Black box insurance and advisory speed limits
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
I'm not sure how that could be considered the same as an email pinging through to daddy's inbox two hours after a near-miss.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
They just make young drivers learn not to speed or to constantly watch their speed. It doesn't make them "better drivers". And it's a very simple minded thought process , sure, it might reduce the amount of accidents during that period but what about later? 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.
Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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. I also suspect that give a new driver an auto and the blackbox will think he is a better driver than in a manual, whilst in reality he observation, hazard awareness etc will be just the same.
These devices ultimately are an insurance marketing tool dressed up as a favour to the driver
xjay1337 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
They just make young drivers learn not to speed or to constantly watch their speed. It doesn't make them "better drivers". And it's a very simple minded thought process , sure, it might reduce the amount of accidents during that period but what about later? 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.
Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
ks if they are any good. My wife's friend is a dreadful driver. Won't go on the motorway, and is a complete bag of nerves. Ridiculously over cautious. Never had an accident, and never likely to. blueg33 said:
I think they market the telematics policies cleverly so that people think they are getting a cheaper policy whereas the reality is that they are not. As stated, in my experience (including insuring son when he lived in London) you can get policies without it at a similar or even lower price,
No you cannot. For the vast majority of young drivers, it's far cheaper with a black box. blueg33 said:
I think they market the telematics policies cleverly so that people think they are getting a cheaper policy whereas the reality is that they are not.
I'm not sure how that works?If my daughter goes on 3 or 4 of the well-known comparison websites and the telematics policies are all cheaper than the non-telematics ones how is she NOT getting the cheapest policy? Why aren't the cheaper policies on the comparison websites?
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
I think they market the telematics policies cleverly so that people think they are getting a cheaper policy whereas the reality is that they are not.
I'm not sure how that works?If my daughter goes on 3 or 4 of the well-known comparison websites and the telematics policies are all cheaper than the non-telematics ones how is she NOT getting the cheapest policy? Why aren't the cheaper policies on the comparison websites?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
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.
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.
Proper training is another.
The latter would appear to produce safer drivers - but, of course, there's not that much money to be made from training, which is presumably why govt consider graduated licences and young driver restrictions, but not attitudinal and physical training well in advance of letting kids out on the road in whatever they want to drive if they pay enough money in insurance premiums...
https://u17ccctrust.org/research
https://u17ccctrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12...
U17CC report said:
While the national overall pass rate for the DVSA test is 46% in 2017/18, Pathfinder Students achieved a first time pass rate of 63% with a further 26% passing on their second attempt while Car Club graduates have a 79% first time pass rate with the Club’s top young drivers achieving a rate of 84%.
...
Given that the objective of the Pathfinder Project is to reduce the rate of KSI accidents amongst novice drivers, it is very encouraging to see a low collision rate for our Students of only 6% compared with 20% in the first driving year for the general population.
....
It is clear that the superior test performance extends beyond the Practical Test, with our respondents’ first time [theory tes] pass rate at 85% versus the national average pass rate of 48.7%* (2017/18).
...
Similarly, the Hazard Perception First Time pass rate for our respondents is 94% against the estimated national average pass rate of 50% (no Government statistics on this test appear to have been published*).
...
Of the participants in the survey only a single driver (under 2%) had been convicted of a traffic offence compared with nearly 24%** of all drivers nationally, and even then only of a single offence.**
....
With the average cost per fatal collision on UK roads having increased to more than £2m (in 2016*), then the potential saving from reducing young driver accident rates from 20% to 6%, as evidenced above, would save the UK economy £472m** per year in addition to the human cost of losing loved ones.
...
Given that the objective of the Pathfinder Project is to reduce the rate of KSI accidents amongst novice drivers, it is very encouraging to see a low collision rate for our Students of only 6% compared with 20% in the first driving year for the general population.
....
It is clear that the superior test performance extends beyond the Practical Test, with our respondents’ first time [theory tes] pass rate at 85% versus the national average pass rate of 48.7%* (2017/18).
...
Similarly, the Hazard Perception First Time pass rate for our respondents is 94% against the estimated national average pass rate of 50% (no Government statistics on this test appear to have been published*).
...
Of the participants in the survey only a single driver (under 2%) had been convicted of a traffic offence compared with nearly 24%** of all drivers nationally, and even then only of a single offence.**
....
With the average cost per fatal collision on UK roads having increased to more than £2m (in 2016*), then the potential saving from reducing young driver accident rates from 20% to 6%, as evidenced above, would save the UK economy £472m** per year in addition to the human cost of losing loved ones.
xjay1337 said:
They just make young drivers learn not to speed or to constantly watch their speed. It doesn't make them "better drivers". And it's a very simple minded thought process , sure, it might reduce the amount of accidents during that period but what about later?
Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
The bit in bold is all that the InsCos are worried about.Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
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 for RoI, a black box is far better at reducing accidents.TheDrownedApe said:
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.
Some insurers score against what the average speed of other motorists is, not just the limit.blueg33 said:
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
I think they market the telematics policies cleverly so that people think they are getting a cheaper policy whereas the reality is that they are not.
I'm not sure how that works?If my daughter goes on 3 or 4 of the well-known comparison websites and the telematics policies are all cheaper than the non-telematics ones how is she NOT getting the cheapest policy? Why aren't the cheaper policies on the comparison websites?
Your daughter purchased the cheapest policy because it was at the top of the list. If somebody else purchases a Policy that's at the top of the list (but comes with a GPS) how are they NOT getting the cheapest policy?
Telematics have nothing to do with making younger drivers safer. They provide insurers with a multitude of revenue streams and get out of jail free cards.
You have to state your mileage when taking out the policy (as with all insurers) but your mileage is ACTUALLY monitored. If you exceed it you either pay extortionate fees (~£100 for 1000 miles) or they cancel your policy.
The actual telematic data used is not regulated and the insurer can come up with whatever cowboy policies they deem fit. They do not have to define what their scoring criteria is and can cancel your insurance almost immediately if you don't fit their standards.
A lot of companies impose curfews for driving during peak times or late at night. This actually makes sense, if you punish customers for not driving at the riskiest times then they are less likely to do so and thus less likely to be involved in an accident. The problem with this is that driving at peak times is more risky for ALL drivers, not just the inexperienced. It's common sense that if your car never leaves the driveway you're not going to claim.
If insurance companies had it their way, every car would be fitted with a black box. They know that isn't possible because most people don't want to be monitored so intrusively, but young drivers have no choice as the difference between having one and not is often thousands of pounds.
You have to state your mileage when taking out the policy (as with all insurers) but your mileage is ACTUALLY monitored. If you exceed it you either pay extortionate fees (~£100 for 1000 miles) or they cancel your policy.
The actual telematic data used is not regulated and the insurer can come up with whatever cowboy policies they deem fit. They do not have to define what their scoring criteria is and can cancel your insurance almost immediately if you don't fit their standards.
A lot of companies impose curfews for driving during peak times or late at night. This actually makes sense, if you punish customers for not driving at the riskiest times then they are less likely to do so and thus less likely to be involved in an accident. The problem with this is that driving at peak times is more risky for ALL drivers, not just the inexperienced. It's common sense that if your car never leaves the driveway you're not going to claim.
If insurance companies had it their way, every car would be fitted with a black box. They know that isn't possible because most people don't want to be monitored so intrusively, but young drivers have no choice as the difference between having one and not is often thousands of pounds.
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
Countdown said:
blueg33 said:
I think they market the telematics policies cleverly so that people think they are getting a cheaper policy whereas the reality is that they are not.
I'm not sure how that works?If my daughter goes on 3 or 4 of the well-known comparison websites and the telematics policies are all cheaper than the non-telematics ones how is she NOT getting the cheapest policy? Why aren't the cheaper policies on the comparison websites?
Your daughter purchased the cheapest policy because it was at the top of the list. If somebody else purchases a Policy that's at the top of the list (but comes with a GPS) how are they NOT getting the cheapest policy?
Why its possibly different for others, I don't know. I suspect the main variables are location and car type.
Countdown said:
xjay1337 said:
They just make young drivers learn not to speed or to constantly watch their speed. It doesn't make them "better drivers". And it's a very simple minded thought process , sure, it might reduce the amount of accidents during that period but what about later?
Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
The bit in bold is all that the InsCos are worried about.Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
not crashing doesn't make you a safe / good / skilled driver .... !!!!
xjay1337 said:
Countdown said:
xjay1337 said:
They just make young drivers learn not to speed or to constantly watch their speed. It doesn't make them "better drivers". And it's a very simple minded thought process , sure, it might reduce the amount of accidents during that period but what about later?
Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
The bit in bold is all that the InsCos are worried about.Not having an accident doesn't make you a good driver. That is my point.
not crashing doesn't make you a safe / good / skilled driver .... !!!!
"Not crashing" means they don't have to pay out which means more profits.
On a philosophical rather than financial point of view it could be argued that one of the aims of driving is "not crashing". Everything else being equal i think it would be fair to say that "Number of crashes" is a good metric for determining quality of driver.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff