Black box insurance and advisory speed limits

[TheDrownedApe]

Morning all,

My lad on his commute passes a 30 advisory speed limit on a 50 limit dual carriageway. 3 times now he has had a warning from his insurer about speeding in this spot and his speed has always been under 50, but not under 30.

I haven't contacted the insurer to ascertain whether they have it recorded as a limit or advisory as i can't be bothered as i don't have the issue - and he, being 18 is too lazy to bother. Plus it's not an issue anymore, due to furlough and redundancy, but raises a question of driving behaviour and rules.

Last year he was with More Than and they had a decent app showing his journeys etc and never alerted to advisories. Now with Tesco and it seems they do.

1. Do they all not use an industry standard mapping?
2. Anyone other compaines warn for advisories?
3. Is their thought process that as a new driver he isn't "qualified" to judge the best speed?

[Plymo]

I've certainly never seen anyone punished for being below the actual legal limit so that's a new one on me. Lots of acceleration or braking I've heard of though. And issues where a 30 runs alongside an NSL and it thinks you're on the former.
Do you have a street view link for this advisory limit? Is it one just for a corner or something?
Presumably there's no "end of limit" sign for it either?

I'd say they are on very shaky ground!

If it's one in a black or green roundel (I've only seen this for 20 though) then it's possible it could be confusing a sort of AI/Automatic system - an advisory 20 near me shows up on Google maps as a 20 limit for example.

[mmm-five]

I hope the systems have moved on from the one on my niece's car about 5 years ago.

She got monthly updates on her driving style for the first 6 months of driving her little car (only a Hyundai i10, and most warnings were due to nervous & sudden braking) but she then broke her ankle and didn't drive for over 2 months, but still got an amber warning for sudden braking and driving over the limit - when the car had not moved.

When questioned, the insurer said that it wasn't a specific warning for the previous month, just a warning of unwanted driving traits pulled from all their historical data on that driver! But couldn't then explain how the refund for 'good' driving would be applied if she improved throughout the year. We then assumed they gave everyone an amber rating every month so they didn't have to give anyone a refund.

2nd year prices didn't vary much whether black box was fitted or not, so she chose one without.

[blueg33]

For my kids I was able to buy insurance without telematics as cheaply as with telematics. No brainer to avoid the telematics ones.

[Countdown]

Op - that DOES seem quite intrusive and picky.

My daughter had one fitted when she started driving and, whilst she wasn't the best driver in the world, it generally rated her as good and certainly didn't issue warnings. i think her driving was judged over a period of time rather than on specific instances. IIRC she saved £2k in the first year and £800 in the 2nd year so it was definitely worth having.

One benefit of the black box which is sometimes overlooked is that it acts as a cheap tracker in case the car gets stolen.

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

Op - that DOES seem quite intrusive and picky.

My daughter had one fitted when she started driving and, whilst she wasn't the best driver in the world, it generally rated her as good and certainly didn't issue warnings. i think her driving was judged over a period of time rather than on specific instances. IIRC she saved £2k in the first year and £800 in the 2nd year so it was definitely worth having.

One benefit of the black box which is sometimes overlooked is that it acts as a cheap tracker in case the car gets stolen.

Saved £2k! My daughters first year insurance on the fiesta was under £1200 without a box, And that was my point, you can buy insurance just as cheaply without it, then you dont have all the stress of the Op's initial point.

[megaphone]

blueg33 said:

For my kids I was able to buy insurance without telematics as cheaply as with telematics. No brainer to avoid the telematics ones.

Really? I'd be happy they where being forced to drive within limits, I think they should be compulsory for the first two years for all 'young' drivers.

[blueg33]

megaphone said:

blueg33 said:

For my kids I was able to buy insurance without telematics as cheaply as with telematics. No brainer to avoid the telematics ones.

Really? I'd be happy they where being forced to drive within limits, I think they should be compulsory for the first two years for all 'young' drivers.

Yes really. We all use the cars so that complicates things and I trust my kids not to be idiots in the car. Better than them having every movement tracked and possible increased penalties for things that may not be a real issue - eg the opening post on this thread.

[Majorslow]

for OP...is the "advised" 30 mph limit inside a red ring?.....if it is then that's the speed limit...not advised

If it's a "30" with yellow/amber flashing lights...then it's temp advisory speed limit....and i don't know how his black box would know

Some bends have a "suggested" max speed in black and white on the approach to bends.....so it is not enforceable .....just you look a twit if you don't comply and crash cause of your speed being above the "advice"

He's between a rock and a hard place, doing 30 in a "normal" limit of 50 could be too slow putting him at risk from other "speeding" traffic

Too many "warnings" from his insurance company could put his premium up if he "keeps up" with other traffic

Maybe check out the road signs yourself, and not assume the road is still a 50, many speed limits change, and it can take some a couple of years to realise the council lowered the speed limit

As a parent i liked black boxes for my kids when they started solo driving (especially my daughter who loves black runs skiing,and is a Adrenalin junkie) but both of them complained they wanted to watch the speedo rather than the road and felt that it was more dangerous having the black box for the first couple of years. Both now have binned the black boxes and feel so much more better about general awareness

[TheDrownedApe]

here is the particular stretch. His insurance is about £400 cheaper with a box as an 18 yo with 1 years experience

[Dr Jekyll]

mmm-five said:

I hope the systems have moved on from the one on my niece's car about 5 years ago.

She got monthly updates on her driving style for the first 6 months of driving her little car (only a Hyundai i10, and most warnings were due to nervous & sudden braking) but she then broke her ankle and didn't drive for over 2 months, but still got an amber warning for sudden braking and driving over the limit - when the car had not moved.

