Different Strokes for Different Folks
American Family Insurance is teaming up with a California based tech company to offer parents the chance to put a video camera in their teens' cars to, as the Daily Mail puts it, "spy on their teenager's habits behind the wheel."
Apparently, the purpose of the camera is to encourage teens to drive sensibly since, in the case of an accident, the lead up will be recorded, allowing the insurance company and parents to determine if the teen was texting, or doing make up, or being otherwise imprudent on the road.
The question of how and when parents monitor the activities of their children was a hot topic at the NYU lunch table today, but we did not hit on this particular permutation with the external device. However, the answer to the question of how this should be resolved from a libertarian perspective is perfectly clear, albeit clear in way that does not address the question of whether the parents should oversee their children. Rather, as with most libertarian approaches, the first question is who should make this decision, not how it should be made.
The 'different strokes' principle is a simple way to reinforce the point that all parents and all children — and a fortiori all relationships -- differ from each other in different ways. At this point, the advantages of a decentralized solution becomes apparent precisely because the need and the receptivity to it will vary by pair. It is a mistake to assume that the parents will call the shots because they have legal authority. As guardians they have to bargain with their children, where the term “bargain” has to be put into quotation markets because of the obvious overlap of interests between the two sides. So we could see different treatments for different children, or for the same children on a Saturday night but not on a Thursday afternoon. Let them sort it out, and in general the tendencies will gravitate in the right direction.
Naturally, there are wrinkles. The insurance company could say that these devices are required as a condition of coverage, or they could hold out carrots instead of sticks by offering premium reductions for families with teenage drivers that follow this maxim, which could incline the choice. But this is a good thing, for the insurance company is a loose proxy for third party injuries which are not brought to bear on the family decisions. And in other contexts, the state could be still more coercive, if the same condition is imposed on people who have lost their licenses because of serious traffic offenses. So keep the line between coercion and cooperation clear and the matter will sort out the role of the new technology with tolerable dispatch. Try to freeze from statutory prohibition or mandate — it does not matter which -- and the situation will only get worse.
- Comment (14)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
It boils down to a question of third party access. As long as no one but the parents has access to the video, it's no big deal. If some pervert at the insurance company is looking for video of teenagers getting on... then there's a problem.
And is the video only accessible after an accident? Is it transmitted or only recorded?
Jul '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Given the rate of teenage pregnancy, perhaps those cameras should focus on the back seat....
Jul '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Kenneth: Given the rate of teenage pregnancy, perhaps those cameras should focus on the back seat.... · Jan 26 at 2:18pm
You're just hoping for copies.
Aug '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
The problem with insurance companies getting involved in this way is that they are only concerned - rightly so - about money. They are not concerned about raising children and allowing teenagers to learn to make their own decisions.
Having a camera record everything your teenager does behind the wheel demonstrates a profound lack of trust and is bad parenting in my judgement. Of course this sort of question does not interest the insurance company one whit, which is why I would be against making this mandatory in any way.
Edited on Jan 26, 2011 at 2:55pmMay '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
I just showed this to my pre-licensed 16-year-old. She was aghast. She, too, thinks it violates the trust factor big time.
May '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
I'm sorry. What? Why do minor children need to be driving?
Dec '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
As a parent, I couldn't care less about my kid's right to privacy where his mother and I are concerned. It does not follow that insurance companies should share that attitude.
It sounds as if the camera described is to be monitored only if an accident takes place, and then only for a short period before the accident in which some contributing factor might be discovered. If this is the case, and if those attributes could be enforced by the hardware used, my consent for the installation would be a no-brainer. Just give me a discount.
Oct '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
There operative phrase here is,"Wrinkles". Having been a teen long ago and having had a few to raise. Experience speaks to building trust in actions rather than nannyism. In most cases today a GPS will speak to what needs to be spoken to.
Insurance comanies will take no interest in this, only special interest groups who like to make loud noises, thump their chests and think they will make a better life for everything that walks, crawls or flies.
Reasonable folk understand about the peril in letting the "Camels Nose Into the Tent" Yet seem to overlook the "Function Creep" that comes with all the other ignored.
Nov '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
The great thing about Richard's post is how much you learn when you read them.
Dec '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Frozen Chosen: ...
Having a camera record everything your teenager does behind the wheel demonstrates a profound lack of trust and is bad parenting in my judgement. ... · Jan 26 at 2:52pm
I follow the Ronald Reagan International Diplomacy school of parenting; Trust but verify. I don't want to know exactly what my kids are doing at every particular moment. And I wouldn't have the time to monitor hours of recordings even if I had the desire.
But I have specific duties as a parent, duties that sometimes involve a perceived invasion of my kids' privacy. Of course, there should be a reason, even if that reason is known only to me. If that ruins a friendship, I can live with that.
I'd like to be my kids' friend but I have an obligation to be their parent.
Sep '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Anybody that goes for this to reduce insurance rates might regret it. The old saying "careful what you wish for ..." I think applies here. Say your teen was in an accident that was predominantly the other person's fault but could be partly the teen's fault due to a lack of instantaneous response to avoid an accident. The accident from the teen's perspective will magnify their culpability to the point the other driver could be let off the hook. Now if everyone had a camera in their car then the playing field would be leveled. After all, if we can be potential scofflaws for texting while walking why not force us all to have cameras in our cars, both for the front and back seats?
Nov '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
Last summer, 1 month after he got his license, my son rolled his vehicle in an accident that he was lucky to walk away from. I hope that he learned something from that. Certainly watching them tow his pride and joy away, never to be seen again, was something. But I simply know he was doing something he shouldn't do. I wish I had a camera in the car to know for sure. But, if I had the choice to go back and have the camera and now know, I wouldn't have the camera. At some point you simply have to trust your child, and let him take ownership of his own life. I agree with the others that it's a slippery slope. Pretty soon the insurance companies will mandate you have the camera, and cops will be able to review the content of the camera if the have probable cause. All in all, a bad idea.
Jan '11
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
I would think that the penalty of wrecking my car, getting hurt, or hurting someone else might be enough incentive to convince me to drive safely. If you feel the need to put a camera on your kids when they get behind the wheel, you've got bigger problems than safe driving.
Consequently, I'm not sure I would want to be paid to film myself driving.
Jul '10
Re: Different Strokes for Different Folks
When I drove Limmo for a local company (Between Network Admin Jobs) they installed thos cameras in all of the vheicles.
Every driver was resentful of Big Brother watching everything we did. (Me Too!)
After a year though, you couldn't find a driver who didn't love those cameras. You see, every accident we had, was recorded. And we all knew, when the camera cleared Each and Every company driver of any misconduct leading up to the accident, that without that video we'd have been found liable because of the companies deep pockets.
Oh, and the company found their insurance rates dropped dramatically after the first year as well.
Any time you have an incident exceeding 6 Gs in any direction the camera records 10 to 20 seconds before and after the event. The camera's incident recordings are copied to a Laptop computer via a usb (rs232 at the time) cable. In the event of an accident it is downloaded by the investigating officer.
Also note, the camera records both the driver and the forward view the driver sees.
Edited on Jan 27, 2011 at 12:57am