Black box insurance and advisory speed limits
Discussion
RSTurboPaul said:
Why don't you want any additional training now? Are you a person who does not like being told what to do? Are you already Class 1 or equivalent? Do you think you will get a black box so that you can (apparently) make sure you drive safely if you don't want to undertake any self-improvement?
I don’t want it, because I’m nearer 40 than I am 30. I’ve driven / ridden since I was old enough to walk. I’ve road raced motorbikes since I was 17 at some of the fastest tracks in the world. I’ve spent my life pushing limits. However, I didn’t do any advanced driver training when I was a kid because I didn’t want to. It’s really that simple. I didn’t want someone telling me what to do and how to do it. I’m sure you’ll tell me that you’re a better driver because you have some qualifications. You may well be, equally you might not be.
To counter that I did do some rider race training with some top racers when I was starting out and had refreshers occasionally. I still crashed though and it still hurt.
Qualifications and courses are only of any use if people want to do them and want to learn. The majority of young drivers don’t want either so outcomes are biased as the only ones doing the courses are those who, by definition, want to be there.
I didn’t have a black box because I could get away without one. I’d only have had one if it was the only option or only financially viable one.
unident said:
RSTurboPaul said:
Why don't you want any additional training now? Are you a person who does not like being told what to do? Are you already Class 1 or equivalent? Do you think you will get a black box so that you can (apparently) make sure you drive safely if you don't want to undertake any self-improvement?
I don’t want it, because I’m nearer 40 than I am 30. I’ve driven / ridden since I was old enough to walk. I’ve road raced motorbikes since I was 17 at some of the fastest tracks in the world. I’ve spent my life pushing limits. However, I didn’t do any advanced driver training when I was a kid because I didn’t want to. It’s really that simple. I didn’t want someone telling me what to do and how to do it. I’m sure you’ll tell me that you’re a better driver because you have some qualifications. You may well be, equally you might not be.
To counter that I did do some rider race training with some top racers when I was starting out and had refreshers occasionally. I still crashed though and it still hurt.
Qualifications and courses are only of any use if people want to do them and want to learn. The majority of young drivers don’t want either so outcomes are biased as the only ones doing the courses are those who, by definition, want to be there.
I didn’t have a black box because I could get away without one. I’d only have had one if it was the only option or only financially viable one.
I think my point is that one never stops learning - every trip might bring a new situation that unfolds and can be learnt from, and there is a school of thought that says those at the top of their game (whether driving, a sportsperson, a qualified person in a particular field...) recognise this and aren't afraid to seek extra tuition. And that they recognise their own inbuilt resistance to being told what to do as natural but something that can be overcome to bring benefits
That sort of mental training goes hand in hand with physical training, and there's no reason why it can't be taught to kids from, what, 14? You could start with the aspects related to how one is viewed by others and how one's actions affect other people's reactions, and then move onto road user training in all modes of transport at a later point in time, but well before they are able to drive on the road.
Separate the mental aspects, the physical operation of the vehicle, and the tools required to interact with others successfully on the road, and the learning curve would be much less steep and (hopefully) create greater understanding - surely a better way than giving someone a book with some rules and pretend situations in it, asking them to learn the rules and then apply them to a video in order to pass a theory test just a few weeks later, then throwing them into a complex and potentially dangerous metal box that they need to learn to operate while at the same time learning to operate it within the wider environment.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 8th July 13:56
I guess the difference with IAM, RoSPA, etc compared to a black box is that an IAM accredited driver isn’t in any way moderated or restrained by having that qualification, on a day to day practical risk basis. It’s passive extra training at the end of the day.
They are likely to be better drivers, certainly, but an IAM accredited driver might have a bad day and decide to drive aggressively, whereas someone with a black box permanently active needs to be well behaved at all times, and is actively monitored to make certain of it.
That counts far more for insurers than accreditations, I suspect.
They are likely to be better drivers, certainly, but an IAM accredited driver might have a bad day and decide to drive aggressively, whereas someone with a black box permanently active needs to be well behaved at all times, and is actively monitored to make certain of it.
That counts far more for insurers than accreditations, I suspect.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Durzel said:
That counts far more for insurers than accreditations, I suspect.
What counts for insurers are results, and black boxes deliver them. We can all have a contrary opinion, or believe otherwise, but the facts couldn't care less about our beliefs. BertBert said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Durzel said:
That counts far more for insurers than accreditations, I suspect.
What counts for insurers are results, and black boxes deliver them. We can all have a contrary opinion, or believe otherwise, but the facts couldn't care less about our beliefs. This whole discussion is also informed by one's personal position on things such as Big Brother and personal responsibility for one's actions - the latter of which seems to be increasingly pushed out, to be replaced by the assumption that we must all be monitored and punished because we are irresponsible children who cannot behave if left to our own devices.
RSTurboPaul said:
+1 to the stats observation.
This whole discussion is also informed by one's personal position on things such as Big Brother and personal responsibility for one's actions - the latter of which seems to be increasingly pushed out, to be replaced by the assumption that we must all be monitored and punished because we are irresponsible children who cannot behave if left to our own devices.
That’s not true though. I don’t have to have a black box, nor does anyone. For the majority of drivers they make little to no sense. They are simply a tool to moderate / control the driving behaviour of a statistically proven reckless group of drivers. After a couple of years most of those have moved beyond the need for one. This could be down to simply growing up a bit, or that the box has forced them to learn to drive in a safer manner. This whole discussion is also informed by one's personal position on things such as Big Brother and personal responsibility for one's actions - the latter of which seems to be increasingly pushed out, to be replaced by the assumption that we must all be monitored and punished because we are irresponsible children who cannot behave if left to our own devices.
Safer may not equate to better to the driving gods on here, but it is what matters to insurers. They don’t care if you’re the most qualified driver ever. They do care if you don’t crash, that makes you the perfect risk for them and that’s all that matters.
Personal responsibility is a brilliant comment. You may be responsible for an accident but you never really take on much of that responsibility. That sits with your insurer to fork out the money for your actions. You just pay an increased amount for a few years that rarely covers what’s been paid out.
unident said:
That’s not true though. I don’t have to have a black box, nor does anyone. For the majority of drivers they make little to no sense. They are simply a tool to moderate / control the driving behaviour of a statistically proven reckless group of drivers. After a couple of years most of those have moved beyond the need for one. This could be down to simply growing up a bit, or that the box has forced them to learn to drive in a safer manner.
Safer may not equate to better to the driving gods on here, but it is what matters to insurers. They don’t care if you’re the most qualified driver ever. They do care if you don’t crash, that makes you the perfect risk for them and that’s all that matters.
Personal responsibility is a brilliant comment. You may be responsible for an accident but you never really take on much of that responsibility. That sits with your insurer to fork out the money for your actions. You just pay an increased amount for a few years that rarely covers what’s been paid out.
Statistically proven reckless? Or statistically proven inexperienced?Safer may not equate to better to the driving gods on here, but it is what matters to insurers. They don’t care if you’re the most qualified driver ever. They do care if you don’t crash, that makes you the perfect risk for them and that’s all that matters.
Personal responsibility is a brilliant comment. You may be responsible for an accident but you never really take on much of that responsibility. That sits with your insurer to fork out the money for your actions. You just pay an increased amount for a few years that rarely covers what’s been paid out.
Some will be the former, of course, the same as with any activity, but the latter is the majority and a much, much larger group.
Inexperience can be dealt with through earlier physical and attitudinal training.
Recklessness can, to some extent, be dealt with by attitudinal training.
Some will always be reckless whatever happens - blame their upbringing or whatever - and those people can be dealt with by the police because they are usually pretty obvious out on the road.
One could argue that black boxes could/should be enforced on that group following a conviction for CD/DD/etc. - the presumption then being that they are innocent until proven guilty, as should be the case.
I'm not sure why the comment on personal responsibility is so amusing. Your position would seem to be that no driver has any personal responsibility because they have passed it on to a third party insurer?
It doesn't just boil down to whether or not one can afford to self-insure for the totality of effects from the accidents one might have - it's about having the mindset that one will drive to avoid accidents, help others to avoid accidents if a situation that might cause one is evolving on the road, and take responsibility when something does happen by acknowledging when one is at fault and actively seeking to understand why it happened and what one can do to make sure it doesn't happen again (rather than getting straight back in the car and repeating the accident six months later while blaming everyone else, which is a known trend).
