Insurance Co tracking your driving

[MartG]

Anyone thinking of signing up to this ?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/08/tomtom_ins...

[BigMacDaddy]

Not on your life.

[ZOLLAR]

BigMacDaddy said:

Not on your life.

Interesting reply, I'm not singling you out but the main grievance policyholders comment on is that "You should rate on my driving ability and not the fact I share details with higher risk drivers" however given the chance to have a device which would allow for you premium to be based soley on your driving ability policyholders decline very quickly.

[wolves_wanderer]

Hmm, I'm sure insurance companies will still have the same costs. With my cynical head I would say that everyone will have enough "demerits" to increase our premiums over what we pay now. With my tinfoil hat on I would imagine a law to be passed mandating sharing with legal authorities eventually.

[KaraK]

ZOLLAR said:

BigMacDaddy said:

Not on your life.

Interesting reply, I'm not singling you out but the main grievance policyholders comment on is that "You should rate on my driving ability and not the fact I share details with higher risk drivers" however given the chance to have a device which would allow for you premium to be based soley on your driving ability policyholders decline very quickly.

I know what you are saying Z but the problem I have with systems like this is that there are far too many variables that they simply can't ascertain such as road conditions etc.

[ZOLLAR]

KaraK said:

ZOLLAR said:

BigMacDaddy said:

Not on your life.

Interesting reply, I'm not singling you out but the main grievance policyholders comment on is that "You should rate on my driving ability and not the fact I share details with higher risk drivers" however given the chance to have a device which would allow for you premium to be based soley on your driving ability policyholders decline very quickly.

I know what you are saying Z but the problem I have with systems like this is that there are far too many variables that they simply can't ascertain such as road conditions etc.

Of course, perhaps that sort of information would need to be included in the tracker (no idea but I presume it could be done) before the public should accept it?.

[KaraK]

ZOLLAR said:

KaraK said:

ZOLLAR said:

BigMacDaddy said:

Not on your life.

Interesting reply, I'm not singling you out but the main grievance policyholders comment on is that "You should rate on my driving ability and not the fact I share details with higher risk drivers" however given the chance to have a device which would allow for you premium to be based soley on your driving ability policyholders decline very quickly.

I know what you are saying Z but the problem I have with systems like this is that there are far too many variables that they simply can't ascertain such as road conditions etc.

Of course, perhaps that sort of information would need to be included in the tracker (no idea but I presume it could be done) before the public should accept it?.

I just don't see how it could be done in any meaningful way. I can think of corners near me that would be very similar to each other according to a sat nav but the appropriate speeds would be completely different.

[Mobile Chicane]

More companies should offer discounts for drivers who've undertaken performance car driver training.

My cover through CCI offers this.

[ZOLLAR]

KaraK said:

I just don't see how it could be done in any meaningful way. I can think of corners near me that would be very similar to each other according to a sat nav but the appropriate speeds would be completely different.

Me too, I presume the system may be beneficial for high risk drivers as it may be a deterrent to stop them from driving badly?.
I think for the average driver it may not work.

[Asgardian]

I honestly think that it should not be based on who is driving the car, if the car is insured it should be the car that is insured no the person for driving it, in that case I could insure my car and anybody with my permission should be able to drive it. Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

[ZOLLAR]

Asgardian said:

I honestly think that it should not be based on who is driving the car, if the car is insured it should be the car that is insured no the person for driving it, in that case I could insure my car and anybody with my permission should be able to drive it. Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

But by allowing anybody to drive the car makes it a huge risk because younger drivers could be driving it all the time, insurers would charge everyone high premiums just to cover the perceived risk.

[timbob]

More to the point, how can simply using GPS decide if you're a safe driver? You could be tailgating at 60mph in the snow - and still be "safe".

What it really is, is theoretically reduced premiums for drivers who don't break the speed limit and who corner gently, which is fine, but I do wish they'd just come out and say this!

[Handie Andy]

Technically i am already doing this with the box you insure. I didnt really want to but as they quoted 3 grand less than any other insurer out there i was sold.

