Black box insurance and advisory speed limits
Discussion
Chris32345 said:
Believe or not a large ammout of young drivers drive fairly we'll. It's just a small ammout of idiot's that cause a lot of the accidents
It doesn't appear that the stats quoted earlier beat that out. But depends on what you are thinking the large amounts means? If it's 60/40 then your statement could be true. 60% not having an accident could be large amounts.But the 40% having accidents feels about right from my daughter's class at school. Few of the girls, but most of the boys smacked up their cars. This was some time ago, some 15 years in fact!
Bert
BertBert said:
ATM said:
Problem there is you're relying on the robustness of the mobile phone app which is open to all manner of hacking and general mobile phone related problems. Imagine the calls to your tech support people discussing what else was on the phone or what update had just been applied etc. Big can of worms. Insurance company needs to know with absolute certainty what BB is telling them is accurate and will always work no matter what. Just not sure you can say that where the driver's mobile is involved.
Agreed, but the banks manage ok!There’s no gain in insurers pricing themselves out of the market for punitive reasons, therefore it’s reasonable to assume the premiums offered reflects their (underwriters) appetite for that risk.
People seem to think that insurance companies have some emotional agenda to keep young drivers, or others off the road, but the argument doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. It’s a competitive market and customers don’t have any real attachment to the “brand”, they will and do chop and change based on what’s important to them, and the vast majority - your typical driver - will be price driven. All an insurer gains by offering disproportionately large premiums or opting out is not getting that customer.
At the end of the day all any of them do is take on risk based on established, unemotional data that taken as a whole they hope will work out to be profitable for them. They don’t care about any particular policyholder, and people who get quotes aren’t being penalised personally, the risk group that one happens to fall in is. If the statistics show that people who are involved in accidents are more likely to have another one then it stands to reason that they are a greater risk. It doesn’t matter how one “feels” about that.
I don’t really know why people get so emotional about this stuff to be honest. Maybe those people should look into self-insuring and the costs of that, and maybe they’ll get some perspective.
EDIT: Turns out you can’t self insure anyway anymore, as - and for other reasons - it was deemed that £500,000 might not be enough to cover third party liabilities.
People seem to think that insurance companies have some emotional agenda to keep young drivers, or others off the road, but the argument doesn’t stand up to basic scrutiny. It’s a competitive market and customers don’t have any real attachment to the “brand”, they will and do chop and change based on what’s important to them, and the vast majority - your typical driver - will be price driven. All an insurer gains by offering disproportionately large premiums or opting out is not getting that customer.
At the end of the day all any of them do is take on risk based on established, unemotional data that taken as a whole they hope will work out to be profitable for them. They don’t care about any particular policyholder, and people who get quotes aren’t being penalised personally, the risk group that one happens to fall in is. If the statistics show that people who are involved in accidents are more likely to have another one then it stands to reason that they are a greater risk. It doesn’t matter how one “feels” about that.
I don’t really know why people get so emotional about this stuff to be honest. Maybe those people should look into self-insuring and the costs of that, and maybe they’ll get some perspective.
EDIT: Turns out you can’t self insure anyway anymore, as - and for other reasons - it was deemed that £500,000 might not be enough to cover third party liabilities.
Edited by Durzel on Saturday 4th July 10:51
ATM said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Insurance companies have no interest, desire, or financial incentive to impose a BB policy on Mrs Miggings aged 58 in Ipswich with her 1.3 Eurobox, who currently pays £150 a year comp and hasn't had an accident since 1985 when she clipped someones wing mirror in the supermarket car park.
By MilesNew insurance company which does exactly this. BB for driving miss daisy types who do lower mileage. You basically pay to get setup and then per mile. This insurance company seem to be doing very well as it's new to the market and even better with the current lock down in place.
I'm heavily invested in the BB company who supply their BBes. So yes I'll admit the extra bit of publicity here can only help. I'm hoping to get my parents switched onto this come renewal time.
The cost for it sitting parked for a year and never moving is more than I'm paying for my normal insurance. ( Peugeot 208, aged 66, small town )
I thought I'd be the ideal candidate but obviously not.
Drawweight said:
ATM said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Insurance companies have no interest, desire, or financial incentive to impose a BB policy on Mrs Miggings aged 58 in Ipswich with her 1.3 Eurobox, who currently pays £150 a year comp and hasn't had an accident since 1985 when she clipped someones wing mirror in the supermarket car park.