That sort of attitudinal training early on, before 17, might help reduce the current culture of blaming everyone and everything else and then engaging a 'where there's blame, there's a claim' company.
RSTurboPaul said:
Statistically proven reckless? Or statistically proven inexperienced?
Reckless.Inexperienced mature drivers who pass their test later in life do not have the dreadful accident stats that young drivers have. A 19 y/o with 2 years expeince will pay far more for insurance than a 50 y/o who passed yesterday. There's a reason for that.
RSTurboPaul said:
Statistically proven reckless? Or statistically proven inexperienced?
Some will be the former, of course, the same as with any activity, but the latter is the majority and a much, much larger group.
Inexperience can be dealt with through earlier physical and attitudinal training.
Recklessness can, to some extent, be dealt with by attitudinal training.
Some will always be reckless whatever happens - blame their upbringing or whatever - and those people can be dealt with by the police because they are usually pretty obvious out on the road.
One could argue that black boxes could/should be enforced on that group following a conviction for CD/DD/etc. - the presumption then being that they are innocent until proven guilty, as should be the case.
I'm not sure why the comment on personal responsibility is so amusing. Your position would seem to be that no driver has any personal responsibility because they have passed it on to a third party insurer?
It doesn't just boil down to whether or not one can afford to self-insure for the totality of effects from the accidents one might have - it's about having the mindset that one will drive to avoid accidents, help others to avoid accidents if a situation that might cause one is evolving on the road, and take responsibility when something does happen by acknowledging when one is at fault and actively seeking to understand why it happened and what one can do to make sure it doesn't happen again (rather than getting straight back in the car and repeating the accident six months later while blaming everyone else, which is a known trend).
That sort of attitudinal training early on, before 17, might help reduce the current culture of blaming everyone and everything else and then engaging a 'where there's blame, there's a claim' company.
Your opinion of youth and their maturity is well wide of the mark. You seem to think that they are all just queuing up to become great drivers and that they’ll all take pride in it. They won’t. Most people on the road don’t give a stuff either. A car is a car is a car, it is a way to get from A to B, it something to analyse, cherish and worship. For some it is, but they are the vast minority. Some will be the former, of course, the same as with any activity, but the latter is the majority and a much, much larger group.
Inexperience can be dealt with through earlier physical and attitudinal training.
Recklessness can, to some extent, be dealt with by attitudinal training.
Some will always be reckless whatever happens - blame their upbringing or whatever - and those people can be dealt with by the police because they are usually pretty obvious out on the road.
One could argue that black boxes could/should be enforced on that group following a conviction for CD/DD/etc. - the presumption then being that they are innocent until proven guilty, as should be the case.
I'm not sure why the comment on personal responsibility is so amusing. Your position would seem to be that no driver has any personal responsibility because they have passed it on to a third party insurer?
It doesn't just boil down to whether or not one can afford to self-insure for the totality of effects from the accidents one might have - it's about having the mindset that one will drive to avoid accidents, help others to avoid accidents if a situation that might cause one is evolving on the road, and take responsibility when something does happen by acknowledging when one is at fault and actively seeking to understand why it happened and what one can do to make sure it doesn't happen again (rather than getting straight back in the car and repeating the accident six months later while blaming everyone else, which is a known trend).
That sort of attitudinal training early on, before 17, might help reduce the current culture of blaming everyone and everything else and then engaging a 'where there's blame, there's a claim' company.
Young drivers are a mix of hormones, inexperience and naivety. All this talk about training their attitudes and the like is so far wide of the mark of something that would work that it’s scary. If it was a simple as you say then why haven’t the additional training requirements implemented since I learned to drive had any significant impact? Of course you can claim that the new requirements aren’t what’s needed, but again that’s specious.
People in the main don’t care about becoming a great driver. Generalising massively, young lads are driven by testosterone and their mates egging them on to do stupid things. Girls are much more scared and probably just as dangerous with their indecisiveness. They are massive generalisations, there will be outliers, either side of the normal bell distribution, but they are not the norm. The norm is that younger drivers crash a lot and tend to have more serious accidents, older drivers crash a lot, but have less serious accidents. People 25 - 60 are the safest (not necessarily best, but safest) as a rule, especially those with kids and boring cars.
Fundamentally, I think there are two opposing viewpoints in this sort of discussion:
- those who support upskilling and education with the aim of bettering a population's skill levels, granting them the privilege of feeling and being trusted and responsible for their own destiny, applying the education given by those who already have experience and then learning some more by their own experience, as generations before us have done, with the acceptance that sometimes mistakes will be made but that out of mistakes can come long term positives;
- those who wish to restrict the population's ability to do things, such as by not teaching them things and then restricting the ability to learn by experience, removing the opportunity for personal growth and treating them as children because 'nanny knows best' and everyone must grow up and live in a constantly monitored, 100%, risk-free environment at all times 'just in case'.
The latter seems to be seen in relation to Black Boxes for young drivers; forthcoming EU-mandated speed limiters in new cars; the change in approach generally from managing one's own risk to apparently having to reduce everyone's else's risk regardless of the impact on oneself; the social pressure to be seen to be 'doing the right thing'; and so on.
I'm pretty sure neither side is ever going to shift their position and agree with the other side TBH.
The current govt position seems to be that restrictions and limitations are the only possible way to improve road safety in the young driver group. The evidence in the U17CC study suggests it is possible to vastly improve the skillset and mindset of young drivers without resorting to Big Brother tracking and restrictions based on complying with simplistic numbers on a stick at the side of the road. Why more investigation is not being undertaken into the latter, I don't know, but it needs to be done if govt are serious about actually making a difference.
It is somewhat depressing if we resign ourselves to the position that 'nothing can be done' about dem yoof - kids are able to do so much more if we train them with the skills they need and engender a mindset from an early age. Right now it feels like we are just muzzling dogs because they are poorly behaved, rather than tackling the fact they are not being trained properly.
Of course, perhaps the aim is just to push kids onto autonomous, mind-numbing, electric googlepods doing 19mph everywhere so they don't have to dedicate any brainspace away from refreshing their facecock status... A population unable to get around the country without being forced to use a public service vehicle is a population that is a lot more compliant, I imagine.
- those who support upskilling and education with the aim of bettering a population's skill levels, granting them the privilege of feeling and being trusted and responsible for their own destiny, applying the education given by those who already have experience and then learning some more by their own experience, as generations before us have done, with the acceptance that sometimes mistakes will be made but that out of mistakes can come long term positives;
- those who wish to restrict the population's ability to do things, such as by not teaching them things and then restricting the ability to learn by experience, removing the opportunity for personal growth and treating them as children because 'nanny knows best' and everyone must grow up and live in a constantly monitored, 100%, risk-free environment at all times 'just in case'.
The latter seems to be seen in relation to Black Boxes for young drivers; forthcoming EU-mandated speed limiters in new cars; the change in approach generally from managing one's own risk to apparently having to reduce everyone's else's risk regardless of the impact on oneself; the social pressure to be seen to be 'doing the right thing'; and so on.
I'm pretty sure neither side is ever going to shift their position and agree with the other side TBH.
The current govt position seems to be that restrictions and limitations are the only possible way to improve road safety in the young driver group. The evidence in the U17CC study suggests it is possible to vastly improve the skillset and mindset of young drivers without resorting to Big Brother tracking and restrictions based on complying with simplistic numbers on a stick at the side of the road. Why more investigation is not being undertaken into the latter, I don't know, but it needs to be done if govt are serious about actually making a difference.
It is somewhat depressing if we resign ourselves to the position that 'nothing can be done' about dem yoof - kids are able to do so much more if we train them with the skills they need and engender a mindset from an early age. Right now it feels like we are just muzzling dogs because they are poorly behaved, rather than tackling the fact they are not being trained properly.
Of course, perhaps the aim is just to push kids onto autonomous, mind-numbing, electric googlepods doing 19mph everywhere so they don't have to dedicate any brainspace away from refreshing their facecock status... A population unable to get around the country without being forced to use a public service vehicle is a population that is a lot more compliant, I imagine.
Edited by RSTurboPaul on Wednesday 8th July 22:41
Your argument is completely missing the point.
Blackboxes aren’t mandated, controlled, invented by or used by governments. They are an option available to drivers that they may or may not choose to use offered by private businesses.
There’s little point continuing the discussion down the route you’re going as your position doesn’t reflect reality.
Blackboxes aren’t mandated, controlled, invented by or used by governments. They are an option available to drivers that they may or may not choose to use offered by private businesses.
There’s little point continuing the discussion down the route you’re going as your position doesn’t reflect reality.
unident said:
Your argument is completely missing the point.
Blackboxes aren’t mandated, controlled, invented by or used by governments. They are an option available to drivers that they may or may not choose to use offered by private businesses.
There’s little point continuing the discussion down the route you’re going as your position doesn’t reflect reality.
I was attempting to discuss the range of wider viewpoints that may inform one's opinions on black boxes, and how those holding them are unlikely to ever meet in the middle - be it over black boxes and what they represent, or something else.Blackboxes aren’t mandated, controlled, invented by or used by governments. They are an option available to drivers that they may or may not choose to use offered by private businesses.
There’s little point continuing the discussion down the route you’re going as your position doesn’t reflect reality.
The EU-mandated speed limiters will very much be mandated and used by governments, so it is a discussion worth having in that regard.
quote=RSTurboPaul]
I was attempting to discuss the range of wider viewpoints that may inform one's opinions on black boxes, and how those holding them are unlikely to ever meet in the middle - be it over black boxes and what they represent, or something else.
The EU-mandated speed limiters will very much be mandated and used by governments, so it is a discussion worth having in that regard.
[/quote]
That’s a separate set of discussions. It has nothing to do with insurance driven blackboxes. Those discussions invariably head of into wild conspiracy theories about a big `brother, thin end of the wedge, end of all civil liberties and so on. Not a discussion I want to be involved in.
Your reliance on a study that had 54 replies is a bit much too. It’s not a valid survey and nothing of note can be drawn from its effectiveness. Anecdotally it may have worked for you, but that isn’t statistically valid for the rest of the population.
I was attempting to discuss the range of wider viewpoints that may inform one's opinions on black boxes, and how those holding them are unlikely to ever meet in the middle - be it over black boxes and what they represent, or something else.
The EU-mandated speed limiters will very much be mandated and used by governments, so it is a discussion worth having in that regard.
[/quote]
That’s a separate set of discussions. It has nothing to do with insurance driven blackboxes. Those discussions invariably head of into wild conspiracy theories about a big `brother, thin end of the wedge, end of all civil liberties and so on. Not a discussion I want to be involved in.
Your reliance on a study that had 54 replies is a bit much too. It’s not a valid survey and nothing of note can be drawn from its effectiveness. Anecdotally it may have worked for you, but that isn’t statistically valid for the rest of the population.
RSTurboPaul said:
Fundamentally, I think there are two opposing viewpoints in this sort of discussion:
- those who support upskilling and education with the aim of bettering a population's skill levels, granting them the privilege of feeling and being trusted and responsible for their own destiny, applying the education given by those who already have experience and then learning some more by their own experience, as generations before us have done, with the acceptance that sometimes mistakes will be made but that out of mistakes can come long term positives;
- those who wish to restrict the population's ability to do things, such as by not teaching them things and then restricting the ability to learn by experience, removing the opportunity for personal growth and treating them as children because 'nanny knows best' and everyone must grow up and live in a constantly monitored, 100%, risk-free environment at all times 'just in case'.
You’re presenting these positions as mutually exclusive and immutable when they aren’t.- those who support upskilling and education with the aim of bettering a population's skill levels, granting them the privilege of feeling and being trusted and responsible for their own destiny, applying the education given by those who already have experience and then learning some more by their own experience, as generations before us have done, with the acceptance that sometimes mistakes will be made but that out of mistakes can come long term positives;
- those who wish to restrict the population's ability to do things, such as by not teaching them things and then restricting the ability to learn by experience, removing the opportunity for personal growth and treating them as children because 'nanny knows best' and everyone must grow up and live in a constantly monitored, 100%, risk-free environment at all times 'just in case'.
There is also heavy bias in the language you used here and it’s not remotely difficult to see that you’re not objective about these positions from the care you give the former position and scorn dripping from the second, but that’s by the by.
Why must people in favour of black boxes also be in favour of “not teaching them things”? If you mean additional education in the form of IAM etc I’m all for it. If you mean being taught by mixing it with the general public on the road, “learn from your mistakes” kinda thing, not so much - because that has consequences for innocent parties.
My rather simple opinion is this: the current driving test, I believe, is insufficient to teach people how to drive. The notion that a single practical test is sufficient for you to then get on the road and mix it with everyone else, in whatever car you want (if you can afford it and the insurance) is plainly ridiculous. That being said driving is such a dynamic thing that the best experience really is just experience, which you can’t teach in a test. I don’t think much can be done to resolve the issue of a driving test only really teaching you the basic controls and level of car control.
Since new drivers can’t practically be mentored after they’ve passed their test, to ensure that their behaviours and inputs continue to be measured etc, a black box fills that role rather well. It’s flawed, for sure, but it’s much better than 17 year olds being able to drive around unsupervised, amongst everyone else in the road, straight after passing, as the current legislation allows them to do.
I’d go further and make black boxes mandatory for at least a year for new drivers, but that’s perhaps too extreme. As it is they’re optional, if you’re prepared to pay the extra premium you can avoid it entirely. If you’re a parent, though, and you’re honest about how you drove when you were that age, you ought to be in favour of them for your children, I believe. Why wouldn’t you want them to be restrained doing something that is so dangerous to their health until such time as they have some actual experience under their belt?
You might trust your kids but you can sure as s
t believe that once they’re out of sight, with their mates, they’re going to have peer pressure to show off, particularly the lads.As for the halcyon “acceptance that sometimes mistakes will be made but that out of mistakes can come long term positives“, I’d rather that didn’t involve these new drivers hitting my car or a person doing it, thanks very much.
unident said:
quote=RSTurboPaul]
Your reliance on a study that had 54 replies is a bit much too. It’s not a valid survey and nothing of note can be drawn from its effectiveness. Anecdotally it may have worked for you, but that isn’t statistically valid for the rest of the population.
Statistically, it doesn't have to apply to the rest of the population. If you take it as a measure of the effectiveness of the U17CC along with the outcomes, by actually inspecting the quality of driving by them (which I have done), that as a whole is conclusive. I assume you haven't been involved, so for the sake of a friendly debate, please take my word for it. It cannot be applied to the whole population as the sample is too small, and it's not an independent sample. The students are ether petrolheads in their own right or offspring inspired by petrolhead parents.Your reliance on a study that had 54 replies is a bit much too. It’s not a valid survey and nothing of note can be drawn from its effectiveness. Anecdotally it may have worked for you, but that isn’t statistically valid for the rest of the population.
However it does show the effect of an elongated "training" programme at a young age. So why hasn't the methodology been incorporated into the mainstream learning to drive programme? It's probably too costly (at least in time) and it's not a scalable programme.
So we are stuck with a one-shot, lessons, take a test, get on with it paradigm. And whilst again I'm not arguing for one over another, and much though I dislike the concept, black boxes are a good concept for early stage (and young-mentioned for twig) drivers.
Bert
I agree that it works for the small sample, but as you correctly say, the sample is probably made up of petrol heads and their offspring. All of them may have been far more levelheaded and skilled than the norm without the training as well.
That’s the difficulty of taking such as small sample and trying to draw conclusions from it. You could argue that Manchester United has a schoolboy education process that also produces far better footballers than the norm so all schools should apply their processes and we’d be world beaters again. The reality is the sample is heavily biased as all were chosen as good footballers before entry, so it’s no surprise they remain / improve after a some more training
That’s the difficulty of taking such as small sample and trying to draw conclusions from it. You could argue that Manchester United has a schoolboy education process that also produces far better footballers than the norm so all schools should apply their processes and we’d be world beaters again. The reality is the sample is heavily biased as all were chosen as good footballers before entry, so it’s no surprise they remain / improve after a some more training
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff