Black box - driver rating
Discussion
Just waiting for the next version. The black box autonomous car that warns you about driving in poor weather , or at the wrong time. Maybe decides that you're too fat and that affects braking distance.
Obviously fanciful but if black boxes become the default insurance scheme it is only a matter of time before "normal" policies rise steeply.
Obviously fanciful but if black boxes become the default insurance scheme it is only a matter of time before "normal" policies rise steeply.
xjay1337 said:
The wider issue with insurance is the great injustices for example - Your no claims bonus can only apply to one vehicle however if you have 2 no claims bonuses and crash then it effects both your policies.
But that rant is for another day :-)
Max5476 said:
Did you actually bother to ring up some insurance companies and ask them to mirror your no claims bonus, rather than just looking at a comparison site. I have always found a company with a reasonable price who are happy to mirror another cars no claim bonus.
I do.They mirror it but will not match the online price!
mybrainhurts said:
And I've seen accidents happen that could have been avoided if one driver has hoofed it without hesitation. Look on Youtube, you'll see lots of similar incidents.
It only needs to happen once. You hesitate. You're dead.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, "having to accelerate at full poke once or twice to avoid an oncoming Lorry" isn't going to affect your insurance premium. It only needs to happen once. You hesitate. You're dead.
Otoh if you're having to avoid oncoming Lorries on a regular basis then, blackbox or not, you're exactly the high-risk driver that Insurance Companies want to identify....
I've been driving 37 years and I can count the number of times I've had to accelerate out of danger on the fingers of one foot. If I've ever had to do it, it's because I've pulled out when I probably shouldn't of done, so a situation entirely of my own making.
If I were an insurer, people who regularly have to accelerate out of danger are exactly the type of driver I'd want to identify and then refuse to invite renewal!
If I were an insurer, people who regularly have to accelerate out of danger are exactly the type of driver I'd want to identify and then refuse to invite renewal!
Countdown said:
mybrainhurts said:
And I've seen accidents happen that could have been avoided if one driver has hoofed it without hesitation. Look on Youtube, you'll see lots of similar incidents.
It only needs to happen once. You hesitate. You're dead.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, "having to accelerate at full poke once or twice to avoid an oncoming Lorry" isn't going to affect your insurance premium. It only needs to happen once. You hesitate. You're dead.
Otoh if you're having to avoid oncoming Lorries on a regular basis then, blackbox or not, you're exactly the high-risk driver that Insurance Companies want to identify....
A black box subject might be constantly and irrationally on edge in case he "does something wrong". Come that once in a lifetime incident when he needs to hoof it, he will not react as quickly as he would if he hadn't been conditioned to drive softly, softly everywhere. One hesitation in the wrong place can be catastrophic.
Better now?
mybrainhurts said:
You and twiggy miss the point.
A black box subject might be constantly and irrationally on edge in case he "does something wrong". Come that once in a lifetime incident when he needs to hoof it, he will not react as quickly as he would if he hadn't been conditioned to drive softly, softly everywhere. One hesitation in the wrong place can be catastrophic.
Better now?
You miss the point by some considerable margin.A black box subject might be constantly and irrationally on edge in case he "does something wrong". Come that once in a lifetime incident when he needs to hoof it, he will not react as quickly as he would if he hadn't been conditioned to drive softly, softly everywhere. One hesitation in the wrong place can be catastrophic.
Better now?
You don't get penalised for doing something "wrong" once (or twice, or even thrice).
However, if you're doing something wrong on a regular basis (for whatever reason, even if it's not your fault and you were trying to avoid a suicidal bunny wabbit) then the InsCo will consider you a high risk and calculate your premiums accordingly.
OTOH if you drive like a Saint (or whatever standard the InsCo deems as low-risk) you should benefit from lower premiums. My eldest saved £1600 in her first year and IIRC £800 in her second year. She's not the greatest driver in the world but she IS careful.
Countdown said:
mybrainhurts said:
You and twiggy miss the point.
A black box subject might be constantly and irrationally on edge in case he "does something wrong". Come that once in a lifetime incident when he needs to hoof it, he will not react as quickly as he would if he hadn't been conditioned to drive softly, softly everywhere. One hesitation in the wrong place can be catastrophic.
Better now?
You miss the point by some considerable margin.A black box subject might be constantly and irrationally on edge in case he "does something wrong". Come that once in a lifetime incident when he needs to hoof it, he will not react as quickly as he would if he hadn't been conditioned to drive softly, softly everywhere. One hesitation in the wrong place can be catastrophic.
Better now?
You don't get penalised for doing something "wrong" once (or twice, or even thrice).
However, if you're doing something wrong on a regular basis (for whatever reason, even if it's not your fault and you were trying to avoid a suicidal bunny wabbit) then the InsCo will consider you a high risk and calculate your premiums accordingly.