Plus my driving like a tt days are over, so being monitered don't bother me

[ikarl]

ZOLLAR said:

Asgardian said:

I honestly think that it should not be based on who is driving the car, if the car is insured it should be the car that is insured no the person for driving it, in that case I could insure my car and anybody with my permission should be able to drive it. Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

But by allowing anybody to drive the car makes it a huge risk because younger drivers could be driving it all the time, insurers would charge everyone high premiums just to cover the perceived risk.

Yeah, I think that's a really bad idea. Did you think it through or are you just a reallybad driver and keep crashing?

[paulrockliffe]

ZOLLAR said:

KaraK said:

I just don't see how it could be done in any meaningful way. I can think of corners near me that would be very similar to each other according to a sat nav but the appropriate speeds would be completely different.

Me too, I presume the system may be beneficial for high risk drivers as it may be a deterrent to stop them from driving badly?.
I think for the average driver it may not work.

I would imagine that sort of thing would start off as a simple analysis of how fast you drive vs the speed limit. Over time, or once they've bought enough Data from TomTom, they'll be able to grade you against the speeds that other people are driving the roads that you drive and get a reasonably accurate picture of your driving habits.

It's certainly likely to be more accurate than what we have at present, where the fact that my car isn't parked on the street but is locked behind two security gates in a garage out of sight saves me £10 a year and my premium is heavily weighted because there's a load of Claims Management companies based around here.

[ZOLLAR]

ikarl said:

ZOLLAR said:

Asgardian said:

I honestly think that it should not be based on who is driving the car, if the car is insured it should be the car that is insured no the person for driving it, in that case I could insure my car and anybody with my permission should be able to drive it. Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

But by allowing anybody to drive the car makes it a huge risk because younger drivers could be driving it all the time, insurers would charge everyone high premiums just to cover the perceived risk.

Yeah, I think that's a really bad idea. Did you think it through or are you just a reallybad driver and keep crashing?

[BigMacDaddy]

My problem would be their intepretation of "safe driving".

Last thing you want is for that overtake at 80mph on a clear straight road to end up costing you an arm and a leg when some jobsworth statistician declares you a wreckless speeder!

ZOLLAR said:

Interesting reply, I'm not singling you out but the main grievance policyholders comment on is that "You should rate on my driving ability and not the fact I share details with higher risk drivers" however given the chance to have a device which would allow for you premium to be based soley on your driving ability policyholders decline very quickly.

[Asgardian]

ZOLLAR said:

ikarl said:

ZOLLAR said:

Asgardian said:

I honestly think that it should not be based on who is driving the car, if the car is insured it should be the car that is insured no the person for driving it, in that case I could insure my car and anybody with my permission should be able to drive it. Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

But by allowing anybody to drive the car makes it a huge risk because younger drivers could be driving it all the time, insurers would charge everyone high premiums just to cover the perceived risk.

Yeah, I think that's a really bad idea. Did you think it through or are you just a reallybad driver and keep crashing?

Nope I had an accident many moons ago but that remains the only one, I just think that if the insurance company was only liable for the car it insures and the driver in it then they would crack down on the whiplash claims etc and it would pull premiums down, house insurance doen't go on the people in the house so why should car insurance?

[Rawwr]

I don't think I'd have a problem with it because I don't drive like a dick.

[KaraK]

ZOLLAR said:

KaraK said:

I just don't see how it could be done in any meaningful way. I can think of corners near me that would be very similar to each other according to a sat nav but the appropriate speeds would be completely different.

Me too, I presume the system may be beneficial for high risk drivers as it may be a deterrent to stop them from driving badly?.
I think for the average driver it may not work.

Pretty much my thoughts - offering it as a way of young drivers or other especially high risk groups as a way of keeping things down is probably a good thing. Say for young drivers just starting out or for those coming back from speeding bans for example.

Asgardian said:

Then again I also think car insurance should be done in the same way track insurance is done, meaning that they pay for damage of your car and the other persons company pays for their damage, regardless of fault.

Totally disagree, all that does is penalise those who people who get hit more than they do the hitting. If someone in a £500 shed drives into your £40000 Porsche you are going to be on a massive loser there.