Insurance cancelled after 1 week

[InitialDave]

TooMany2cvs said:

Another way of looking at it would be that the black boxes are used to select the lower-risk drivers from people who have little or no driving history to distinguish them.

(But I do agree with your point - black boxes do reduce bad driving.)

A pertinent component of that is that, whether the insurance is cancelled by the girl in the OP or by her insurer, the insurer is still getting the result they want - someone they regard as an unacceptable risk is no longer their problem.

So even if her driving isn't improved in the slightest by its influence or the overall experience, the black box has done its job and minimised their potential costs.

[bad company]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

Gavia said:

A start point would be the lower premiums for black box policies compared to standard policies for younger drivers. If the claims experience were the same or worse, then premiums would follow that

That’s insurance company policy, where’s the evidence?

Seriously? You honestly think that insurers are offering vastly reduced premiums because of "policy" and not risk? Like insurers thought black boxes would reduce claim costs for young drivers, they haven't worked, but they are too embarresed to admit it so continue to offer big savings to save face??

Anyway, back on Planet Earth......

Seriously, I think that if drivers are being asked to fit black boxes they need to be told why and shown the evidence to back up the policy.

I’m not saying that I’m against black boxes for young drivers in particular but I’ve seen no evidence of their effectiveness. It sounds very similar to the ‘Speed Kills’ mantra.

[otolith]

TooMany2cvs said:

Gavia said:

bad company said:

Can you point us to some of the evidence to back up your claims that ‘black boxes are shown to reduce accidents and accident severity’ please?

A start point would be the lower premiums for black box policies compared to standard policies for younger drivers. If the claims experience were the same or worse, then premiums would follow that

Another way of looking at it would be that the black boxes are used to select the lower-risk drivers from people who have little or no driving history to distinguish them.

And also to get the highest risk young drivers to self-deselect themselves.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

bad company said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

bad company said:

Gavia said:

A start point would be the lower premiums for black box policies compared to standard policies for younger drivers. If the claims experience were the same or worse, then premiums would follow that

That’s insurance company policy, where’s the evidence?

Seriously? You honestly think that insurers are offering vastly reduced premiums because of "policy" and not risk? Like insurers thought black boxes would reduce claim costs for young drivers, they haven't worked, but they are too embarresed to admit it so continue to offer big savings to save face??

Anyway, back on Planet Earth......

Seriously, I think that if drivers are being asked to fit black boxes they need to be told why and shown the evidence to back up the policy.

No they don't. They need to be told "our black box policy is £800 cheaper than the cheapest non black box policy". That's it. Then they have a choice. No difference to swapping your Micra for a Ferrari and being hit with a large additional premium. You are not entitled to see the evidence to show that the insurer are more likely to have to pay a claim, or a bigger claim. You either pay it, or shop around and pick some other provider.

Whatever business you are in, you sell your product/service for a price. You do not have to provide me as a customer with evidence as to whether that price is reasonable or not. That's your price, if I don't like it, other providers are probably available.

[BertBert]

bad company said:

Seriously, I think that if drivers are being asked to fit black boxes

What palpable nonsense. The drivers are asking the insurance company to fit the black box by buying the ins policy. It's the complete opposite of it being imposed.
Bert

[Gavia]

bad company said:

Seriously, I think that if drivers are being asked to fit black boxes they need to be told why and shown the evidence to back up the policy.

I’m not saying that I’m against black boxes for young drivers in particular but I’ve seen no evidence of their effectiveness. It sounds very similar to the ‘Speed Kills’ mantra.

Nobody is being asked or forced to fit black boxes. Private car drivers are choosing to fit them, most probably so that they can either save money, or get insured in the first place. The target market for these (as it a,ways has been) is the young and / or inexperienced driver. The maths doesn’t stack up for either side once you have experience and can show you’re a good risk based on the older way of pricing.

Fleets are the same. The company that owns the vehicles is choosing to have them fitted for exactly the same reasons. Whilst their drivers might not like it, the reality is that it works for the company, as otherwise they’d stop.

[vonhosen]

Companies that largely self insure fit them too.

[InitialDave]

I see the value in them for determining risk of people who are hard to "rate" through lack of history, but I'd be interested to know what the balance is when that history is available.

Basically, at what point do they say "well, he drives like a knob by our metrics (or refuses to be measured), but he's not been subject to a claim or having plod take an interest for the past thirty years, so probably not a bad prospect"?

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

I see the value in them for determining risk of people who are hard to "rate" through lack of history, but I'd be interested to know what the balance is when that history is available.

Basically, at what point do they say "well, he drives like a knob by our metrics (or refuses to be measured), but he's not been subject to a claim or having plod take an interest for the past thirty years, so probably not a bad prospect"?

The economics don't stack up for the latter - if you have been driving 30 years without a claim your premium will be so low that there isn't enough of a saving to made.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

desolate said:

InitialDave said:

I see the value in them for determining risk of people who are hard to "rate" through lack of history, but I'd be interested to know what the balance is when that history is available.

Basically, at what point do they say "well, he drives like a knob by our metrics (or refuses to be measured), but he's not been subject to a claim or having plod take an interest for the past thirty years, so probably not a bad prospect"?

The economics don't stack up for the latter - if you have been driving 30 years without a claim your premium will be so low that there isn't enough of a saving to made.

Exactly. How many times...it's a niche product for young drivers and some fleets. End of story. Forget 30 yrs history, track days, and all the other nonsense.

[InitialDave]

I'm asking at what point is one way of assessing people seen as better than the other. How much experience is needed to be more useful a measure than the black box? A year?

[anonymous-user]

InitialDave said:

I'm asking at what point is one way of assessing people seen as better than the other. How much experience is needed to be more useful a measure than the black box? A year?

It depends how you look at the data.

One company I have worked with have over 200K devices on the roads.

That data set as a whole is gold dust for people who have an interest in that sort of thing.

These companies are gathering data that will help them understand driving habits.

So a year's worth of data isn't that enlightening when looked at in isolation - but put together with thousands of others its becomes relevant.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

InitialDave said:

I'm asking at what point is one way of assessing people seen as better than the other. How much experience is needed to be more useful a measure than the black box? A year?

My sons are young drivers (although neither ever actually bought a car to insure), as are all their mates. Most of their mates ditched the box after a year, assuming they were claim free. A couple had it for 2 yrs. No one I know had a box for year 3. There was no decent saving to be had.

[Gavia]

InitialDave said:

I see the value in them for determining risk of people who are hard to "rate" through lack of history, but I'd be interested to know what the balance is when that history is available.

Basically, at what point do they say "well, he drives like a knob by our metrics (or refuses to be measured), but he's not been subject to a claim or having plod take an interest for the past thirty years, so probably not a bad prospect"?

Nobody is “hard to rate” as they’ve been doing it for years. The problem is that the premium might be “hard to swallow”. This is merely an opportunity for both sides to agree that for some compromise on the insured driver’s side the insurer will compromise on premium.

It’s fairly clear that by far the vast majority of drivers don’t have a black box and based on the past 20 odd years never will. If anything the creep of average speed cameras out of our roadworks onto smart motorways and A roads.

[QuartzDad]

My son has chosen to have a black box on his car for the last two years due to cost. The first year was with Tesco on a limited mileage policy - drive 'safely' and they give you more miles for free.

He was being marked as a safe driver because they stated that ~10% of his driving was on motorways and they are statistically safer.

He'd never been on a motorway, he was driving on a 40 limit road that is parallel to and only a few metres from the M4.

If they can get it wrong that way round, maybe they thought the OP's daughter was frequently doing 70 on a 40?

[cmaguire]

Gavia said:

Nobody is “hard to rate” as they’ve been doing it for years. The problem is that the premium might be “hard to swallow”. This is merely an opportunity for both sides to agree that for some compromise on the insured driver’s side the insurer will compromise on premium.

It’s fairly clear that by far the vast majority of drivers don’t have a black box and based on the past 20 odd years never will. If anything the creep of average speed cameras out of our roadworks onto smart motorways and A roads.

There may be some merit behind the new driver scenario but for anything else, such as the company vehicle, to me it is just treating the drivers like children. It is basically insulting.
Particularly when it appears the parameters being measured are being assessed as if the driver is taking the driving test.

I would rather not be sharing the roads with any of these prisoners

[TwigtheWonderkid]

cmaguire said:

There may be some merit behind the new driver scenario but for anything else, such as the company vehicle, to me it is just treating the drivers like children. It is basically insulting.

If you'd ever run a fleet of vehicles, especially vans, then you'd know that treating the drivers like children is insulting...to children. I'd far rather deal with children than the average van driver, children are more reasonable and cleverer.

Most van drivers aren't doing that job because they didn't fancy the commute as project manager on the large hadron collider. They are doing it because a driving test is the only test they ever passed in their lives. And maybe 25m front crawl if you get a bright one!

[bad company]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Have we seen such evidence?

[anonymous-user]

bad company said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Have we seen such evidence?

I have seen some compelling evidence, based on many thousands of vehicle years of data.

I can't share it as it's proprietary information but if a company buys into the concept it produces pretty interesting results.

[vonhosen]

bad company said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Have we seen such evidence?

Big companies invest in it & report they get returns from it.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/business-repo...