When questioned, the insurer said that it wasn't a specific warning for the previous month, just a warning of unwanted driving traits pulled from all their historical data on that driver! But couldn't then explain how the refund for 'good' driving would be applied if she improved throughout the year. We then assumed they gave everyone an amber rating every month so they didn't have to give anyone a refund.

2nd year prices didn't vary much whether black box was fitted or not, so she chose one without.

Perhaps if she had driven during those 2 months but not braked harshly her rating would have improved.

[Countdown]

blueg33 said:

Countdown said:

Op - that DOES seem quite intrusive and picky.

My daughter had one fitted when she started driving and, whilst she wasn't the best driver in the world, it generally rated her as good and certainly didn't issue warnings. i think her driving was judged over a period of time rather than on specific instances. IIRC she saved £2k in the first year and £800 in the 2nd year so it was definitely worth having.

One benefit of the black box which is sometimes overlooked is that it acts as a cheap tracker in case the car gets stolen.

Saved £2k! My daughters first year insurance on the fiesta was under £1200 without a box, And that was my point, you can buy insurance just as cheaply without it, then you dont have all the stress of the Op's initial point.

IIRC my daughter's was £3,600 "without"/£1,600 "with GPS" in Year 1 and then £1,600 without/£800 with in Y2, and then it dropped to £500 in Y3 without a box. That was on a Toyota Yaris. From what I remember my nephews'nieces were all getting similar quotes at the time.

In relation to the "stress" point it probably won't go down too well on here but if your tracker box is suggesting your driving could be improved then it might well be right.

[Countdown]

Majorslow said:

As a parent i liked black boxes for my kids when they started solo driving (especially my daughter who loves black runs skiing,and is a Adrenalin junkie) but both of them complained they wanted to watch the speedo rather than the road and felt that it was more dangerous having the black box for the first couple of years. Both now have binned the black boxes and feel so much more better about general awareness

Re: the bit in bold I think that's down to a lack of experience. For example I'd be surprised if a PHer couldn't estimate their speed to within +/- 5mph in a car their familiar with.

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

blueg33 said:

Countdown said:

Op - that DOES seem quite intrusive and picky.

My daughter had one fitted when she started driving and, whilst she wasn't the best driver in the world, it generally rated her as good and certainly didn't issue warnings. i think her driving was judged over a period of time rather than on specific instances. IIRC she saved £2k in the first year and £800 in the 2nd year so it was definitely worth having.

One benefit of the black box which is sometimes overlooked is that it acts as a cheap tracker in case the car gets stolen.

Saved £2k! My daughters first year insurance on the fiesta was under £1200 without a box, And that was my point, you can buy insurance just as cheaply without it, then you dont have all the stress of the Op's initial point.

IIRC my daughter's was £3,600 "without"/£1,600 "with GPS" in Year 1 and then £1,600 without/£800 with in Y2, and then it dropped to £500 in Y3 without a box. That was on a Toyota Yaris. From what I remember my nephews'nieces were all getting similar quotes at the time.

In relation to the "stress" point it probably won't go down too well on here but if your tracker box is suggesting your driving could be improved then it might well be right.

Wow, ever had quotes that high for my kids cars. Highest we paid for my son when he was 17 (now 24) was £1800 for a 100bhp Skoda Fabia - no black box

I take your last point. My wife for instance is a bit binary on the controls, ie brake and accelerator are used as switches rather than progressive devices, her driving would ps off a black box. I dont think that my kids should be punished for this.

[RSTurboPaul]

TheDrownedApe said:

here is the particular stretch. His insurance is about £400 cheaper with a box as an 18 yo with 1 years experience

I would email them with that link and ask for written confirmation of their policies.

They can't possibly punish for compliance with a speed limit but non-compliance with an advisory speed that is aimed at HGVs (in the wet or dry - I can't remember which) to reduce the risk of them falling over.

If you don't get a decent response, the Daily Mail likes a good article on ridiculous rules

[Bright Halo]

There is a section at the top end of the M5 that advises 50mph due to tight bends, if you actually did 50mph I reckon you would be rear ended.

[Dr Jekyll]

RSTurboPaul said:

I would email them with that link and ask for written confirmation of their policies.

They can't possibly punish for compliance with a speed limit but non-compliance with an advisory speed that is aimed at HGVs (in the wet or dry - I can't remember which) to reduce the risk of them falling over.

If you don't get a decent response, the Daily Mail likes a good article on ridiculous rules

It isn't a question of punishment. If their figures show drivers who disregard advisory limits have more claims, then that's enough for them to charge higher premium.

[Hol]

blueg33 said:

For my kids I was able to buy insurance without telematics as cheaply as with telematics. No brainer to avoid the telematics ones.

That's what I did. It was a little bit higher, but not much.

[xjay1337]

megaphone said:

blueg33 said:

For my kids I was able to buy insurance without telematics as cheaply as with telematics. No brainer to avoid the telematics ones.

Really? I'd be happy they where being forced to drive within limits, I think they should be compulsory for the first two years for all 'young' drivers.

Why do you think that an inaccurate virtual nanny would be a good idea for younger drivers?

[Hol]

Countdown said:

Majorslow said:

As a parent i liked black boxes for my kids when they started solo driving (especially my daughter who loves black runs skiing,and is a Adrenalin junkie) but both of them complained they wanted to watch the speedo rather than the road and felt that it was more dangerous having the black box for the first couple of years. Both now have binned the black boxes and feel so much more better about general awareness

Re: the bit in bold I think that's down to a lack of experience. For example I'd be surprised if a PHer couldn't estimate their speed to within +/- 5mph in a car their familiar with.

Its a valid comment though, some of my sons peers had reported similar, including (as an example) - A need to slow down significantly below the limit on the approach to traffic lights into avoid them braking harder than the black box would like if they turned amber.