> If the behavior is not predictively relate increased claims activity, then it wouldn't be penalized. They won't just say "driving 5 mph over the speed limit on the highways raises rates" for no reason.
You're assuming the insurance company has perfect information.
That's the problem with all of this. The insurance company isn't in the car. They don't know why you're doing what you're doing.
And the problem is you get what you measure. Changing lanes without signalling will make an accident more likely 85% of the time but make it less likely 15% of the time. If you're penalized 100% of the time then all the people who were doing the right thing in every case will now, in order to keep their insurance rates low, start doing the wrong thing 15% of the time.
Perhaps the insurance companies' models would (with enough data) learn to use 85% as the optimal value, and penalise deviation from that, rather than deviation from 100%
So then people will look at their statistics and start making unnecessary lane changes and so on for the sole purpose of fixing their numbers.
Unless you don't actually tell them what you expect them to do. Then you end up creating a whole new class of crazy folklore about what to do to lower your insurance rates that people follow religiously even when it's obviously irrational.
If you want a computer to decide how to drive then get a self-driving car.
You're assuming the insurance company has perfect information.
That's the problem with all of this. The insurance company isn't in the car. They don't know why you're doing what you're doing.
And the problem is you get what you measure. Changing lanes without signalling will make an accident more likely 85% of the time but make it less likely 15% of the time. If you're penalized 100% of the time then all the people who were doing the right thing in every case will now, in order to keep their insurance rates low, start doing the wrong thing 15% of the time.