By MilesNew insurance company which does exactly this. BB for driving miss daisy types who do lower mileage. You basically pay to get setup and then per mile. This insurance company seem to be doing very well as it's new to the market and even better with the current lock down in place.
I'm heavily invested in the BB company who supply their BBes. So yes I'll admit the extra bit of publicity here can only help. I'm hoping to get my parents switched onto this come renewal time.
The cost for it sitting parked for a year and never moving is more than I'm paying for my normal insurance. ( Peugeot 208, aged 66, small town )
I thought I'd be the ideal candidate but obviously not.
ATM said:
Drawweight said:
ATM said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Insurance companies have no interest, desire, or financial incentive to impose a BB policy on Mrs Miggings aged 58 in Ipswich with her 1.3 Eurobox, who currently pays £150 a year comp and hasn't had an accident since 1985 when she clipped someones wing mirror in the supermarket car park.
By MilesNew insurance company which does exactly this. BB for driving miss daisy types who do lower mileage. You basically pay to get setup and then per mile. This insurance company seem to be doing very well as it's new to the market and even better with the current lock down in place.
I'm heavily invested in the BB company who supply their BBes. So yes I'll admit the extra bit of publicity here can only help. I'm hoping to get my parents switched onto this come renewal time.
The cost for it sitting parked for a year and never moving is more than I'm paying for my normal insurance. ( Peugeot 208, aged 66, small town )
I thought I'd be the ideal candidate but obviously not.
I'll say it again, there is no desire or economic incentive for insurance companies to fit BBs and monitor them on drivers paying buttons for their cover, because they hardly ever crash. It makes no sense and is just tinfoil hattery at its best.
ATM said:
BertBert said:
ATM said:
Problem there is you're relying on the robustness of the mobile phone app which is open to all manner of hacking and general mobile phone related problems. Imagine the calls to your tech support people discussing what else was on the phone or what update had just been applied etc. Big can of worms. Insurance company needs to know with absolute certainty what BB is telling them is accurate and will always work no matter what. Just not sure you can say that where the driver's mobile is involved.
Agreed, but the banks manage ok!Also the By Miles business model doesn't seem to need anything else than distance travelled. Google seems quite good at that on my phone. Anyway, I'm only making conversation rather than making a strong argument that your BBs are no better than mobile phones
I suspect that usage based pricing might well get popular for car insurance as it has in so many other areas. I'm not convinced that it'll make car insurance cheaper though. After all from commentary on here, the margins in car insurance are pretty low to start with. The By Miles pitch isn't that it's cheaper, but that it's fairer. I do love marketing. I predict that if it gets popular it'll be an inflationary factor for car insurance prices.Bert
BertBert said:
ATM said:
BertBert said:
ATM said:
Problem there is you're relying on the robustness of the mobile phone app which is open to all manner of hacking and general mobile phone related problems. Imagine the calls to your tech support people discussing what else was on the phone or what update had just been applied etc. Big can of worms. Insurance company needs to know with absolute certainty what BB is telling them is accurate and will always work no matter what. Just not sure you can say that where the driver's mobile is involved.
Agreed, but the banks manage ok!Also the By Miles business model doesn't seem to need anything else than distance travelled. Google seems quite good at that on my phone. Anyway, I'm only making conversation rather than making a strong argument that your BBs are no better than mobile phones
I suspect that usage based pricing might well get popular for car insurance as it has in so many other areas. I'm not convinced that it'll make car insurance cheaper though. After all from commentary on here, the margins in car insurance are pretty low to start with. The By Miles pitch isn't that it's cheaper, but that it's fairer. I do love marketing. I predict that if it gets popular it'll be an inflationary factor for car insurance prices.Bert
If you were an insurance company insuring people driving around in their cars at all hours of the day with all sorts of variables which could cause them to crash wouldn't you want to have as much information about the way in which they drive constantly being fed to you so you can be constantly monitoring them?
If they can't make that pay for itself I'd eat my hat.
ATM said:
Driving miss daisy types can still be rubbish drivers. A BB will figure that out. The BB can also understand where someone is driving so they can compare to speed limits and whatever else has been discussed on here. They don't have to keep insuring someone who is reckless. They can tell them to F off. The game in insurance is only insuring people who won't crash. Especially if the margins are small. If people drive better with a BB monitoring them its a win win.
If you were an insurance company insuring people driving around in their cars at all hours of the day with all sorts of variables which could cause them to crash wouldn't you want to have as much information about the way in which they drive constantly being fed to you so you can be constantly monitoring them?
If they can't make that pay for itself I'd eat my hat.
What of those people with HPC/Class 1 skillsets, that drive hard and fast when conditions and the surrounding environment is safe for that to happen?If you were an insurance company insuring people driving around in their cars at all hours of the day with all sorts of variables which could cause them to crash wouldn't you want to have as much information about the way in which they drive constantly being fed to you so you can be constantly monitoring them?
If they can't make that pay for itself I'd eat my hat.
It would seem that, if we are to be monitored 24/7 and insurance determined upon our every single input and action as a driver, inconsequential acts undertaken in safety will be punished because they don't 'fit an algorithm' and we will be reduced to mindless automatons, never breaking a limit or a rule but totally switched off from anything bar avoiding 'getting caught'.
The EU ISA plans from 2022 are going to be a key source of information (and money...) that insurance companies surely can't wait to get their hands on.
RSTurboPaul said:
What of those people with HPC/Class 1 skillsets, that drive hard and fast when conditions and the surrounding environment is safe for that to happen?
It would seem that, if we are to be monitored 24/7 and insurance determined upon our every single input and action as a driver, inconsequential acts undertaken in safety will be punished because they don't 'fit an algorithm' and we will be reduced to mindless automatons, never breaking a limit or a rule but totally switched off from anything bar avoiding 'getting caught'.
.
Over time won't their higher skillsets result in fewer accidents which in turn will lead to lower premiums? In the same vein in relation to the second point if "the mindless automatons" cause more accidents their premiums will rise. It would seem that, if we are to be monitored 24/7 and insurance determined upon our every single input and action as a driver, inconsequential acts undertaken in safety will be punished because they don't 'fit an algorithm' and we will be reduced to mindless automatons, never breaking a limit or a rule but totally switched off from anything bar avoiding 'getting caught'.
.
Countdown said:
RSTurboPaul said:
What of those people with HPC/Class 1 skillsets, that drive hard and fast when conditions and the surrounding environment is safe for that to happen?
It would seem that, if we are to be monitored 24/7 and insurance determined upon our every single input and action as a driver, inconsequential acts undertaken in safety will be punished because they don't 'fit an algorithm' and we will be reduced to mindless automatons, never breaking a limit or a rule but totally switched off from anything bar avoiding 'getting caught'.
.
Over time won't their higher skillsets result in fewer accidents which in turn will lead to lower premiums? In the same vein in relation to the second point if "the mindless automatons" cause more accidents their premiums will rise. It would seem that, if we are to be monitored 24/7 and insurance determined upon our every single input and action as a driver, inconsequential acts undertaken in safety will be punished because they don't 'fit an algorithm' and we will be reduced to mindless automatons, never breaking a limit or a rule but totally switched off from anything bar avoiding 'getting caught'.
.
re: whether or not fewer crashes = a lower premium, the theory proposed in this thread says yes. However, if insurers have access to a live stream of information that is telling them drivers are accelerating using 95% throttle openings and completely disregarding the NSL (even if it's the M40 at 3am or a remote welsh rural road with only 40 vehicles a day using it) what would stop them proclaiming 'reckless!!' and massively ramping up an insurance premium or, worse, cancelling it all together?
IIRC some young drivers with black boxes already have T&Cs that state 'three strikes and you are out' - which over the course of a whole year is ridiculous, as no-one can abide by every single rule of the road at all times, it's simply human nature to slip once in a while.
And if you have to re-insure and answer the question 'have you ever had insurance cancelled' with 'yes', you better have that large bottle of lube to hand because you are going to be bent over and royally rogered for years.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Saturday 4th July 20:39
Johnnytheboy said:
ATM said:
Driving miss daisy types can still be rubbish drivers. A BB will figure that out.
Genuine question: how?ATM said:
I'd be guessing about comparing the data from her BB to all the others they have. So they don't only look at her data in isolation but compare it to everyone else's they have. The more data you have the more obvious something will jump out if its far from average. That's generally how it works with big data.
Throw in some machine learning, and even the programmers don't know how it works. But it does, generally.The actual details are basically that you teach the algorithm what good behaviour, and bad behaviour, look like, on an adequately big data set.
ATM said:
Johnnytheboy said:
ATM said:
Driving miss daisy types can still be rubbish drivers. A BB will figure that out.
Genuine question: how?I'd always assumed they just worked on the 'slow and no g-forces = good driver' principle.
RSTurboPaul said:
re: whether or not fewer crashes = a lower premium, the theory proposed in this thread says yes. However, if insurers have access to a live stream of information that is telling them drivers are accelerating using 95% throttle openings and completely disregarding the NSL (even if it's the M40 at 3am or a remote welsh rural road with only 40 vehicles a day using it) what would stop them proclaiming 'reckless!!' and massively ramping up an insurance premium or, worse, cancelling it all together?
If the policy was likely to be cancelled where the Insured was doing 95mph @3am on the M40 then that suggests that the driver is an idiot for buying a certain Policy and driving in a way that the Policy forbids. It's a fairly simple choice in my view; if you're going to drive in a way the BB won't like either DON'T drive like that or buy the more expensive insurance policy.I know the argument on here is "Well, it can be perfectly safe to do 95mph on a Motorway at 3am" and possibly it can, but I'm guessing that the Insurance Companies have shedloads of data which know how safe it really is and they use it to adjust their premiums accordingly.
ATM said:
I'd be guessing about comparing the data from her BB to all the others they have. So they don't only look at her data in isolation but compare it to everyone else's they have. The more data you have the more obvious something will jump out if its far from average. That's generally how it works with big data.
So that's rather fab. Your company sells a BB insurance as fairer because you only pay for your miles. But in the background it's making it's own big data assessment of how the driver drives. Very fair then.Bert
BertBert said:
ATM said:
I'd be guessing about comparing the data from her BB to all the others they have. So they don't only look at her data in isolation but compare it to everyone else's they have. The more data you have the more obvious something will jump out if its far from average. That's generally how it works with big data.
So that's rather fab. Your company sells a BB insurance as fairer because you only pay for your miles. But in the background it's making it's own big data assessment of how the driver drives. Very fair then.Bert
I've not checked the details of by miles but they sell it as better for people who drive less but the devil is in the detail. If you can also look for bad driving characteristics then why wouldn't you. There is no laws around insurance companies cancelling policies. Just because you sign up for the year doesn't mean they have to keep you for the year. I think they just need to show they made attempts to contact you and tell you its cancelled. I had a policy cancelled and few years back while I was out of the country - most annoying. Something about not receiving my supporting documents in time. Anyway they wrote to tell me and I didn't see the letter obviously as I was not at home. So the car had been in a car park at the airport uninsured. Then I drove it home too. Its an offence nowadays to own a car that isn't insured unless it is SORN and off the road. So these insurance companies have you over a barrel.
Countdown said:
If the policy was likely to be cancelled where the Insured was doing 95mph @3am on the M40 then that suggests that the driver is an idiot for buying a certain Policy and driving in a way that the Policy forbids. It's a fairly simple choice in my view; if you're going to drive in a way the BB won't like either DON'T drive like that or buy the more expensive insurance policy.
I know the argument on here is "Well, it can be perfectly safe to do 95mph on a Motorway at 3am" and possibly it can, but I'm guessing that the Insurance Companies have shedloads of data which know how safe it really is and they use it to adjust their premiums accordingly.
Exactly. Anyone who drives at 95mph, knowing they have a BB monitoring their driving, is too stupid to have a licence and probably shouldn't even be allowed out without adult supervision. I know the argument on here is "Well, it can be perfectly safe to do 95mph on a Motorway at 3am" and possibly it can, but I'm guessing that the Insurance Companies have shedloads of data which know how safe it really is and they use it to adjust their premiums accordingly.
ATM said:
Driving miss daisy types can still be rubbish drivers. A BB will figure that out.
Insurance companies don't care if you're a rubbish driver, only if you're a driver likely to claim. As I've said many times, Miss daisy, assuming she has a Honda Jazz and lives in a rural market town, is paying £150 max for her annual policy. Maybe even less. She hasn't claimed for 30 years. Can you please explain how the actual economics works in supplying and monitoring a BB, in her case? Of her £150, 12% is tax, the same again is re-insurance costs, so £37.50 of the premium has gone before they even start. Another chunk goes to the aggregator site from where they got the business. They are working on wafer thin margins, in the expectations that very few Miss daisys will crash. By supplying BBs to the all, at a cost, how far do you think the accident rate will drop? BBs were introduced in 1995, on private car insurance as a niche product for young drivers. All the tinfoil hat loons told us it was the thin end of the wedge, and soon we'd all have them. A quarter of a century later, and here we are, those 18 y/olds are now 43, and it's a niche product for young drivers.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff