skip to main content
10.1145/3126973.3126978acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesiccseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Risky Driving Behavior Scoring Model for the Personalized Automobile Insurance Pricing

Published:06 July 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Telematics1 techniques enable insurers to capture the driving behavior of policyholders and correspondingly offer the personalized vehicle insurance rate, namely the usage-based insurance (UBI). A risky driving behavior scoring model for the personalized automobile insurance pricing was proposed based on telematics data. Firstly, three typical UBI pricing modes were analyzed. Drive behavior rate factors (DBRF) pricing mode was proposed based on mileage rate factors (MRF), in which insurance rate for each vehicle can be determined by the evaluation of individual driving behavior using OBD data. Then, on the basis of the analysis of influencing factors of safe driving, a driving behavior score model was established for DBRF by the improved EW-AHP (Entropy Weight- Analytic Hierarchy Process) Method. Finally, driving behavior scores of 100 drivers were computed by using the data collected from a 6-month field experiment. The results of three statistics analysis showed that the driving behavior score model could effectively reflect the risk level of driver's safe driving and provide a basis for the individual discount or surcharge that insurers offer to their policyholders.

References

  1. Yanagihara M, Uno N, Nakamura T. Latent class analysis for driving behavior on merging section{J}. Transportation Research Procedia, 2015,(6):259--271.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Xingping Yan, Hui Zhang, Chaozhong Wu, et al. Research progress and prospect of road traffic driving behavior {J}. Journal of Transportation Information and Safety, 2013:31(01):45--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell K. Detailed planning for research on making a significant improvement in highway safety: study 2-safety{R}. F-SHRP Web Document 2(NCHRP Project 20-58{2}): Contractor's Final Report, Transportation Research Board of The National Academics, 2003.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Litman T. Pay-As-You-Drive insurance: recommendations for implementation{R}. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Wu K.F, Aguero-Valverde J, Jovanis P.P. Using naturalistic driving data to explore the association between traffic safety-related events and crash risk at driver level {J}. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2014, 72:210--218.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Lotan T, Toledo T. In-Vehicle data recorder for evaluation of driving behavior and safety{J}. Journal of Transportation Research Board, 2006, (1):112--119.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Yulong Pei, Xupeng Zhang. Analysis on bad driving behavior characteristics {J}. Journal of Transportation Information and Safety, 2009, 27(03):81--84.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Mingke Zhang, Haifeng Bai, Xiaofei Xie. Research on driving behavior risk and related factors of driver{J}. Peking University Studies(Natural Science Edition), 2008,44(03):475--482.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. De Winter J.C.F, Dodou D. The driver behavior questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: a meta-analysis {J}. Journal of Safety Research, 2010, 41(6):463--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Haiqin Li, Li Li. Analysis of unsafe driving behavior based on questionnaire {J}. Automobile Applied Technology, 2015, (02):145--148.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Dozza M, Gonzalez N.P. Recognizing safety-critical events from naturalistic driving data {J}. Procedia -- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2012, 48(2307):505--515.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. LITMANT. Distance-based vehicle insurance feasibility, benefits and cost: comprehensive technical report{R}. Viloria Transport Policy Institule, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Progressive Insurance. Linking driving behavior to automobile accidents and insurance rates: an analysis of five billion miles driven{R}.USA, 2014.7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Maclean A.W, Davies D.R.T, Thiele K. The hazards and prevention of driving while be sleepy {J}. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 2003, 7(6):507--521.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Martain J.L. Relationship between crash rate and hourly traffic flow on Interurban motorway{J}. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2002, 34(5):619--629.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Traffic Management Bureau of the Public Security Ministry. Annual report on road traffic accident in China in 2014{R}.2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ferreira J., Minike E. Measuring Per Mile Risk for Pay-As-You-Drive Automobile. Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012, 24 (2297):97--103Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Boucher J. Pay-as-you-drive Insurance: The Effect of the Kilometers on the Risk of Accident, Anales Del Instituto De Actuarios Españoles,2013, 19:135--154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Staplin L, Gish K.W, Joyce J. 'Low mileage bias' and related policy implications -- a cautionary note. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2008,40 (3), 1249--1252.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Langford J, Koppel S, McCarthy D, Srinivasan S. In defence of the 'low-mileage bias'. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2008,40 (6), 1996--1999.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Paefgen J, Staake T, Fleisch E. Multivariate exposure modeling of accident risk: Insights from Pay-as-you-drive insurance data. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 2014,61:27--40.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Davis, Gary A; Davuluri, Sujay; Pei, Jian Ping. A Case Control Study of Speed and Crash Risk, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Elvik, R., Christensen, P. y Amundsen, A. (2004) Speed and road accidents. An evaluation of the Power Model. TØI report 740/2004. Institute of Transport Economics TOI, Oslo.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Jun, J, Ogle, J. y Guensler, R. (2007) Relationships between Crash Involvement and Temporal-Spatial Driving Behavior Activity Patterns: Use of Data for Vehicles with Global Positioning Systems. Transportation Research Record, 2019, 246--255.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Klauer, S. G, T. A. Dingus, V. L. Neale, J. D. Sudweeks, and D. J. Ramsey, 2009. Comparing Real-world Behaviors of Drivers with High versus Low Rates of Crashes and Near-crashes, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 811 091.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell Henk, P.E, Val Pezoldt, Bernie Fette, Shedding light on the nighttime driving risk. An analysis of fatal crashes under dark conditions in the U.S., 1999--2008. Texas Transportation Institution, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Klauer S.G. Risky driving report{R}. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Lianzeng Zhang, Baige Duan. Research on effect of mileage on the net insurance premium {J}. Insurance Studies, 2012, (6):29--38.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. No O, Carrol A, Multer J, et al. Research and Special Programs administration. Commerial Transportation Operator Fatigue Management Reference{R}. U.S Department of Transportation 2003.7.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Stuttsa J. C, Wilkinsb J. W, Osbergc J. S, Vaughnb B. V.. Driver risk factors for sleep-related crashes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 35 (2003) 321--331.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Shuzhan Hou, Xiaorui Sun, Yyulong He, et al. Study on the relationship between traffic accident severity and traffic flow characteristics of Freeway{J}. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(09):106--112.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Matthew T.F, Climatology D.F. Chicago O'hare international airport July 1996-April 2002{J}. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 2004, 85(4): 515--517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Nilsson, G. (2004). Traffic safety dimensions and the Power Model to describe the effect of speed on safety. Bulletin 221. Lund Institute of Technology, Department of Technology and Society, Traffic Enginering, Lund.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Jinwei Guo, Xuqiang Fu, Xiang Gao, et al. An improved weight calculation method for multi objective decision making {J}. Journal of Xidian Univerisity(Natural Science Edition), 2014, 41(6):118--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A Risky Driving Behavior Scoring Model for the Personalized Automobile Insurance Pricing

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        ICCSE'17: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Crowd Science and Engineering
        July 2017
        158 pages
        ISBN:9781450353755
        DOI:10.1145/3126973

        Copyright © 2017 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 July 2017

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        ICCSE'17 Paper Acceptance Rate24of66submissions,36%Overall Acceptance Rate92of247submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader