RE: PH Investigates: black box insurance
Discussion
0000 said:
pti said:
Every quote I have got recently (regardless of car) has been cheaper without the box. Much like the poster above. They'll have to do a lot better than that if they're going to convince me 
We may be fortunate that they're too short sighted to install the box for free and then subsidise the insurance for people receiving the boxes. It might be the only thing preventing them getting enough traction to make the idea mandatory and subsequently profitable.At the moment anyway.... and long may it last.
Fuel Miser said:
pti said:
Over a grand for a Golf TDI? And your fast cars days are over? How old are you/how many accidents have you had/who is your insurer?!
I need to make some big efforts to get it cheaper when I renew in the summer. Thing is I only have 3 or 4 years NCB 'cos I was overseas for a while. I'm mid 30's. It sucks. Never had an accident.I don't know what you lot are all moaning about. If you've got nothing to hide...right...?
60mph in the middle lane of the M25 in the pissing rain with no lights on - the box says SAFE.
25mph in town with poor observation/lack of indication - the box says SAFE.
There will still be a shed load of really s
t driving out there but it will be determined SAFE/GOOD by the box. As I've mentioned previously, some of the worst driving I've ever seen has been way below the speed limit and didn't involve anything to trigger the box - it did however involve poor observation, lack of indication and a profound lack of awareness of the surroundings.
The box was bound to be introduced on the new drivers as insurance is simply becoming prohibitively expensive in recent years. What are the alternatives? If someone can save £500+ they'd be mad not to, who can blame them? For parents, it's a very tempting prospect too.
Will it make them a 'safer' driver? No. Not in my opinion because true safety isn't just about speed.
Will it positively reinforce poor driving? Potentially as per the examples above.
Am I bothered about this box situation? Only when having an insurance policy sans box becomes prohibitively expensive for all. I do unfortunately feel that the boxes will become an inevitability and if you driving without one you will be stigmatised by joe public who are fed the BRAKE mantra on a daily basis.
My friends, we are a dying breed.
10 Pence Short said:
Although you are obliged to have insurance, insurers are not obliged to insure you. They take a large financial risk when doing so. My accident cost Elephant more than £1,500,000 in return for the £600 premium.
If I drive quickly and abruptly, the possibility that any accident I have have will be a big and/or expensive one increases. If I drive more slowly and smoothly, the opposite applies. Give or take some variables it's generally a matter of physics.
I do not understand why drivers who want to drive quickly (irrespective of how safe they perceive themselves), expect to pay the same or lower premiums than those who do not?
Driving safely is not just about the speed, the cornering G or the severity of braking/acceleration. It is to do with hazard awareness, reading the road and driving appropriately to the conditions (this may mean even way below the limit).If I drive quickly and abruptly, the possibility that any accident I have have will be a big and/or expensive one increases. If I drive more slowly and smoothly, the opposite applies. Give or take some variables it's generally a matter of physics.
I do not understand why drivers who want to drive quickly (irrespective of how safe they perceive themselves), expect to pay the same or lower premiums than those who do not?
60mph in the middle lane of the M25 in the pissing rain with no lights on - the box says SAFE.
25mph in town with poor observation/lack of indication - the box says SAFE.
There will still be a shed load of really s
t driving out there but it will be determined SAFE/GOOD by the box. As I've mentioned previously, some of the worst driving I've ever seen has been way below the speed limit and didn't involve anything to trigger the box - it did however involve poor observation, lack of indication and a profound lack of awareness of the surroundings.The box was bound to be introduced on the new drivers as insurance is simply becoming prohibitively expensive in recent years. What are the alternatives? If someone can save £500+ they'd be mad not to, who can blame them? For parents, it's a very tempting prospect too.
Will it make them a 'safer' driver? No. Not in my opinion because true safety isn't just about speed.
Will it positively reinforce poor driving? Potentially as per the examples above.
Am I bothered about this box situation? Only when having an insurance policy sans box becomes prohibitively expensive for all. I do unfortunately feel that the boxes will become an inevitability and if you driving without one you will be stigmatised by joe public who are fed the BRAKE mantra on a daily basis.
My friends, we are a dying breed.
Edited by g3org3y on Thursday 28th February 21:39
g3org3y said:
Driving safely is not just about the speed, the cornering G or the severity of braking/acceleration. It is to do with hazard awareness, reading the road and driving appropriately to the conditions (this may mean even way below the limit).
60mph in the middle lane of the M25 in the pissing rain with no lights on - the box says SAFE.
25mph in town with poor observation/lack of indication - the box says SAFE.
There will still be a shed load of really st driving out there but it will be determined SAFE/GOOD by the box. As I've mentioned previously, some of the worst driving I've ever seen has been way below the speed limit and didn't involve anything to trigger the box - it did however involve poor observation, lack of indication and a profound lack of awareness of the surroundings.
The box was bound to be introduced on the new drivers as insurance is simply becoming prohibitively expensive in recent years. What are the alternatives? If someone can save £500+ they'd be mad not to, who can blame them? For parents, it's a very tempting prospect too.
Will it make them a 'safer' driver? No. Not in my opinion because true safety isn't just about speed.
Will it positively reinforce poor driving? Potentially as per the examples above.
Am I bothered about this box situation? Only when having an insurance policy sans box becomes prohibitively expensive for all. I do unfortuantely feel that the boxes will become an inevitability and if you driving without one you will be stigmatised by joe public who are fed the BRAKE mantra on a daily basis.
My friends, we are a dying breed.
+1 Beautifully put.60mph in the middle lane of the M25 in the pissing rain with no lights on - the box says SAFE.
25mph in town with poor observation/lack of indication - the box says SAFE.
There will still be a shed load of really s
t driving out there but it will be determined SAFE/GOOD by the box. As I've mentioned previously, some of the worst driving I've ever seen has been way below the speed limit and didn't involve anything to trigger the box - it did however involve poor observation, lack of indication and a profound lack of awareness of the surroundings.The box was bound to be introduced on the new drivers as insurance is simply becoming prohibitively expensive in recent years. What are the alternatives? If someone can save £500+ they'd be mad not to, who can blame them? For parents, it's a very tempting prospect too.
Will it make them a 'safer' driver? No. Not in my opinion because true safety isn't just about speed.
Will it positively reinforce poor driving? Potentially as per the examples above.
Am I bothered about this box situation? Only when having an insurance policy sans box becomes prohibitively expensive for all. I do unfortuantely feel that the boxes will become an inevitability and if you driving without one you will be stigmatised by joe public who are fed the BRAKE mantra on a daily basis.
My friends, we are a dying breed.
at the end of the day the insurance companies need to make profit for their shareholders.
If black boxes result in less claims then the costs would be lower, and therefore the profit higher. So you can bet that whilst they think the number of claims and the costs less, it will have to be significantly lower to make the investment worth it, and you can bet they won't give all their savings to the customers in reductions.
If black boxes result in less claims then the costs would be lower, and therefore the profit higher. So you can bet that whilst they think the number of claims and the costs less, it will have to be significantly lower to make the investment worth it, and you can bet they won't give all their savings to the customers in reductions.
The box will only detect some indications of a risky driver - but that's an improvement on having only what's on the proposal form.
If you want to drive in a way these insurers consider indicative of a risky driver, or if you have a good enough driving record that it doesn't improve your premium - don't have one.
If you want to drive in a way these insurers consider indicative of a risky driver, or if you have a good enough driving record that it doesn't improve your premium - don't have one.
g3org3y said:
I do unfortunately feel that the boxes will become an inevitability and if you driving without one you will be stigmatised by joe public who are fed the BRAKE mantra on a daily basis.
My friends, we are a dying breed.
+1 - although at a personal level I don't mind being pointed the finger for not having one. Is the potential for stealth discrimination by insurers, plod and what have you that may have far reaching consequences. Not being able to insure a car, or being prohibitively expensive, effectively the inversion of the current situation for example.My friends, we are a dying breed.
Will be a good time to move to friendlier places for motoring
should be standard on the driving test
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puuSD5ysfFI&fea...
better an a stupid nanny box
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puuSD5ysfFI&fea...
better an a stupid nanny box
Hellbound said:
Now if a black box saves me the same sort of money, and I'm taking hundreds of pounds, then sign me up!