OTOH if you drive like a Saint (or whatever standard the InsCo deems as low-risk) you should benefit from lower premiums. My eldest saved £1600 in her first year and IIRC £800 in her second year. She's not the greatest driver in the world but she IS careful.
For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
mybrainhurts said:
No, I don't miss the point.
For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
I'm afraid you are absolutely determined to miss the point. You have made your mind up and no amount of evidence is going to change it.For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
Nervous drivers (and the kids I know with black boxes aren't nervous, they just stick to the limits) don't tend to kill people. Young drivers acting like twunts do kill people. We now have fewer of those on the road thanks to the black box.
There will be people on this thread moaning about the black box, who without it would be in a wheelchair or pushing up daisies, having been hit head on last week by some teenage moron flying into a bend far too fast.
Worse than black boxes are Speed Limiter device's. My company van has one installed. I as usual make sure i go for a clear overtake on a country road , go for the overtake and "wake" the driver i am passing...they accelerate and bang! hit my rev limiter thus leaving me on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic.
All these device's are a blunt instrument to the everyday driver. The insurance companies request these item's are installed and that's it.
Where as we know that everyday driving is far from being standard issue across the board.
All these device's are a blunt instrument to the everyday driver. The insurance companies request these item's are installed and that's it.
Where as we know that everyday driving is far from being standard issue across the board.
traffman said:
Worse than black boxes are Speed Limiter device's. My company van has one installed. I as usual make sure i go for a clear overtake on a country road , go for the overtake and "wake" the driver i am passing...they accelerate and bang! hit my rev limiter thus leaving me on the wrong side of the road facing oncoming traffic.
All these device's are a blunt instrument to the everyday driver. The insurance companies request these item's are installed and that's it.
Where as we know that everyday driving is far from being standard issue across the board.
My understanding is that GPS frackers are much better for fleet safety. As well as monitoring driving it stops drivers skiving on jobs or using company vans for personal jobs. All these device's are a blunt instrument to the everyday driver. The insurance companies request these item's are installed and that's it.
Where as we know that everyday driving is far from being standard issue across the board.
Geoffrey Boycott said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
If you read back thru your post, you can see how they work. Assume you are a young driver, you stick to speed limits, you haven't crashed, so it works.
I can accelerate slowly and go around corners slowly and still get seemingly random results. They don't give any detailed guidance on what the box will consider unsafe driving on motorways for example - I would consider sticking to the speed limits, leaving a reasonable gap infront and not making sudden lane changes safe driving but this results in bronze 75% and silver the rest. It doesn't make sense. I'd love to hear from somebody who has a gold rating to see what they do beyond driving slowly.The reason is simple, if you go into the dashboard and then into journey .Every time she uses the car after 10 pm she gets a bronze, no matter how short the journey or where it is, or how the car is driven.Its all total bks.
On one occasion she was away at uni but left the car at home. Car sat on driveway all day, then I took it 2 miles to put petrol in it, after 10 pm.. Did my " driving miss daisy" yet still got a bronze.
I just ignore it now.She has almost her first year done and the cheapest quotes are all without a black box, so it served a purpose .
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
No, I don't miss the point.
For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
I'm afraid you are absolutely determined to miss the point. You have made your mind up and no amount of evidence is going to change it.For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
Nervous drivers (and the kids I know with black boxes aren't nervous, they just stick to the limits) don't tend to kill people. Young drivers acting like twunts do kill people. We now have fewer of those on the road thanks to the black box.
There will be people on this thread moaning about the black box, who without it would be in a wheelchair or pushing up daisies, having been hit head on last week by some teenage moron flying into a bend far too fast.
mybrainhurts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
No, I don't miss the point.
For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
I'm afraid you are absolutely determined to miss the point. You have made your mind up and no amount of evidence is going to change it.For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
Nervous drivers (and the kids I know with black boxes aren't nervous, they just stick to the limits) don't tend to kill people. Young drivers acting like twunts do kill people. We now have fewer of those on the road thanks to the black box.
There will be people on this thread moaning about the black box, who without it would be in a wheelchair or pushing up daisies, having been hit head on last week by some teenage moron flying into a bend far too fast.
You've jumped on the anti insurance, anti black box bandwagon, like most on PH, because they think that's the right bandwagon to be on to prove what a driving enthusiast they are. You haven't thought it thru, considered the evidence, and you don't want to consider the possibility that in fact it's not a bad thing at all.
All that matters to you is being one of the herd and being on the right band wagon.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
mybrainhurts said:
No, I don't miss the point.
For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
I'm afraid you are absolutely determined to miss the point. You have made your mind up and no amount of evidence is going to change it.For clues, note the words might and irrational. Some people are going to be constantly on edge, validity being irrelevant. We have far too many nervous drivers already, we don't need to create more.
Nervous drivers (and the kids I know with black boxes aren't nervous, they just stick to the limits) don't tend to kill people. Young drivers acting like twunts do kill people. We now have fewer of those on the road thanks to the black box.
There will be people on this thread moaning about the black box, who without it would be in a wheelchair or pushing up daisies, having been hit head on last week by some teenage moron flying into a bend far too fast.
You've jumped on the anti insurance, anti black box bandwagon, like most on PH, because they think that's the right bandwagon to be on to prove what a driving enthusiast they are. You haven't thought it thru, considered the evidence, and you don't want to consider the possibility that in fact it's not a bad thing at all.
All that matters to you is being one of the herd and being on the right band wagon.
No, you've got it wrong again. I hadn't even noticed many here with the same views as me.
Just to set the record straight, after your assumtionfest cast doubt on my free thinking...
(a) I don't trust insurance companies further than I can throw them, and I can't throw them anywhere. Protecting profits is what drives them. This is what originally planted doubt in my mind.
(b) As mentioned before a few times, I heard on the BBC an industry insider who clearly stated the ultimate aim was compulsory boxes for all. If achieved, they could set their own parameters to maximise premium income and hit us all.
(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? There are many causes of collisions, I don't have to tell you that. How many of of those using boxes would have been good drivers without the boxes? Nobody knows.
What I do not want is youngsters on the road around me, driving and worrying that someone is constantly looking over their shoulders, thus compounding the Blair effect of creating a nation of hesitant, nervous drivers.
It's nice to see youngsters avoiding high premiums, but I'd like to see another way forward. I understand this is being investigated by government right now.
I've said all this before and don't want to keep repeating it. I've heard what you have to say, so please don't repeat it. I can't quite understand why you feel the need to go on a mission to change the views of someone else on a subject that's not really important in the grand scheme of things.
Back to the scoring system for driving with a telematics box. Last week I drove to the next village at 9pm, rated top marks for driving style and sensible speed, but scored 51% overall due to driving on dangerous/complex roads (a country lane) and late at night.
My OH used the car on Tuesday and drove into the city to get groceries around 10am. According to the telematics box, he was speeding and again driving on complex roads (county lane). Score 77%.
Go figure.
My OH used the car on Tuesday and drove into the city to get groceries around 10am. According to the telematics box, he was speeding and again driving on complex roads (county lane). Score 77%.
Go figure.
Edited by oldbanger on Thursday 23 March 09:28
mybrainhurts said:
(a) I don't trust insurance companies further than I can throw them, and I can't throw them anywhere. Protecting profits is what drives them. This is what originally planted doubt in my mind.
I agree that this is probably driven by profits. For the Insurance Companies "Less claims" = "More profits". They probably use the black boxes to identify people whose driving styles result in fewer claims and then calculate their premiums accordingly. If they want to do that, and if it means that people can get cheaper insurance by agreeing to having a BB fitted, I can't see why this would be a problem for anybody. Well, it would be a problem for those people who realise that their driving style doesn't look great on a Black Box and they will consequently have to pay more for insurance but that's tough. Either change your driving style or pay more for insurance.mybrainhurts said:
(b) As mentioned before a few times, I heard on the BBC an industry insider who clearly stated the ultimate aim was compulsory boxes for all. If achieved, they could set their own parameters to maximise premium income and hit us all.
It's a free market. The InsCos are competing with each other. it's not some cartel which colludes to penalise everybody. It's no different to somebody who is a 25 stone diabetic being charged more for life insurance. Why should somebody with a healthy lifestyle be obliged to somebody who has 3 doner kebabs a day?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? There are many causes of collisions, I don't have to tell you that. How many of of those using boxes would have been good drivers without the boxes? Nobody knows.
Again, free market rules apply. If the cost of the BBs plus the costs of the claims exceeds the income from premiums then I'm sure the insurance Companies will scrap the idea. OTOH if they make a profit from the Black Box Drivers they'll continue to use them. It doesnt really matter if it reduces or increases claims 9from the insurance companies point of view) All that matters to them is being able to price premiums more accurately.Well, yes, of course I can. But where is the evidence that this project has reduced claims? There are many causes of collisions, I don't have to tell you that. How many of of those using boxes would have been good drivers without the boxes? Nobody knows.
mybrainhurts said:
What I do not want is youngsters on the road around me, driving and worrying that someone is constantly looking over their shoulders, thus compounding the Blair effect of creating a nation of hesitant, nervous drivers.
If they're a hesitant nervous driver they will probably have more accidents. And their renewal premium will be calculated more accurately, meaning less subsidy required from the rest of us. i don't mind hesitant nervous drivers so much. it's the ones who boast about making progress and yet don't realise that they're actually driving like complete twunts.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.Well, yes, of course I can. But where is the evidence that this project has reduced claims?
That's how it works. Where's the evidence that drivers living in Cornwall have reduced claims than those in C. London. Lower premiums.
Where's the evidence that Nissan Micra drivers have reduced claims over Subaru Impreza WRX drivers? Lower premiums.
But hey, let's not cloud the issue with facts.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff