Bell Black Box - 3 months...

[QBee]

blueg33 said:

When I went from 3 to 9 poinys via two speeding tickets in the same week, the cost of my premium went up by £5 on a £500 policy. Clearly that insurer didnt really see speeding as an increased risk.

They were probably impressed by a man who coud go that fast twice in a week in a Reliant Robin.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

supermono said:

Are we at the dawning of the new era where insurance companies charging extra for speeding tickets get busted for profiteering. I mean nobody who's thought this through believes that habitual speeders would crash more,.

You haven't thought it thru. Most people speed at some point, but the more you speed the more likely you are to get a speeding ticket. The odd speeding fine may or may not prove anything, and many insurance companies charge no extra for one offence, and some do. Each insurer will go off their own stats. But someone with 6 or more points for speeding certainly is a higher accident risk. That's why insurers charge more.

As insurance firms are in cut throat competition with each other for market share, if that weren't true, at least one would break ranks and offer people with multiple speeding offences insurance at no extra cost, and clean up on that profitable business. But they don't, because the have the stats to show extra insurance costs are justified.

When I went from 3 to 9 poinys via two speeding tickets in the same week, the cost of my premium went up by £5 on a £500 policy. Clearly that insurer didnt really see speeding as an increased risk.

Maybe so, on your age group. I'd bet it would may more difference for a younger driver. The computer systems now have the ability to cross reference various factors. So they can work out what factors have an effect in what postcodes and at what age group.

[BertBert]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe so, on your age group. I'd bet it would may more difference for a younger driver. The computer systems now have the ability to cross reference various factors. So they can work out what factors have an effect in what postcodes and at what age group.

They could save oodles of money by scrapping those daft computer systems and the super brainy but rather dull act-you-aries and relying on the PH pundits instead
Bert

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BertBert said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe so, on your age group. I'd bet it would may more difference for a younger driver. The computer systems now have the ability to cross reference various factors. So they can work out what factors have an effect in what postcodes and at what age group.

They could save oodles of money by scrapping those daft computer systems and the super brainy but rather dull act-you-aries and relying on the PH pundits instead
Bert

True. Why pay some chinless wonder in a suit with a first from Harvard in Applied Mathematics thousands of pounds a year when all the answers are available free on here.

[rs1952]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

rs1952 said:

When I had just turned 16 in June 1968, I went off in my best clothes to the local insurance broker to get insurance for my 1955 Francis Barnett 250cc 2-stroke bike.

I thought you had to be 17 to ride a 250, even in 1968.

No - you could ride up to a 250 on L-plates. It was changed sometime in the 1970s

Having said that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I was wrong - the Francis Barnett was 197cc not 250cc!

[KingNothing]

Two of the cheaper premiums on a comparison site, I've came up with on my car are black box ones, not by much though. But I didn't buy an RS to drive to someone's arbitrary standards, so I'll gladly pay more for insurance, not to be monitored.

[blueg33]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

supermono said:

Are we at the dawning of the new era where insurance companies charging extra for speeding tickets get busted for profiteering. I mean nobody who's thought this through believes that habitual speeders would crash more,.

You haven't thought it thru. Most people speed at some point, but the more you speed the more likely you are to get a speeding ticket. The odd speeding fine may or may not prove anything, and many insurance companies charge no extra for one offence, and some do. Each insurer will go off their own stats. But someone with 6 or more points for speeding certainly is a higher accident risk. That's why insurers charge more.

As insurance firms are in cut throat competition with each other for market share, if that weren't true, at least one would break ranks and offer people with multiple speeding offences insurance at no extra cost, and clean up on that profitable business. But they don't, because the have the stats to show extra insurance costs are justified.

When I went from 3 to 9 poinys via two speeding tickets in the same week, the cost of my premium went up by £5 on a £500 policy. Clearly that insurer didnt really see speeding as an increased risk.

Maybe so, on your age group. I'd bet it would may more difference for a younger driver. The computer systems now have the ability to cross reference various factors. So they can work out what factors have an effect in what postcodes and at what age group.

Possib;y, I was 44.

[ma9mwah]

LoonR1 said:

rs1952 said:

When I had just turned 16 in June 1968, I went off in my best clothes to the local insurance broker to get insurance for my 1955 Francis Barnett 250cc 2-stroke bike.

TPF&T annual premium cost me £4..10..0d (that's £4.50 to our younger brethren ) A couple of years later when the thieving barstewards put the premium up to £9.00 I took my business elsewhere.

Things have move on a little since then, I presume...

Houses cost about £150 in 1968

Cars were £50

The average wage was about £20 a year

I know I've made those numbers up, but £4.50 was probably a lot of money then.

average wage back then was £1500 (~23k in todays money), so £4 10s is ~£70 in todays money, assuming average inflation rate.

[rs1952]

LoonR1 said:

Houses cost about £150 in 1968

Cars were £50

The average wage was about £20 a year

I know I've made those numbers up, but £4.50 was probably a lot of money then.

Yes you made the numbers up - I hope that isn't a reflection of your company's insurance quotes

Houses started at about £2500,or ones you could live in anyway. I bought my first house in 1972 for £1500 as a complete renovation/ modernisation project. How the bricks were still standing on top of each other was anybody's guess...

You could buy a shed for £50, but even a new Reliant Robin would set you back just over £500.

Somebody on £1000 a year was doing well. I didn't get there until 1970

£4.50 was not in fact a lot of money. With beer at about 2 bob a pint (10p) it was the equivalent of 45 pints. Rather a lot to drink in one session but I know men who will manage that over the course of a week.

[Devil2575]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BertBert said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Maybe so, on your age group. I'd bet it would may more difference for a younger driver. The computer systems now have the ability to cross reference various factors. So they can work out what factors have an effect in what postcodes and at what age group.

They could save oodles of money by scrapping those daft computer systems and the super brainy but rather dull act-you-aries and relying on the PH pundits instead
Bert

True. Why pay some chinless wonder in a suit with a first from Harvard in Applied Mathematics thousands of pounds a year when all the answers are available free on here.

[Countdown]

KingNothing said:

Two of the cheaper premiums on a comparison site, I've came up with on my car are black box ones, not by much though. But I didn't buy an RS to drive to someone's arbitrary standards, so I'll gladly pay more for insurance, not to be monitored.

Not sure why you're so scared of the monitoring.

Worst case scenario - they decide you're a risky driver and they increase your premium next year (you've saved money this year). Best case scenario - they decide you're an excellent driver and reduce your premium next year. (So you end up saving money this year AND next year).

I fail to see what the problem is.

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

Not sure why you're so scared of the monitoring.

Worst case scenario - they decide you're a risky driver and they increase your premium next year (you've saved money this year). Best case scenario - they decide you're an excellent driver and reduce your premium next year. (So you end up saving money this year AND next year).

I fail to see what the problem is.

The problem is that they often adjust premiums as you go. They may also keep driving data on record and apply it in a fee years time or share it with other insurers.

[KingNothing]

Countdown said:

KingNothing said:

Two of the cheaper premiums on a comparison site, I've came up with on my car are black box ones, not by much though. But I didn't buy an RS to drive to someone's arbitrary standards, so I'll gladly pay more for insurance, not to be monitored.

Not sure why you're so scared of the monitoring.

Worst case scenario - they decide you're a risky driver and they increase your premium next year (you've saved money this year). Best case scenario - they decide you're an excellent driver and reduce your premium next year. (So you end up saving money this year AND next year).

I fail to see what the problem is.

I bought a performance car, to enable me to go fast when safely possible, it negates the whole point of owning the car if I can't use it's performance, given that hard acceleration and hard braking are seemingly two of the arbitrary groups of data they use to determine if you're a safe driver or not. If I'd went for black box insurance I may as well have bought the slowest least powerful version of the car they did to ensure a better chance of not violating their "standards of driving".

I can tell you I've seen a whole lot more risky drivers who haven't been the hard accelerating or hard braking type of driver, i.e. as mentioned before; idiots changing lanes without indicating, using wrong lanes for manoeuvres, tailgating, driving too close in wet conditions, and joining NSL dual carriageways/motorways at 30mph to name but a few. All of which isn't picked up by black box insurance, and as such I wont give any validity to the practice of black box insurance by buying into it, so I'd rather just pay more and abstain from having someone monitoring my driving.

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

Not sure why you're so scared of the monitoring.

Worst case scenario - they decide you're a risky driver and they increase your premium next year (you've saved money this year). Best case scenario - they decide you're an excellent driver and reduce your premium next year. (So you end up saving money this year AND next year).

I fail to see what the problem is.

The problem is that they often adjust premiums as you go. They may also keep driving data on record and apply it in a fee years time or share it with other insurers.

[Countdown]

blueg33 said:

The problem is that they often adjust premiums as you go. They may also keep driving data on record and apply it in a fee years time or share it with other insurers.

IIRC my daughter's with Hastings Smartmiles and they don't. I'm not sure why they would share with other insurers as surely they would lose any competitive advantage. In any case she's at least £1000 better off so its worth doing from her point of view. Plus she's got a free Tracker effectively

[TwigtheWonderkid]

rs1952 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

rs1952 said:

When I had just turned 16 in June 1968, I went off in my best clothes to the local insurance broker to get insurance for my 1955 Francis Barnett 250cc 2-stroke bike.

I thought you had to be 17 to ride a 250, even in 1968.

No - you could ride up to a 250 on L-plates. It was changed sometime in the 1970s

Having said that, thanks for bringing it to my attention. I was wrong - the Francis Barnett was 197cc not 250cc!

I know you could ride up to 250 on L plates, I did it myself. But you had to be 17. At 16 you could only ride up to 50cc. That was the case in the late 70s. Not sure about 1968.

[berlintaxi]

blueg33 said:

The problem is that they often adjust premiums as you go. They may also keep driving data on record and apply it in a fee years time or share it with other insurers.

No they don't, I think you need to loosen the tin foil hat a little.

[blueg33]

berlintaxi said:

blueg33 said:

The problem is that they often adjust premiums as you go. They may also keep driving data on record and apply it in a fee years time or share it with other insurers.

No they don't, I think you need to loosen the tin foil hat a little.

Many policies state that they adjust premiums as they go.

As I said, they probably retain the data, then there is nothing stopping them from applying it to premiums later on.

Edited by blueg33 on Monday 2nd February 12:49

[CallorFold]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

MrBarry123 said:

fk that.

Not a chance of having a funny box thing installed in my car for the sake of £1,500.

For £1500, the claims manager could live in the boot!

He'd be no use as a witness to the accident stuffed in the boot

[mikesalt]

To be honest, the main concern with these is the quality of the installation. I've known people to ask specifically for the wiring loom to not be spliced, only to find on removal that they had indeed spliced the loom to provide power to the device, and a poor splice at that.