So say we all get these little black boxes and start paying hundreds of pounds less across the country...How will insurance companies consistently return higher profits each year? There will be no reason to keep putting the rates up because there will be drastically reduced numbers of accidents. How do they intend to extract more money from us then?
As long as insurance is a private business, they will need to make money somehow. Will they change their set profile of a 'good' driver every five years or something? Or just make it double tax in rush hours perhaps?
Perhaps they can sell your data on? Or use it against you in other ways?
To be honest it will never get pasted the Human Rights law as being mandatory as far as I am aware. It will need to be opt-in so you will probably just end up paying through the nose simply to be allowed to go about your private life as a responsible and trusted adult.
Hellbound said:
Now if a black box saves me the same sort of money, and I'm taking hundreds of pounds, then sign me up!
So say we all get these little black boxes and start paying hundreds of pounds less across the country...How will insurance companies consistently return higher profits each year? There will be no reason to keep putting the rates up because there will be drastically reduced numbers of accidents. How do they intend to extract more money from us then?
As long as insurance is a private business, they will need to make money somehow. Will they change their set profile of a 'good' driver every five years or something? Or just make it double tax in rush hours perhaps?
Perhaps they can sell your data on? Or use it against you in other ways?
To be honest it will never get pasted the Human Rights law as being mandatory as far as I am aware. It will need to be opt-in so you will probably just end up paying through the nose simply to be allowed to go about your private life as a responsible and trusted adult.
The issue here is many fold, make no mistake this is big brother, tracked and measured every nano second of your journey from a-z who has access to this information and how will it be used......the police will demand access.....there are big civil liberty issues at stake not just your insurance premiums. You are being watched tracked and traced to who's benefit I would suggest not the drivers.
Paranoid.....we will be
Paranoid.....we will be
Jazzy Jefferson said:
Can we not just teach people to drive properly...?
A great idea but it requires logical thinking and government action, so will not happen. Most drivers will not voluntarily consider further training. The IAM group of which I am a member has 6 new associates that received the IAM Skill For Life course as an Xmas present from a relative. Five have not taken it up and keep making excuses for not starting. Insurance companies give little or no discount to drivers who undertake further training. The IAM scheme is cheaper for me but only because they beat most other quotes by £5, or less, to get the business. I paid £173 last year on the IAM scheme and the AA have just quoted me £156 for this year so I shall have an interesting conversation regarding the IAM Surety scheme later this month. It'll only be middle aged and older blokes up in arms about this. Kids nowadays don't care about driving and they'll be culturally more comfortable with being snooped on - privacy means nothing to them.
If it came to it, I'd rip it out and attach it to a golf cart with the steering wheel lashed in a circle. That'd teach 'em ...
If it came to it, I'd rip it out and attach it to a golf cart with the steering wheel lashed in a circle. That'd teach 'em ...
YankeePorker said:
- Ultimately it's not about speed, it's about planning and smoothness. When my wife drove the Honda she triggered multiple events over short distances by driving brusquely, yet she was driving far slower than I do. She blamed the heels on her shoes....
FFS if shoes make a person unable to control the car properly, they have no idea what they are doing and are unsafe and should not be driving. In this case a black box and more expensive insurance is a good thing! Also, if you exceed the speed limit on a long drive and your insurance is canceled, what happens if you have an accident before you find out your policy has been canceled? That is incredible negligence on the part of the insurance company.
.
Give her a break, she's a blonde!
It seems that the system being used here in the US is a bit different from the permanent black boxes that you're talking about in the UK, but all the same I think some of you are over reacting to the big brother aspects. Rejecting a cheaper insurance option (in my case, with no NCB over here) because you object to them assessing how often you slam the anchors on and at what time of day you drive is of course your choice. It didn't really change my driving habits, didn't stop me speeding woefully when conditions were suitable and the few hundred bucks saved buys wine.
As for the argument "if you are in accident they will have access to data on how you were driving", I understood that this data is already available from modern cars if they care to access post-accident the engine management system that stores a buffer of driver input and speed information.
Maybe it also comes down to whether you think that you have something to hide or a driving profile that will not do you any favours if scrutinised? For me this is not the case.
injidup said:
YankeePorker said:
- Ultimately it's not about speed, it's about planning and smoothness. When my wife drove the Honda she triggered multiple events over short distances by driving brusquely, yet she was driving far slower than I do. She blamed the heels on her shoes....
FFS if shoes make a person unable to control the car properly, they have no idea what they are doing and are unsafe and should not be driving. In this case a black box and more expensive insurance is a good thing! It seems that the system being used here in the US is a bit different from the permanent black boxes that you're talking about in the UK, but all the same I think some of you are over reacting to the big brother aspects. Rejecting a cheaper insurance option (in my case, with no NCB over here) because you object to them assessing how often you slam the anchors on and at what time of day you drive is of course your choice. It didn't really change my driving habits, didn't stop me speeding woefully when conditions were suitable and the few hundred bucks saved buys wine.
As for the argument "if you are in accident they will have access to data on how you were driving", I understood that this data is already available from modern cars if they care to access post-accident the engine management system that stores a buffer of driver input and speed information.
Maybe it also comes down to whether you think that you have something to hide or a driving profile that will not do you any favours if scrutinised? For me this is not the case.
As some have mentioned and I will also note, the most dangerous driving I see and experience is nothing to do with speed or car enthusiasts, it is plodder in his generic small - medium econobox, driving indecisively, circumventing road rules for 'courtesy', often in the wrong lane and rarely appropriate to the conditions. Not to mention they probably have one tire dangerously under-inflated because they treat their car as an appliance. These are the dangerous people on the road and there is no box that picks up this risk.
In regard to the big brother/civil liberties thing, someone may have already mentioned the frog analogy where a frog put in boiling water will jump out, but a frog put in cold water that is heated will not notice the gradual change and die. Insidious, incremental change is the worst to deal with, we'll wake up one day and see how much we have lost, of course it will be too late by then...
In regard to the big brother/civil liberties thing, someone may have already mentioned the frog analogy where a frog put in boiling water will jump out, but a frog put in cold water that is heated will not notice the gradual change and die. Insidious, incremental change is the worst to deal with, we'll wake up one day and see how much we have lost, of course it will be too late by then...
Aused said:
As some have mentioned and I will also note, the most dangerous driving I see and experience is nothing to do with speed or car enthusiasts, it is plodder in his generic small - medium econobox, driving indecisively, circumventing road rules for 'courtesy', often in the wrong lane and rarely appropriate to the conditions. Not to mention they probably have one tire dangerously under-inflated because they treat their car as an appliance. These are the dangerous people on the road and there is no box that picks up this risk.
I personaly don't get so angry with the black boxes. I don't think they will become a major problem given that I got insurance last month and it was £250, or £900 with a black box. However I agree that this is a bigger problem that needs to be addressed, like the 4 people yesterday going 45 for no good reason (Clear A road, 8am, dry) all far to close for me to overtake one at a time, or the people who stop from 30 to let people pull out of a side road.I don't buy the big brother idea. It will only be checked if there is an accident , but if there was an accident the data is alredy avalable in modern cars as the EMU keeps a buffer of infomation. What peole have been complaining about, speeding and "Kids running out in the road" well, they won't be acurate enough to determine speed for courts (They will never be calibrated once they have been put in the car) and the nonsense about "Kids running out in the road" and other excuses for braking hard? Well if it is happening on a regular basis then perhaps you should be paying more attention. The hard braking is where I think they will be catching the slow drivers "Well I had to slam my brakes on because he wouldn't let me change lane. I was indicating and everything". If your driving "progressively" as it is termed around here, you shouldn't be brakeing hard anyway. If your a good driver most of your driving should be smother than the average person, both accelerating and brakeing, most of the time anyway.
As a young driver (passed my test 9 months ago but only got insured 2 weeks ago) a box was essentially the only thing that got my on the road. It was about a grand cheaper than a 'normal' policy with the opportunity to drop it further by 20% with good behaviour. I've been surprised so far how much you can get away with as long as you stay close to speed limits, I drive a 1.2L mk4 fiesta zetec and you can still have fun and keep the numbers high for the policy discounts! it sucks not being able to drive after 11, but it rarely matters for me.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff