance at the gas pump</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1247845020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump. No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>It would be great for ensuring people against damage I do with my push lawn mower sometimes. Currently they have to pay out of their pocket!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump .
No more uninsured drivers , plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving .
It would be great for ensuring people against damage I do with my push lawn mower sometimes .
Currently they have to pay out of their pocket !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd always thought it would be a neat idea to roll auto insurance in at the gas pump.
No more uninsured drivers, plus it would be an incentive to reduce driving.
It would be great for ensuring people against damage I do with my push lawn mower sometimes.
Currently they have to pay out of their pocket!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735875
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734485
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734899
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28742557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735603
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734311
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741731
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736965
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735047
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735857
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734649
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735451
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734435
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734193
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734727
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734465
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737339
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734005
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734099
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738473
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734915
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735429
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736747
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735743
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735241
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734967
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736935
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734673
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737775
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737163
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_17_1650214_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740095
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734013
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734453
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734015
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734649
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738295
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734383
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735451
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734899
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734439
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734427
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735429
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735603
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735329
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734497
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734945
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734839
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734673
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734705
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734061
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734311
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734915
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734117
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734331
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737339
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740173
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734257
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734465
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736747
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734103
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735105
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735875
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741731
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735743
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734485
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736935
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28740309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736965
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734033
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738473
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28741417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734005
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735335
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735857
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735351
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735449
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735693
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28733973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734099
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734089
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734193
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28738171
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736259
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735057
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734333
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734035
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734379
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734557
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734519
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735223
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737775
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734727
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735047
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737003
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736123
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734789
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735161
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734541
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28736021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735417
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735091
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28742557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735741
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734823
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28739053
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737297
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734137
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_17_1650214.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734177
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28735725
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28737163
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_17_1650214.28734967
</commentlist>
</conversation>
