Retention is the key to the imminent rise of usage-based insurance. More accurate rating and customer acquisition may be the immediate motivations for insurance companies, but only customer retention has the power to transform the industry – and reduce carbon emissions in the process. These conclusions were clear from the Telematics Update Insurance Telematics event two weeks ago in Chicago. Returning home from the event, though, I was soon inundated with the daily tidal wave of car insurance advertisements on U.S. television. The multiple offers of the deepest discounts, lowest deductibles and superior service seemed like far more relevant messages to me as a consumer than the proposition of allowing the insurance company to monitor my driving behavior. Allowing an insurance company to monitor my behavior, to me, sounds like a particular circle of Hell inconceivable to even the vivid imagination of Dante. What I was forgetting in this kneejerk reaction is the equal and opposite force within me (or most consumers I presume) that is powerfully drawn to any discount – no matter how small – particularly if it is associated with cheaper car insurance – a product one pays handsomely for and hopes never to use. (Because if you use it you may lose it or end up paying more for it in the future.) The offers on television from Progressive, Nationwide, AllState, State Farm, Farmers and others addressed all of my concerns as a consumer. There were discounted rates earned by parents extended to teenage children. There were deductibles that decline over time when there are no claims. There were offers to top competing discounts. UBI insurance offers the prospect of cutting through the advertising clutter with a message that has the power to draw in new drivers while making them long-term committed subscribers in the process. On the surface, usage-based insurance looks like an expensive proposition (for the insurer) built around the concept of providing discounts to an insurance company’s best customers, according to multiple presenters at the Insurance Telematics event. So let me get this straight:  As an insurer I am going to spend millions of dollars to create a data acquisition and management system and deploy wireless monitoring devices all so I can charge my customers less money? It truly sounds crazy, until one understands the challenges of providing insurance. (No tears, please.) The insurance industry has few reliable tools to offer consumers proper insurance rates. What to the consumer appears to be a generally expensive product is priced based on an opaque process based on age, gender and location and a limited amount of driving history such as infractions, accidents and mileage. The industry was recently revolutionized by the deployment of credit scoring as a rating tool. Not surprisingly, credit bureaus featured prominently among attendees at the Insurance Telematics event. Credit scores, the early insurance company pioneers such as Progressive discovered, were an excellent segmentation tool and proxy for assessing risk. Possessing a more accurate tool for determining risk meant that underwriters using this tool could confidently justify deeper discounts than competitors and they won truckloads of business as a result. Of course, competitors soon learned about the new risk proxy and all companies began using credit scores for segmentation and risk analysis. Usage-based insurance is the new proxy and insurance companies are wary of missing a competitive advantage. From presentations at the event it is clear that the early movers in UBI insurance have learned that the process must be as simple as possible. As a result, Progressive has shifted from an OBDII plug-in device that had to be removed and connected to a consumer’s computer, to a wireless module the customer can plug in and forget. (Progressive has already moved on to the next incarnation as well, read on.) Similarly, Octo Telematics, the European pioneer of UBI insurance with more than 1M subscribers via multiple insurance partners, has introduced a device that clamps onto a car battery. This is an alternative to a device that was professionally (and expensively) installed on the vehicle and provided additional services such as stolen vehicle recovery. Multiple exhibitors at Insurance Telematics touted Bluetooth-based or cellular-based OBDII connections for extracting vehicle data – including Directed Electronics, Zoomsafer, Telenor, Walsh Wireless, Numerex, SmartDrive, Scope Technologies, Matrix Technologies, Xact Technologies and Octo Telematics. (Attendees actively discussed word of legal action between Hughes Telematics and insurance and device providers and others over the use of wireless technology for acquiring vehicle data via the OBDII port. Some companies are reported to have settled with Hughes or, as in the case of Progressive, countersued. Suffice it to say that the intellectual property underpinnings of insurance telematics are unresolved.) The powerful interest of consumers in obtaining discounted insurance taken together with the newfound ability of insurance companies to offer discounts based on more accurate risk segmentation is the motivating force behind a revolution poised to sweep the industry. But why is there little or no advertising of UBI insurance in the U.S. when Progressive has been in the game for 12 years? (European advertising of UBI insurance is widespread.) The answer is simple: The insurance industry is governed by 50 different state authorities, some of whom, such as Pennsylvania, have challenged the rating models and others that simply haven’t made their final ruling. (Pennsylvania withheld approval based on their requirement that Progressive disclose the details of there rating model.) Progressive’s SnapShot product is currently available in 23 states. Another learning from the early UBI movers has been that the device need not be indefinitely installed in the vehicle. Insurers active in UBI have learned that a limited time (ie. one month? six months?) “snapshot” of a driver’s driving behavior is sufficient to assess risk and applicable discount. The SnapShot approach also means the device can be removed and plugged into another customer's vehicle for yet another driver assessment.  Of course, this same snapshot is also key to determining which drivers qualify – and insurers have found that not all drivers are suited to UBI programs. As speakers at the Insurance Telematics event repeatedly said: Everyone thinks they are an above-average driver, but only 50% of those can be correct. The key to success in UBI insurance will be to move early. Insurers feel an overpowering need to deploy systems absolutely as quickly as they can because the likelihood is that the first module a customer installs will be his or her last. Once the insurer learns that customer’s driving behavior and can accurately and affordably underwrite their risk, the customer is unlikely to switch insurers. The competing insurer will always be at a disadvantage, not knowing the customer’s driving behavior. For this reason, the industry is struggling to move very quickly in the U.S. in spite of the state regulators and IP issues. UBI has the ability to change the balance of power in the industry and no company wants to be left disarmed. Conclusion: This battle has just begun. Insurers are likely to package offerings built around comprehensive portfolios of driver services such as roadside assistance, navigation and maybe even stolen vehicle recovery to say nothing of on-scene claims reporting – all built around the modules they are bringing to cars. UBI insurance will not only transform the insurance underwriting industry, it also has the potential to alter the relationships between insurers and OEMs. Insurers that deploy telematics systems are in a position to threaten OEM relationships with their own dealers and consumers. Wireless carriers too have skin in the game as insurance applications are already deployed to mobile phone platforms. Insurance companies have powerful leverage over the customer and cannot be ignored by any of these parties and the mobile phone is an alternative path for a UBI deployment. UBI insurance will rapidly achieve ubiquity nationwide. The prospect of obtaining discounts based on driving behavior will lead to some actual improvements in driving behavior but, mainly, it will contribute to a reduction in driving activity overall, which may be the best outcome of UBI deployment. In the end, the insurance industry will achieve the road charging objective of reducing carbon emissions (a Federal goal) which will forever be politically beyond the reach of  Federal authorities. Additional Insights:http://bit.ly/aWhNuC - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/9QCIVw - Automotive Sensor Demand Forecast 2008 to 2017: Global Economic Rebound Sparks Growth - Datatables - Mark Fitzgerald - Automotive Electronics Service http://bit.ly/c0OLhT - Consumer Implications for Smartphone-Vehicle Connectivity  - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/c1nvTq - Consumer Interest High for Connected Safety and Security Services - Chris Schreiner - Automotive Consumer Insights http://bit.ly/9PUqjp - UBI Market Poised for Growth - John Canali - Automotive Multimedia & Communications

Attendees at Ford’s recent launch of the 2011 Explorer at the Newseum in Washington, DC asked company executives if they were worried about the potentially distracting aspects of the MyFord Touch voice-based interface available on the new SUV. The answer from Ford was that MyFord Touch specifically enables hands-free use of vehicle systems allowing the driver to keep hands on the wheel and eyes on the road. This is the message that not all industry participants are grasping. The smartphone is rapidly becoming a platform for delivering safety systems into vehicles and yet leading governmental and non-governmental bodies continue to declare their opposition to the use of mobile devices in cars. The National Safety Council, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation (Ray LaHood) and the American Automobile Association have all declared their opposition to mobile phone use in cars. Public authorities should speed, not impede, the path of technological progress. If smartphones can deliver safety to drivers faster than embedded systems or DSRC-based systems requiring billions of dollars in infrastructure investment, so be it. And new applications from companies such as ImaginYze and Global Mobile Alert, among many others, are making advanced safety technology available via smartphone apps. Fortunately, none of this opposition to mobile phone use in cars has produced national or even local legislation banning mobile phone use altogether. Most laws only go so far as to either ban texting and driving or to require hands-free devices. In some states, teen drivers are forbidden to use mobile phones while driving. Nevertheless, the campaigns continue, including Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone. Germany probably has the best solution in allowing mobile phone use in a car but forbidding the touching of the phone while driving. This seems like an effective and appropriate solution especially since it allows the driver to continue to benefit from the growing range of applications that provide for enhanced safety. Throughout the world the race is on to bring advanced safety systems to cars. The European Union most recently detailed their plans to mandate safety technologies. One can only hope the EU will not proceed to define which technology is used, as in the case of eCall. If there is anything that has slowed down the advance of connected safety systems in European cars it has been the pursuit of a mandated technology on top of the application mandate. Meddling governments – operating with the best of intentions – have repeatedly intruded on new technology development and instead of stimulating innovation and competition have quashed both. In the case of eCall, the in-band modem technology selected by the EU arrives as an already outdated solution that continues to be resisted at the Federal, OEM and public service access point levels. (In contrast, the U.S. is already well on the way to defining and deploying far more flexible digital solutions as part of its Next Generation 911 initiative - http://bit.ly/9jg576.) European research initiatives ranging from SISTER (http://bit.ly/cTiRxx) – which looks at satellite-based safety solutions – to AKTIV (http://bit.ly/b4og1K) – which looks at the efficacy of embedded cellular technology for safety apps – to TeleFOT (http://bit.ly/c9AeT8) – which is assessing nomadic device-based safety systems all reveal the range of available solutions capable of fulfilling the newly-minted EU program of safety system mandates (http://bit.ly/aNDSh1).  Even Ertico’s ADASIS, the Advanced Driver Assist Systems Interface Specification Forum (http://bit.ly/9Lkngj) has been considering smartphone-based solutions. At the most recent ADASIS meeting a solution was presented as part of a separate presentation showing a solution from ImaginYze (http://bit.ly/cUGFpM) offering an augmented reality lane departure warning solution based on a forward facing smartphone camera – a solution long in development - for portable navigation devices - from companies such as Navigon and Elektrobit. (Since its most recent meeting - July 5th - ADASIS has released a specification for map-based ADAS applications - http://bit.ly/axuJrc.) But it doesn’t stop there. About a dozen applications (http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ) have been launched around the concept of limiting mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, most notably Zoomsafer. Interestingly and maybe not surprisingly some of these companies have turned to commercial opportunities to enable safe use of mobile phones for fleet drivers.  Global Mobile Alert offers yet another application suited to both passenger vehicles and commercial applications. A $24.99 (per year) download for Android phones, which just launched two weeks ago, Global Mobile Alert is an application that uses a digital map as a sensor to warn drivers of approaching traffic lights, and school zones or railroad crossings, among other hazardous conditions (http://bit.ly/dhzigZ).  The Global Mobile Alert (GMA) crash avoidance application is the first of its kind and can be deployed in a smartphone or licensed for navigation systems or in-vehicle telematics systems. GMA provides audible alerts when a moving vehicle approaches an intersection at a dangerous predetermined speed. The objective of the application is to overcome driver distraction. (GMA licenses Navteq data for its application, although even Navteq's database does not include every single traffic light, but Navteq was the only available source of this data.) Of course, systems have been tested and are in development to allow a smartphone to actually be aware of the status of upcoming traffic lights. This is not something the GMA app is capable of, but is likely to be available commercially in the near future. Interestingly, an almost identical solution to GMA is in development within the IntelliDrive community using DSRC technology – instead of a map – to alert drivers to oncoming vehicles at dangerous interections. Of course, the DSRC technology, which is years from being deployed, has a wider range of implied applications in that it enables vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communication. In conclusion, government authorities will do well to do their best to avoid unintended consequences in their legistlative activities. The EU no doubt intended to speed the arrival of eCall by getting involved in the standards-setting process. All parties would agree today that the reverse has occurred. Similarly, in the drive to save drivers from distraction and the resulting fatalities, injuries and property damage, elected officials should be mindful of the distraction mitigating capabilities of smartphones. The source of the problem is the source of the solution.

A heated debate over driver distraction animated an otherwise placid confab of the Networked Vehicle Association (NVA) in Palo Alto recently. The distracted driving discussion was led by an attorney and a representative of the National Safety Council (NSC). The significance of the exchange was rooted in the debate over safe use of mobile phones in a moving vehicle. But, of course, with the participation of the NSC the very issue of using any mobile device in a moving vehicle was called into question. The NSC is in favor of an outright ban on all mobile phone use in automobiles. On the legal front, a representative of the Gowlings law firm described how laws were introduced to prohibit radios in cars when car radios were first introduced in the 1920’s. These proposals were defeated, but they laid the groundwork for the current debate. Interestingly, the argument that won the day for preserving the right of the radio to be built into the car was safety. Radios were perceived as preventing accidents by keeping drivers awake. Vehicle and entertainment technologies have changed but the grounds for allowing mobile phone use in the car remain the same – safety. Mobile phones used by motorists are responsible for many more emergency calls than embedded telematics systems. For this reason alone, it makes sense for legislators and the industry to find ways to preserve the right of a driver to use a mobile phone. But the debate over using devices in a moving vehicle has changed with the passing of 80 years since the introduction of car radios. Thanks to 30 academic studies of driver distraction and mobile phone use, a variety of organizations, including the NSC, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the National Research Council, have all concluded that talking on a phone held to the ear is cognitively equivalent to using a hands-free device. The NSC executive at the NVA event further described the types of studies – including brain scans etc. – and the outcomes – including the concept of tunnel vision experienced by distracted drivers. The significance of the findings of these studies, according to the attorney, is that they serve as the precursor to legal action which is the first step on the path to legislation. The findings of the various studies, as detailed by the attorney, included: NHTSA: Lower number of fatalities in states with primary legislation banning cellphone usage while driving; AAA: Degree of driver distraction no greater than tuning a car radio; Carnegie Mellon: MRI scans and simulation demonstrate impaired sensory and motor function equivalent to DWI; Highway Loss Data Institute: No change in loss data due to legislation vs. states without cellphone bans, but study concedes loss data may be inaccurate due to corresponding unmeasured rise in hands-free usage. The findings that have been used to oppose any mobile phone use in a moving vehicle, in turn, are countered by at least three industry studies that conclude that hands-free use of mobile phones is a safe and effective measure to counter distraction. But even the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found no reduction in distraction-related accidents from mobile phone bans. (The standard response from the anti-mobile phone community is that no states in the U.S. have introduced a complete ban on mobile phones that includes a ban on hands-free operation. Hence, existing laws banning phone use but allowing hands-free operation are not true bans and therefore the data cannot be used as an argument against bans.) The NSC representative at the NVA event remained adamant throughout that any and all mobile phone use in the car ought to be forbidden. The attorney concluded that the status of case law was fairly fluid and was influenced not only by the emotional element of fatalities resulting from distracted driving incidents, but also by research. The likelihood of an outright phone ban, though slim, cannot be completely ruled out. But a ban is likely to be unworkable and a step in the wrong direction, especially when considering that existing embedded telematics systems with their on-board phones would be rendered illegal. In an ideal world, the technology problem of managing mobile phone use in a car ought to be resolved with a technological solution, particularly considering that if a mobile phone ban were instituted drivers would find workarounds. The good news is that smartphone applications - such as Zoomsafer and tXtblocker - have been introduced to mitigate distractions from mobile phone use in cars (see Additional Insight below) and auto makers and suppliers - such as Mercedes Benz, Denso and Volvo - have introduced applications that monitor driver behavior to identify and counter driver distraction and drowsiness. In fact, one solution that is available, though not yet built into any systems that have reached the market, combines driver monitoring with a conversational avatar. The concept takes the Mercedes Benz driver drowsiness alert feature to another level by integrating and alerting the call center when a drowsy driver is detected such that, following escalating warnings, the call center can contact the driver to prevent an accident. Alternatively, the system, created by Great Changes – which owns the transportation license for Cognitive Code’s Silvia avatar, can engage the driver in an artificial intelligence-assisted conversation. The irony is that the NSC executive pointed out in his presentation that multiple studies show that it is safer to drive with a passenger. Interaction with a passenger helps keep the driver focused and alert. The Great Changes solution fulfills that requirement and the proactive call center alert aspect is a unique realization of the kind of safety enhancements promised by telematics technology. In conclusion, the attorney at the NVA event suggested that all industry participants monitor distracted driving developments closely, take into account human ingenuity and resolve in creating workarounds for technological safeguards, standardize and continuously evolve standards for telematics, and develop new “low driver impact” user-machine interfaces. Indeed, telematics should be seen as a potential remedy for driver distraction issues and as a safety enhancement to vehicle design. Under the NSC regime even embedded phones – as in OnStar, mBrace or BMW Assist – will be banned. Additional Insight: http://bit.ly/d3FQbQ - CTIA 2010: Distraction Mitigating Apps on Display – Chris Schreiner http://bit.ly/bbhqGj - Voice HMI: Connected Car Opportunities and UX Best Practices - Chris Schreiner

The state of Maryland’s approval of a cellphone ban yesterday – by a slim 24-23 margin – perfectly encapsulated all that is both right and wrong with the current mobile phone ban hysteria. Will people be safer driving cars without mobile phones? Probably. Is it reasonable to ask people to use hands-free technology in the car? Definitely. Is the law enforceable? Maybe. Can all drivers be expected to completely give up mobile phone use in the car? No. The bigger issue, though, is that the objections to mobile phones in cars masks a movement opposed to an even wider array of emerging and existing automotive technologies and in-cabin interfaces. If the industry does not step forward to defend these technologies, consumers will lose and safety will suffer. This is a topic of legitimate concern given the federal interest in in-vehicle interfaces in both the U.S. and the European Union, among other geographies. Twenty states and the District of Columbia currently ban text messaging while driving and six states plus the District require hands-free devices. (Stricter laws are already in place in many European countries.) Advocates for the bill dragged out multiple statistical justifications for the legislation calling to mind the apocryphal phrase attributed to Samuel Clemens, among others: There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. The Washington Post reported that the push to require hands-free devices is seen as a step toward an outright ban on cellphone use by drivers, a prohibition endorsed by the National Safety Council, which blames 1.4M crashes annually on drivers talking on their phones, according to the paper. The Post continues: “Two-thirds of drivers interviewed by AAA's Foundation for Traffic Safety said they thought hands-free cellphone use was less risky. But "scientific research shows that's simply not the case," said Fairley W. Mahlum of the foundation.” The article further cites a recent study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety that “found no declinen in collision rates” once states went hands-free. This leads to the argument surrounding the cognitive equivalence of talking on a mobile phone held to the ear or speaking over a hands-free system. Many experts argue that the two are equivalent, although a similar number disagree. Virginia Tech’s Transportation Institute has weighed in on the cognitive equivalence side finding no added safety in hands-free operation. The Post quotes Jonathan Adkins of the Governors Highway Safety Association: “There's no indication that hands-free is risk-free. You're still on the phone, you're still focused on the conversation, and you're still a distracted driver." The bill approved Wednesday by the Maryland Senate bans handheld use of cellphones except to begin or end a conversation. First-time offenders can be fined $40. Emergency calls would be exempt. Opponents took some of the teeth out of the legislation with a secondary enforcement requirement that prohibits a police officer from stopping a driver solely for using a mobile phone. The officer must have another reason for finding the driver at fault before enforcing the ban. The push to completely ban mobile phones in cars is real and is embodied in Oprah Winfrey’s NoPhoneZone campaign. Is the motivation legitimate? Sure it is. Lives are at stake. But I’d strongly argue against throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The supporters of an outright ban on mobile phones in cars have a larger agenda. They are not just opposed to Ford’s social media integration in cars. They also argue that the OnStar service, with its embedded phone, is too distracting. OnStar!? A recent statement from AAA of New York reflects this anti-technology philosophy: “Technology improvements and applications present a real double-edged sword for motorists. On one hand, improved driver interfaces for essential vehicle controls hold the potential to make driving safer. Voice-activated climate control systems, for example, can help keep motorists’ eyes on the road and hands on the steering wheel. “Applied irresponsibly, however, these technologies might actually make driver distraction worse by giving drivers access to even more non-driving activities (voice-driven e-mail and text messaging, for example) that draw their attention away from safe driving.  Safety concerns must be paramount when technology advances might encourage motorists to spend more time engaged in risky, non-essential tasks like talking on the phone or sending e-mails via voice recognition software. Technology applications that introduce new distractions for drivers work at cross purposes with the many positive things automotive engineers have done for safety. “We’ve seen auto manufacturers miss the mark before with improvements that weren’t really improvements. For example, more than twenty years ago a manufacturer made some models with a touch screen control panel that required drivers to look at the screen to change the radio station or adjust the heat. More recently, another manufacturer’s “all in one” vehicle control system was widely criticized for the visual and mental distraction involved in controlling temperature, radio, navigation, and phone using one knob, several buttons, and a display screen. We must make sure that one step forward in the name of convenience doesn’t take safety two steps backward.” It’s true that we ought to make sure we continue to move forward. But moving forward means embracing technology and harnessing its power to improve safety and convenience in the car. Based on the AAA statement the touchscreen, the iDrive and a host of other innovations might be banned. But why? People can change radio stations today with voice commands as opposed to reaching out for a knob while calibrating the movement of a needle across a dimly lit display. To return to the matter of safe operation of a phone in a vehicle, multiple solutions have been introduced that leverage technology to control mobile phone use in the car including DriveSafe.ly, SafeReader, tXtBlocker, and Auto TxtBak. But most of these applications lack the policy management elements of a ZoomSafer – which allows for the disabling of phone functions while in a moving vehicle. In fact, Zoomsafer's Voicemate has application in both consumer and commercial applications for monitoring, managing or controling driver use of connected devices. The solution recognizes the need for access to connected devices and provides the means for facilitating safe uses. Zoomsafer is offering a technology solution to a technology problem, but it is just one example. New solutions using new interfaces will help the industry steer its way through the challenge of enabling communication in a vehicle. Voice, touch, haptic, gesture, facial recognition, sensor inputs and fusion-based technologies that process all of these inputs are how enhanced safety will be achieved.