Black box - driver rating

[mybrainhurts]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

mybrainhurts said:

(c) You said "Can you not accept that there are thousands of young drivers out there driving far more cautiously than they would be otherwise due to a black box?"

Well, yes, of course I can. But where is the evidence that this project has reduced claims?

Lower premiums for those with the black box fitted.

Which could be entirely consistent with a longer term plan to introduce compulsion by keeping the scheme alive.

There is no way to measure whether a monitired driver would have had claims without a box.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mybrainhurts said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

mybrainhurts said:

(c) You said "Can you not accept that there are thousands of young drivers out there driving far more cautiously than they would be otherwise due to a black box?"

Well, yes, of course I can. But where is the evidence that this project has reduced claims?

Lower premiums for those with the black box fitted.

Which could be entirely consistent with a longer term plan to introduce compulsion by keeping the scheme alive.

There is no way to measure whether a monitired driver would have had claims without a box.

I don't even understand the points you are making now. You seem so determined to argue against the patently bleeding obvious, you are just plucking nonsense out of thin air.

1000 young drivers with no box cost insurers X. 1000 young drivers with a black box cost insurers x - 40%. Insurers can offer insurance to the box drivers at no box Premium - 30% (10% of savings held back to cover supply, fitting and monitoring of the box.)

But with mature drivers, 1000 drivers with no box cost insurers X. 1000 with a box cost x-2% (because they are 55 and they don't drive like tts anyway). But the cost of supply and fitting and monitoring exceeds the claims saving. So it's a dead proposition.

Really, this isn't advanced economics we're talking here.

[mybrainhurts]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

mybrainhurts said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

mybrainhurts said:

(c) You said "Can you not accept that there are thousands of young drivers out there driving far more cautiously than they would be otherwise due to a black box?"

Well, yes, of course I can. But where is the evidence that this project has reduced claims?

Lower premiums for those with the black box fitted.

Which could be entirely consistent with a longer term plan to introduce compulsion by keeping the scheme alive.

There is no way to measure whether a monitired driver would have had claims without a box.

I don't even understand the points you are making now. You seem so determined to argue against the patently bleeding obvious, you are just plucking nonsense out of thin air.

1000 young drivers with no box cost insurers X. 1000 young drivers with a black box cost insurers x - 40%. Insurers can offer insurance to the box drivers at no box Premium - 30% (10% of savings held back to cover supply, fitting and monitoring of the box.)

But with mature drivers, 1000 drivers with no box cost insurers X. 1000 with a box cost x-2% (because they are 55 and they don't drive like tts anyway). But the cost of supply and fitting and monitoring exceeds the claims saving. So it's a dead proposition.

Really, this isn't advanced economics we're talking here.

Yes, thanks for statin' the bleedin' obvious again.

To try to curtail your avid mission again, fundamental point, mentioned before, but seemingly missed -----> I do not trust goodwill, or anything, offered or claimed by insurance companies.

Simple as that. Why is it so important to you that you keep banging on about it like this?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

mybrainhurts said:

Yes, thanks for statin' the bleedin' obvious again.

To try to curtail your avid mission again, fundamental point, mentioned before, but seemingly missed -----> I do not trust goodwill, or anything, offered or claimed by insurance companies.

Simple as that. Why is it so important to you that you keep banging on about it like this?

I don't care who you trust. But your arguments are total crap.

[mybrainhurts]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

mybrainhurts said:

Yes, thanks for statin' the bleedin' obvious again.

To try to curtail your avid mission again, fundamental point, mentioned before, but seemingly missed -----> I do not trust goodwill, or anything, offered or claimed by insurance companies.

Simple as that. Why is it so important to you that you keep banging on about it like this?

I don't care who you trust. But your arguments are total crap.

My "arguments" are possible scenarios that support my lack of trust.

Your on-a-mission-shoot-down-mybrainhurts-rantfest is total crap.

And a bit of a mystery.