RE: Citroen fits insurance black boxes
Discussion
I think it's interesting.
My insurance premium is decided almost entirely by the driving behaviours of other people; the typical male, the typical 20-something, the typical software engineer, the typical person that drives my model of car, and so on.
In fact, very little is assessed on my abilities. I can think of only two personal things that count: (1) a lack of driving convictions, which is an OK metric, and (2) a lack of fault accidents to date, which given their low probability is not a particularly reliable indicator.
I get maybe £20 off my £600 premium because I passed IAM. By way of comparison I save £100 simply by naming two other people that might potentially drive the car.
Now you can make a black box and take bad generalisations about some crude data from it, but you don't have to. For once the free market might come up with something good here. You could theoretically build a device that looked at my use of IPSGA, separation, smoothness, and so on.
The emergence of insurance models based on individual behaviour is fundamentally a good thing. The early implementations of them might not be.
My insurance premium is decided almost entirely by the driving behaviours of other people; the typical male, the typical 20-something, the typical software engineer, the typical person that drives my model of car, and so on.
In fact, very little is assessed on my abilities. I can think of only two personal things that count: (1) a lack of driving convictions, which is an OK metric, and (2) a lack of fault accidents to date, which given their low probability is not a particularly reliable indicator.
I get maybe £20 off my £600 premium because I passed IAM. By way of comparison I save £100 simply by naming two other people that might potentially drive the car.
Now you can make a black box and take bad generalisations about some crude data from it, but you don't have to. For once the free market might come up with something good here. You could theoretically build a device that looked at my use of IPSGA, separation, smoothness, and so on.
The emergence of insurance models based on individual behaviour is fundamentally a good thing. The early implementations of them might not be.
White Lightning said:
I can't think of anything worse to have fitted to my car....except a KIA badge. The fact that it's standard equipment is awful. An option.....sure if you're that way inclined. Anyone who is into car's won't be buying it.....then again anyone who is into cars wouldn't be buying a peugeot. Ha!!
Well done. Two pieces of rather pathetic badge snobbery into one short paragraph. kambites said:
g3org3y said:
The criteria by which the box determines whether one is 'safe' is very crude and doesn't take into account weather conditions, surrounding traffic, road surface etc.
A minor point, but surely the box doesn't actually determine anything? I'd imagine it just sends raw sensor information to the insurers who then process it on their servers? Or does it actually have the intelligence built into the device itself? The algorhythms for determining safety/dangerousness aren't going to be very complex as there is only so many variables the box can measure.
We all know that driving is all about context. 70mph on a clear motorway is considered safe. Driving at 70 on the motorway in heavy rain, spray and standing water with no lights on is somewhat less safe. How will the box differentiate between the two? As far as the driver is concerned - the box says "I'm safe", that is all that will matter at the end of the day.
g3org3y said:
kambites said:
g3org3y said:
The criteria by which the box determines whether one is 'safe' is very crude and doesn't take into account weather conditions, surrounding traffic, road surface etc.
A minor point, but surely the box doesn't actually determine anything? I'd imagine it just sends raw sensor information to the insurers who then process it on their servers? Or does it actually have the intelligence built into the device itself? The algorhythms for determining safety/dangerousness aren't going to be very complex as there is only so many variables the box can measure.
We all know that driving is all about context. 70mph on a clear motorway is considered safe. Driving at 70 on the motorway in heavy rain, spray and standing water with no lights on is somewhat less safe. How will the box differentiate between the two? As far as the driver is concerned - the box says "I'm safe", that is all that will matter at the end of the day.
Kozy said:
I doubt that thing would generate sufficient G forces in any direction to set any alarms off. Nothing to see here.
Worrying for the future though. This WILL become mandatory under the EU.
I don't think this had anything to do with the EU. The word "EU" seems to have become a replacement for "PC gone mad" or "immigrant" for Daily Mail readers ;-). No aimed at you, btw !Worrying for the future though. This WILL become mandatory under the EU.
I had one in 107 form and while not exactly brisk in terms of acceleration, it does pulls decent Gs under braking, being so light. No less than a far heavier saloon.
Lateral acceleration is surprisingly high, what with the light weight and despite the skinnies.
Great car anyway, the engineering is superb for the money and the engine likes revving+sounds really different.
Birdster said:
As far as I'm aware this only monitors aggressive driving. So harsh acceleration, deceleration, and manoeuvres.
It doesn't really pick out the bad drivers. Such as those who don't indicate, check their mirrors, who have poor lane discipline, and those who jump red lights. What about those who drive too close? Or even those who use the phone whilst driving?
All it appears to do is monitor speed and smooth driving. It goes some of the way, but you can do those well, whilst still being an awful driver.
But it's speed that kills don't ya know.... It doesn't really pick out the bad drivers. Such as those who don't indicate, check their mirrors, who have poor lane discipline, and those who jump red lights. What about those who drive too close? Or even those who use the phone whilst driving?
All it appears to do is monitor speed and smooth driving. It goes some of the way, but you can do those well, whilst still being an awful driver.
kambites said:
White Lightning said:
I can't think of anything worse to have fitted to my car....except a KIA badge. The fact that it's standard equipment is awful. An option.....sure if you're that way inclined. Anyone who is into car's won't be buying it.....then again anyone who is into cars wouldn't be buying a peugeot. Ha!!
Well done. Two pieces of rather pathetic badge snobbery into one short paragraph. Not impressed at all.
Its all very well promising discounts etc, but the fact is insurance companies dont want to give cheaper premiums - Shareholders will demand ever increasing profitability and that WILL come from somewhere - discounts in one area will be offset by increases in another - In this case as the black box scheme gains mass those who dont have it will eventually be penalised.
Then you'll hear Brake et al claiming "well should have a black box and drive safely then"
However, eventually it will get to a critical mass of drivers using them, either through legislation or through the market dictating it, that eventually even those with the boxes will face increasing premiums probably through varying interpretations of the data as the insurance companies find new ways of justifying the winners and losers - thinly veiled as another saftey / discount initiative probably.
Thats before we get to learning how to play the system.
Onyl a tenuous link at best to road saftey, but a strong link to driving future profitability.
The same thing is being seen with the vehicle tax system - Revenues are falling as the mass market is buying so called low emission cars, so now we see the plans for milage based taxation being considered - "for the environment...."
Its all a con (and always has been). Cngratualtions if you get a cheaper premium from one of these, but they'll get you some other way eventually.
Previous said:
Its all very well promising discounts etc, but the fact is insurance companies dont want to give cheaper premiums - Shareholders will demand ever increasing profitability and that WILL come from somewhere - discounts in one area will be offset by increases in another - In this case as the black box scheme gains mass those who dont have it will eventually be penalised.
Of course, but as in so many things in life, it's an arms race of sorts. Most people don't care what happens to the average premium as long as theirs goes down in the short term. If people thought about the big picture, we wouldn't have all these farcical false whiplash claims shoving up premiums. Although of course increased profitability doesn't have to come from increased turn-over. If these boxes somehow significantly reduced the number of accidents (not that I expect them to, really) then premiums could theoretically go down while profitability went up.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 19th February 11:40
kambites said:
White Lightning said:
I can't think of anything worse to have fitted to my car....except a KIA badge. The fact that it's standard equipment is awful. An option.....sure if you're that way inclined. Anyone who is into car's won't be buying it.....then again anyone who is into cars wouldn't be buying a peugeot. Ha!!
Well done. Two pieces of rather pathetic badge snobbery into one short paragraph. arkenphel said:
Thin end of the wedge indeed. As much as i would like to champion the right to privace and humanity blah blah blah, the only reason I don't want this sh!te in my car is because very occasionally i like to drive like a cock. Sideways.
I had to chuckle, as I read this there was an advert for Black circles on the TV which featured an E34 5 series powersliding.I don't agree with the black boxes on the basis that, as has probably already been said, crap drivers will get away with no penalties for driving around at 45mph everywhere, not cornering correctly, but not crashing either. Whereas you or me, who enjoy getting that line just so and mashing the throttle every so often, will be mercilessly penalised. Ahm oot!
kambites said:
White Lightning said:
I can't think of anything worse to have fitted to my car....except a KIA badge. The fact that it's standard equipment is awful. An option.....sure if you're that way inclined. Anyone who is into car's won't be buying it.....then again anyone who is into cars wouldn't be buying a peugeot. Ha!!
Well done. Two pieces of rather pathetic badge snobbery into one short paragraph. KIA ? No one laughs at them anymore if you're into cars, the same way as no one has laughed at Skodas for 10 years.
kambites said:
Of course, but as in so many things in life, it's an arms race of sorts. Most people don't care what happens to the average premium as long as theirs goes down in the short term.
Agreed, unfortunately for Ph'ers though ours will likely* be going up becasue of this. - Massive generalisation assuming Ph'ers are more likely to drive 'enthusiastically' at times than other road users
Previous said:
kambites said:
Of course, but as in so many things in life, it's an arms race of sorts. Most people don't care what happens to the average premium as long as theirs goes down in the short term.
Agreed, unfortunately for Ph'ers though ours will likely* be going up becasue of this. - Massive generalisation assuming Ph'ers are more likely to drive 'enthusiastically' at times than other road users
You know how cars - especially cars with complex electronics - occasionally go wrong... I'm just wondering, who's at fault when your black box gets water in it and your insurance company discovers that you've been driving everywhere at 999mph? (or if you deliberately shorted the thing because it was annoying you)
g3org3y said:
We all know that driving is all about context. 70mph on a clear motorway is considered safe. Driving at 70 on the motorway in heavy rain, spray and standing water with no lights on is somewhat less safe. How will the box differentiate between the two? As far as the driver is concerned - the box says "I'm safe", that is all that will matter at the end of the day.
Exactly. It will be a very blunt instrument that will have an awful lot of 'false positives'. I really can't see how any system that would penalise someone for doing an emergency stop to avoid a child running out in front of them could be considered anything to do with safety.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff