Black box insurance and advisory speed limits

[Alucidnation]

xjay1337 said:

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?

Why wouldn't it be a good idea?

They are more accurate than you think. The one particular we used, had TomTom as the tracker.

It was so good, i swapped my fleet over to it.


Our two had them and saved a fking fortune on the first couple of years premiums.

[blueg33]

Just been in the car with my son and something happened which I think is pertinent to the issue with black boxes

On a single carraigeway A road, my son pulled into the right turn filter, indicating the right turn and started to slow as he had to wait for an HGV coming the other way. Out from behind the HGV came a car overtaking straight towards us crossing the solid line and put on blues and twos part way through his overtake, son had to brake hard to avoid a collision. A black box would have registered that as a black mark against his driving, but he was not at fault.

(it was an unmarked police car, executing a very poor/dangerous overtake when he did not have a clear line of sight past the HGV, he must have been pretty close up behind it)

[Countdown]

xjay1337 said:

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

Because a virtual nanny is better than no nanny at all?

If they were significantly inaccurate the Insurance Companies wouldn't be offering lower premiums.

Similiar to Alucidination we also had trackers installed on the Works vans a few years ago. In the following two years our Insurance premiums had fallen by something like £300 per vehicle and the amount we spent on hiring replacement vans whilst ours were off the road had dropped by £50k. Most people drive sensibly but a significant minority drive like idiots. It's these people for whom the black boxes act as a nanny.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

xjay1337 said:

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?

Why do you think insurance companies offer large discounts to young drivers for having a black box? It's not altruism. It's knowing from past experience that with a black box, they are far less likely to have an accident and the accidents they do have occur at lower speeds, and are less serious and less costly.

As for the accuracy or otherwise of the box, it's usually irrelevant. Anyone in the industry will tell you they may as well fit a dummy box for the majority of youngsters. So long as the young driver thinks they are being monitored, the results will be the same, less accidents and less serious accidents.

[blueg33]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

xjay1337 said:

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?

Why do you think insurance companies offer large discounts to young drivers for having a black box? It's not altruism. It's knowing from past experience that with a black box, they are far less likely to have an accident and the accidents they do have occur at lower speeds, and are less serious and less costly.

As for the accuracy or otherwise of the box, it's usually irrelevant. Anyone in the industry will tell you they may as well fit a dummy box for the majority of youngsters. So long as the young driver thinks they are being monitored, the results will be the same, less accidents and less serious accidents.

The point is that they dont offer large discounts

I have just insured my 19 year old daughters new car. The cheapest 3 prices were all without telematics

Screen grabs, first one has telematics ticked, second doesn't. No savings at all

Edited by blueg33 on Thursday 2nd July 13:40

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blueg33 said:

I trust my kids not to be idiots in the car.

So do most parents. Yet young drivers continue to be involved in a disproportionately high number of KSI accidents.

Parents often moan about their kids getting in with the wrong crowd, but they never think their kids are the wrong crowd.

[megaphone]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

xjay1337 said:

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?

Why do you think insurance companies offer large discounts to young drivers for having a black box? It's not altruism. It's knowing from past experience that with a black box, they are far less likely to have an accident and the accidents they do have occur at lower speeds, and are less serious and less costly.

As for the accuracy or otherwise of the box, it's usually irrelevant. Anyone in the industry will tell you they may as well fit a dummy box for the majority of youngsters. So long as the young driver thinks they are being monitored, the results will be the same, less accidents and less serious accidents.

What he said.

I cannot understand why parents do not care about their children's safety. One poster even thinks convenience and money is more important than their child's safety. There are some bad parents out there.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

xjay1337 said:

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?

Why do you think insurance companies offer large discounts to young drivers for having a black box? It's not altruism. It's knowing from past experience that with a black box, they are far less likely to have an accident and the accidents they do have occur at lower speeds, and are less serious and less costly.

As for the accuracy or otherwise of the box, it's usually irrelevant. Anyone in the industry will tell you they may as well fit a dummy box for the majority of youngsters. So long as the young driver thinks they are being monitored, the results will be the same, less accidents and less serious accidents.

The point is that they dont offer large discounts

I have just insured my 19 year old daughters new car. The cheapest 3 prices were all without telematics

The plural of anecdote isn't data. In many cases, they clearly do, hence the large numbers of young drivers with black boxes. For my son, it was an £800 saving, £2K best without or £1200 with.

[Dr Jekyll]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

I trust my kids not to be idiots in the car.

So do most parents. Yet young drivers continue to be involved in a disproportionately high number of KSI accidents.

Parents often moan about their kids getting in with the wrong crowd, but they never think their kids are the wrong crowd.

But how many of those KSI accidents are due to being idiots and how many to simple inexperience, not recognising a hazard early enough?

[blueg33]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The plural of anecdote isn't data. In many cases, they clearly do, hence the large numbers of young drivers with black boxes. For my son, it was an £800 saving, £2K best without or £1200 with.

I added some data for you. Those quotes are from today. It is exactly the same for my son. Maybe where we live impacts it, maybe kids from this area are generally lower risk.

Neither of my kids has had an accident or a speeding ticket, my daughter doesn't go out in the car with her mates (except one), as soon as he passed his test my so did multiple road trips across europe with 3 of his mates in the car. No incidents, no accidents, no tickets.

So to the other point raised, yes I do trust my kids not to be asses when driving

[xjay1337]

Countdown said:

Because a virtual nanny is better than no nanny at all?

If they were significantly inaccurate the Insurance Companies wouldn't be offering lower premiums.

Similiar to Alucidination we also had trackers installed on the Works vans a few years ago. In the following two years our Insurance premiums had fallen by something like £300 per vehicle and the amount we spent on hiring replacement vans whilst ours were off the road had dropped by £50k. Most people drive sensibly but a significant minority drive like idiots. It's these people for whom the black boxes act as a nanny.

Plenty of cases we've all read where an insured driver has been moaned at for doing something illegal (IE speeding) but they obviously haven't, or driving when they haven't etc.

I also don't think the savings are worth it in many cases if you search around a non-telematics quote is the same or sometimes cheaper.

Also I don't buy that "if you have telematics you care about your child so much more".
Having telematics doesn't mean you're a safer driver. It just means you get an e-mail telling you that you've been naughty if you speed.
Or if you brake to avoid a hazard you get an email telling you to brake less hard. Etc, etc.

having telematics doesn't make any difference to road sense and you can still drive like a complete knob without speeding or doing "jerky movements" so literally is a scam.

ETA: I don't agree with "something is better than nothing" either.

Edited by xjay1337 on Thursday 2nd July 14:03

[RSTurboPaul]

I would rather send my kids to the Under 17s Car Club and follow up with IAM / RoSPA / HPC / Reg / Skidpan / track time as soon as they've passed, than log their every move and action so insurance companies can load their premiums now and in the future.

[xjay1337]

RSTurboPaul said:

I would rather send my kids to the Under 17s Car Club and follow up with IAM / RoSPA / HPC / Reg / Skidpan / track time as soon as they've passed, than log their every move and action so insurance companies can load their premiums now and in the future.

^^ now, IMO - (if you're odd and use the way you insure your child as a measure of how much you care about them) this is a much better and more sensible idea.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

xjay1337 said:

Having telematics doesn't mean you're a safer driver.

If, for most parents, the definition of a safer driver that actually matters to them, is one that has fewer accidents, or the accidents they have occur at lower speeds, then I'm afraid it does.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RSTurboPaul said:

I would rather send my kids to the Under 17s Car Club and follow up with IAM / RoSPA / HPC / Reg / Skidpan / track time as soon as they've passed, than log their every move and action so insurance companies can load their premiums now and in the future.

But they don't load their premiums. They reduce their upfront premiums, and often give further discounts along the way and at renewal. Young drivers without a black box have more accidents, and thus are likely to pay more now and in the future.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dr Jekyll said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

I trust my kids not to be idiots in the car.

So do most parents. Yet young drivers continue to be involved in a disproportionately high number of KSI accidents.

Parents often moan about their kids getting in with the wrong crowd, but they never think their kids are the wrong crowd.

But how many of those KSI accidents are due to being idiots and how many to simple inexperience, not recognising a hazard early enough?

If it's the latter, it's better that this happens at a lower speed, surely?

I linked to a report on a similar thread a couple of years back where one young driver insurer published actual data showing their black box young drivers had 40% fewer claims, and because of the lower speed on the claims they did have, cost them 60% less than non black box drivers.

It seems to me that some people are so opposed to any form of black box, they are in denial about the actual facts.

THEY WORK.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dr Jekyll said:

But how many of those KSI accidents are due to being idiots and how many to simple inexperience, not recognising a hazard early enough?

Young provisional licence holders have even less experience, are even less likely to recognise a hazard, yet they pay a fraction of what they pay when they pass their test.

Because.......they are being monitored.

[Countdown]

xjay1337 said:

Plenty of cases we've all read where an insured driver has been moaned at for doing something illegal (IE speeding) but they obviously haven't, or driving when they haven't etc.

I also don't think the savings are worth it in many cases if you search around a non-telematics quote is the same or sometimes cheaper.

Also I don't buy that "if you have telematics you care about your child so much more".
Having telematics doesn't mean you're a safer driver. It just means you get an e-mail telling you that you've been naughty if you speed.
Or if you brake to avoid a hazard you get an email telling you to brake less hard. Etc, etc.

having telematics doesn't make any difference to road sense and you can still drive like a complete knob without speeding or doing "jerky movements" so literally is a scam.

ETA: I don't agree with "something is better than nothing" either.

Edited by xjay1337 on Thursday 2nd July 14:03

As a wise man once said - Chacun a son gout Rodders

If they work for you, fine. if they don't work for you, that's also fine. However InsCos aren't charities, they are there to make a profit. They do that via accurate risk assessments based on shedloads of data.

Suggesting that black boxes are a scam is like suggesting life insurance is a scam because my dad's best mate lived until he was 193. My dad's best mate may well have lived until he was 193. Equally it might be one of those stories that gets exaggerated with repetition and equally my dad's best mate might not be a statistically significant sample.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Countdown said:

However InsCos aren't charities, they are there to make a profit. They do that via accurate risk assessments based on shedloads of data.

This is the bit that's so obvious, I don't know how people can argue against it. It most cases, a young driver will get a better deal with a black box than without. There's only one reason for that. The insurers know that their black box customers will cost them less. And that can only be a good thing, for the customer and the insurance company. It's a win win.

[Countdown]

RSTurboPaul said:

I would rather send my kids to the Under 17s Car Club and follow up with IAM / RoSPA / HPC / Reg / Skidpan / track time as soon as they've passed, than log their every move and action so insurance companies can load their premiums now and in the future.

PHer 1 : - IAM/Rospa results in better drivers/lower accident claims

PHer 2 : No it doesn't. My son has never attended IAM/RosPA been driving for weeks and he's never had an accident. in fact whenever I've sat with him his driving is exemplary.

PHer 1: IAM/Rospa membership results in lower insurance premiums so statistically they must be safer

PHer 2: It's a scam designed to overcharge people. being an IAM/RosPA member doesn't mean you won't drive like a Dick.



Personally I wouldn't care if the Chief Constable of Lancashire Constabulary wanted to install a CCTV in my car (as long as he offered me £500 a year). My driving isn't that bad.