RE: Citroen fits insurance black boxes
Discussion
trashbat said:
Of course this relies on the device having enough data and intelligence to differentiate between let's say a police Class 1 (not in an emergency) driver and some freshly passed idiot going for it in a Corsa, but I did say it was perfect...
Which of course there will never be a business case for, which means , eventually, when all cars have them fitted, mr police class 1 will be paying higher on his premiums.
Terminator X said:
MKnight702 said:
I can see the perceived benefits of a monitoring system ...
George Orwell wrote all about it c60 years ago, didn't like the sound of it when I read the book at School and still don't tbh.MKnight702 said:
As has been said before (and will again no doubt) if I am driving slowly down a residential street paying particular attention to parked vehicles and being ready to stop at a moments notice when the child I was prepared for jumps out from behind the transit and I perform the emergency stop so I don't kill them, that would be logged as sudden braking and earmarked as "risk" when in fact the opposite happened. If alternatively, I sped down the same road juggling a coffee and a phone and ended up brushing against the kid "from nowhere" that I didn't expect or see then that wouldn't be logged as "risk".
If, on the other hand, you habitually drive down residential streets at such a speed and with such poor observation that you frequently need to take avoiding action, the device will correctly deduce that you are a plank. Any worthwhile analysis is going to be about your habitual driving behaviour, not that one time when someone stepped out in front of you.meggysaurus said:
I have a black box fitted to my car and it brought my insurance down from £2.5k last year to £875 I'm paying now! You really do see the benefits of it because it does teach you to drive carefully and adapt your driving style and also get a discount every 3 months, I do get the itch to floor it but knowing that box is monitoring stops me doing that, my biggest gripe about it is that the box doesn't see what I see. For example, I was driving along at 30mph in a residential area when some berk comes running out of nowhere and made me slam my brakes on and I got an amber light on my driving feedback. The same goes when that d
head in an audi decided to cut me up and made me brake harsh. There are pro's and cons to this system and a few kinks that need worked out but other than that its not too bad. Some insurance companies who do this sort of thing impose curfews or mileage restrictions but the people I've been with don't do that.
What do you mean by "flooring it"? Genuinely curious as to whether the box rates accelerating hard as a risk (perfectly legal providing done safely) or whether you actually mean speeding?head in an audi decided to cut me up and made me brake harsh. There are pro's and cons to this system and a few kinks that need worked out but other than that its not too bad. Some insurance companies who do this sort of thing impose curfews or mileage restrictions but the people I've been with don't do that.Leebo310 said:
What do you mean by "flooring it"? Genuinely curious as to whether the box rates accelerating hard as a risk (perfectly legal providing done safely) or whether you actually mean speeding?
The sort of things they are interested in logging:• The time of day or night you drive
• The speed you drive at on different sorts of road
• How smoothly you drive
• If you take breaks on long journeys
• Your motorway miles
• Your total mileage
• The total number of journeys you make
• Details of any accidents.
http://www.insurethebox.com/telematics/how-does-it...
otolith said:
Any worthwhile analysis is going to be about your habitual driving behaviour, not that one time when someone stepped out in front of you.
This I think is entirely my point. Who says that the analysis is going to be worthwhile? The mere fact that you braked hard is enough to flag up a fail point. Also for those devices that measure speed my understanding is that if you exceed a certain speed your insurance can be cancelled, who sets this speed? Who decides what is "unsafe" and how? What about the person whose black box records 60mph average but who did this down a busy high street on Saturday versus the person whose black box registers 90mph but done on a deserted motorway at 3am on a dry, clear, summers morning? CONTEXT is everything in deciding whether something is safe (not legal!)trashbat said:
hy do you think there will never be a business case for it?
We are in an age of lowest common denominator motoring. Speed and having fun etc. is demonised by those who can't comprehend it being safer than their 40-mph everywhere bumbling. If insurance companies don't need to go to the extra effort of making the device that intelligent, they won't. They are only interested in profit.g3org3y said:
Terminator X said:
MKnight702 said:
I can see the perceived benefits of a monitoring system ...
George Orwell wrote all about it c60 years ago, didn't like the sound of it when I read the book at School and still don't tbh.
TX.
Leebo310 said:
meggysaurus said:
I have a black box fitted to my car and it brought my insurance down from £2.5k last year to £875 I'm paying now! You really do see the benefits of it because it does teach you to drive carefully and adapt your driving style and also get a discount every 3 months, I do get the itch to floor it but knowing that box is monitoring stops me doing that, my biggest gripe about it is that the box doesn't see what I see. For example, I was driving along at 30mph in a residential area when some berk comes running out of nowhere and made me slam my brakes on and I got an amber light on my driving feedback. The same goes when that dhead in an audi decided to cut me up and made me brake harsh. There are pro's and cons to this system and a few kinks that need worked out but other than that its not too bad. Some insurance companies who do this sort of thing impose curfews or mileage restrictions but the people I've been with don't do that.
What do you mean by "flooring it"? Genuinely curious as to whether the box rates accelerating hard as a risk (perfectly legal providing done safely) or whether you actually mean speeding?head in an audi decided to cut me up and made me brake harsh. There are pro's and cons to this system and a few kinks that need worked out but other than that its not too bad. Some insurance companies who do this sort of thing impose curfews or mileage restrictions but the people I've been with don't do that.otolith said:
If the analysis is incorrect, the insurers will lose money and business - they will, presumably, be constantly refining their models.
How would the insurers lose money if they set the limits so that anything other than "driving miss daisy" style triggered an increase in premium? Once the black box becomes the norm you won't have much choice other than take the black box and get stung every time you accelerate hard from the lights or pay through the nose for one of the non black box "dangerous driver" policies.Measuring driving standards by the lowest common denominator has worked out well for us so far with the ever decreasing speed limits being set for "safety" hasn't it?
nedward said:
I thought there was already a scheme in place that rewards careful drivers, "no claim discount"!?
They say that it will help young drivers but they will only cover 19 to 25 with two years no claim discount. So it is only for youngsters who have already proved that they can drive for two years without making a claim.
JOKE!
I was actually interested in this deal, 109 a month- brand new car and a years insurance....They say that it will help young drivers but they will only cover 19 to 25 with two years no claim discount. So it is only for youngsters who have already proved that they can drive for two years without making a claim.
JOKE!
If you haven't been driving two years which means you won't have two years no claims you have to pay 950 on top of the deposit for the insurance.
Terminator X said:
LOL this will go the same way that they all do ... cctv camera's brought in for our protection, now used to send us £60 fines in the post.
Also used to catch crooks. How many posts have I read on PH re car being hit whilst parked in car park but victim is getting CCTV footage.You may knock CCTV, but if you get mugged in the street, you'll want it then.
It's still used for our protection.
Clivey said:
If insurance companies don't need to go to the extra effort of making the device that intelligent, they won't. They are only interested in profit.
The fewer accidents there are, the more profit they can make. They want less carnage on the roads, and so do we. Motorists and insurance companies don't have to be at war.And here's an interesting fact. The people who work for and run insurance companies....rumour has it that some of the actually drive as well!!
Clivey said:
We are in an age of lowest common denominator motoring. Speed and having fun etc. is demonised by those who can't comprehend it being safer than their 40-mph everywhere bumbling. If insurance companies don't need to go to the extra effort of making the device that intelligent, they won't. They are only interested in profit.
Why then does everyone not pay the highest common denominator as a premium, i.e. £4k/year, as if they were 17? Indeed, why do telematics products already exist?If there is a competitive market for the product (and the risks do come out as low, which I'm not 100% sure of) then it's entirely possible that intelligent monitoring devices have a future.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff