Black box insurance and advisory speed limits
Discussion
Countdown said:
They don't care how good or bad a driver you are.
"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.
I agree with you as to the reasons why the insurance don't care."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.
However I disagree regarding not crashing = good driver.
I've had one crash myself. I went into the Back of a Civic in my first year of driving. I wasn't paying attention - my own fault & lesson learnt. Ironically a black box would not have helped at all but had radar cruise and town-response braking been fitted (like on the Mk7 Golf) then I wouldn't have crashed!
my GF hasn't ever "crashed" , although she has hit bollards when parking, scuffed bumpers , driven up curbs etc countless times. etc etc.
these don't count as crashes of course - because it's not into another car (her logic).
She is also nowhere near as observant on the road eg spotting upcoming hazards or estimating when two vehicles might meet (eg at a "priority" give way) as me. nor does she "forward plan" at all , EG she will accelerate "normally" up to a set of traffic lights rather than coast up to them or slow down in advance, in the rain she didn't really slow down or really adjust her driving from "normal" at all. (well, she does now, read on).
She also has severe brake-gear overlap (where when turning into a junction for example she will change down , and then turn and release the clutch during the entry to the turn which unsettles the car).
Last year she span a full 360 because she aquaplaned. Only luck that she didn't hit a tree or an oncoming car.
Yet despite this , she still thinks she is a better driver because she's never crashed :-)
Likewise my Grandad RIP to him -
He was one of those horrific elderly drivers you probably hear your mates talk about. Literally a mobile health hazard. I remember one time he pulled out of the minor side of a T-Junction , to the left, but swung so far over I assume for fear of hitting the nearside curb, he actually went onto the other side of the side - with an oncoming HGV! Who had to emergency brake.
But he also, didn't have any crashes in the time I knew him (15 years or so).
Is he a good driver?
Typical "stare ahead" driver comes around a corner but is wide and strayed into your lane. Doesn't see you coming, doesn't take avoiding action. You take avoiding action. In the process of avoiding the crash you clip a wall which damages your car. The other car doesn't make contact with you at all and neither does it stop. Is that driver a good driver?
Literally earlier this week someone side swiped my friend on the A404 - He decided to veer into his lane for no reason. That's going to be an insurance claim.
Is my friend not a good driver?
I could probably drive in such a way which would force other people to take avoiding action , where they may incur damage but I don't - but because I don't actually have to have an insurance claim that makes me a good driver :-)
bigandclever said:
“I’ve never had a crash but I’ve seen thousands in my rear view mirror”.
Indeed. That’s why I said “all other things being equal”The other thing is the definition of a “good driver”. What some PHers might consider as “good” isnt what the non PH world would consider good. For example the GPS boxes identify harsh braking and acceleration as “bad driving” whereas many PHers will argue that “it’s fine, they’re always in full control of the car”. In fact I would hazard a guess that some PHers would argue that being a member of RoSPA/IAM/HPC doesn’t necessarily mean that somebody is a good driver.
In short if PH can’t agree what makes a good driver it’s hard to programme a little black box to do it.
Aaron702 said:
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.
...
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.
Where your argument falls down is that it is predicated on the belief that insurance companies are all in on it together, artificially keeping prices higher than necessary for younger drivers, rather than being in competition with each other. With so many players in the game logic would dictate that margins are actually probably pretty small....
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.
I’d suggest it’s a bit silly to suggest a conspiracy where one clearly doesn’t exist. If that were the case a new player could swoop in and clean up with lower prices.
The reality really is the younger drivers are super risky, and the premiums they pay - as high at they are - are probably still dwarfed by the claims paid out. If a black box, even if it doesn’t work, results in a driver being more cautious then they’re patiently going to be at lower risk of accident, and the accidents they do have are likely to be at lower speeds. That’s it, no great mystery or Machiavellian strategy at work.
I don’t know why any parent wouldn’t choose to have their kids have one, frankly. Not only from a financial benefit but apart from a practical one. Driving is a privilege not a right. And it’s not as if they have to live with it for more than a couple of years, just long enough to build up some NCD.
Edited by Durzel on Thursday 2nd July 21:17
bigandclever said:
Countdown said:
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.
“I’ve never had a crash but I’ve seen thousands in my rear view mirror”.Aaron702 said:
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.
Young drivers with a black box have fewer accidents, and the accidents they do have are less serious. Not having accidents is safer than having accidents.
Aaron702 said:
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 vast majority of black box drivers pay no extra, and in fact, many get money back!
Aaron702 said:
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.
Which hardly ever happens. You only ever read about the negatives. Having had teenage sons in recent times, I can tell you all their mates with cars had black box policies, and saved fortunes, with no ill effects. People on the whole are very happy with their BB policy, or a happy to put up with any inconvenience to save hundreds of pounds.
Aaron702 said:
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.
There are a range of BB policies available, and only a few have curfews. Thus the driver can choose the one that suits them.
Aaron702 said:
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.
Tin foil hat nonsense. BB policies have been around 25 years now. On private car insurance, they were designed as a niche product for young drivers, and nothing has changed. 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. The really is a lack of critical thinking on PH re black box policies. People moaning about them might be in a wheelchair or pushing up daisies without them. That 19 y/o in a Vauxhall Corsa that passed you on the bend last week, might have been out of control and on your side of the road had it not been for the black box, that forced him to drive a lot slower than he otherwise would have done.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bigandclever said:
Countdown said:
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.
“I’ve never had a crash but I’ve seen thousands in my rear view mirror”.spanner10 said:
6 Re night time use - if you were an underwriter would you prefer to have the policyholder who is in bed at 2 am as they have work , or the one in McDonalds car park ?
What if the person is driving home from their evening job and needs to have dinner before getting home?RSTurboPaul said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
bigandclever said:
Countdown said:
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.
“I’ve never had a crash but I’ve seen thousands in my rear view mirror”.In other words having a BB isn't going to cause you to have an accident.
RSTurboPaul said:
spanner10 said:
6 Re night time use - if you were an underwriter would you prefer to have the policyholder who is in bed at 2 am as they have work , or the one in McDonalds car park ?
What if the person is driving home from their evening job and needs to have dinner before getting home?A1VDY said:
RSTurboPaul said:
spanner10 said:
6 Re night time use - if you were an underwriter would you prefer to have the policyholder who is in bed at 2 am as they have work , or the one in McDonalds car park ?
What if the person is driving home from their evening job and needs to have dinner before getting home?I get my dinner late from an ironmongers.
FFS...
FWIW I asked an actuary who works in a client's motor division whether drivers who have black boxes pay higher premiums (than drivers who never had a black box) once they ditch the telematics. Answer: no, quite the opposite, they continue to have fewer and cheaper accidents for long afterwards.
A lot of the 'logic' on this thread is akin to the old 'my grandad smoked 40 a day since he was 12 and lived to 100 ergo smoking isn't bad for you' argument. I.e. daft. We can all point to examples of rubbish drivers who have never had accidents, and of course every PHer who has ever had an accident will swear it was in spite of their exemplary advanced driving. However we're talking about comparisons between two cohorts of drivers numbering in the millions. If you are saying that cohort A, with relatively few accidents, is actually made up of worse drivers than cohort B, with significantly more accidents, then there's got to be something wrong with how you're defining 'worse'.
A lot of the 'logic' on this thread is akin to the old 'my grandad smoked 40 a day since he was 12 and lived to 100 ergo smoking isn't bad for you' argument. I.e. daft. We can all point to examples of rubbish drivers who have never had accidents, and of course every PHer who has ever had an accident will swear it was in spite of their exemplary advanced driving. However we're talking about comparisons between two cohorts of drivers numbering in the millions. If you are saying that cohort A, with relatively few accidents, is actually made up of worse drivers than cohort B, with significantly more accidents, then there's got to be something wrong with how you're defining 'worse'.
Roger Irrelevant said:
FWIW I asked an actuary who works in a client's motor division whether drivers who have black boxes pay higher premiums (than drivers who never had a black box) once they ditch the telematics. Answer: no, quite the opposite, they continue to have fewer and cheaper accidents for long afterwards.
A lot of the 'logic' on this thread is akin to the old 'my grandad smoked 40 a day since he was 12 and lived to 100 ergo smoking isn't bad for you' argument. I.e. daft. We can all point to examples of rubbish drivers who have never had accidents, and of course every PHer who has ever had an accident will swear it was in spite of their exemplary advanced driving. However we're talking about comparisons between two cohorts of drivers numbering in the millions. If you are saying that cohort A, with relatively few accidents, is actually made up of worse drivers than cohort B, with significantly more accidents, then there's got to be something wrong with how you're defining 'worse'.
Exactly right. I genuinely think the whole BB issue is that people think that in order to be a true car enthusiast, you have to be and the anti BB bandwagon. Otherwise you're a traitor to the cause. Critical thinking goes out the window, and actual real world factual results are twisted and interpreted to get to a position that people are arguing that not crashing your car is a bad thing, and not very safe. A lot of the 'logic' on this thread is akin to the old 'my grandad smoked 40 a day since he was 12 and lived to 100 ergo smoking isn't bad for you' argument. I.e. daft. We can all point to examples of rubbish drivers who have never had accidents, and of course every PHer who has ever had an accident will swear it was in spite of their exemplary advanced driving. However we're talking about comparisons between two cohorts of drivers numbering in the millions. If you are saying that cohort A, with relatively few accidents, is actually made up of worse drivers than cohort B, with significantly more accidents, then there's got to be something wrong with how you're defining 'worse'.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Exactly right. I genuinely think the whole BB issue is that people think that in order to be a true car enthusiast, you have to be and the anti BB bandwagon. Otherwise you're a traitor to the cause. Critical thinking goes out the window, and actual real world factual results are twisted and interpreted to get to a position that people are arguing that not crashing your car is a bad thing, and not very safe.
Of course not crashing your car is a bad thing. Think of all the accident investigators, police, medics, insurance staff, etc that now won't be required and what about all the body shops that will be put out of business putting thousands of people on the dole and homeless.Crashing is a thriving industry, it should be encouraged not berated!
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.
It'll be interesting to see if usage based pricing actually gains a foot hold in the insurance market.
ETA obviously a completely different use case for the BB. If it does catch on, I bet the black boxes evolve very quickly and the monitoring gets commoditised into the mobile phone!
Bert
ETA obviously a completely different use case for the BB. If it does catch on, I bet the black boxes evolve very quickly and the monitoring gets commoditised into the mobile phone!
Bert
Edited by BertBert on Saturday 4th July 07:50
megaphone said:
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.
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 accidentsBertBert said:
It'll be interesting to see if usage based pricing actually gains a foot hold in the insurance market.
ETA obviously a completely different use case for the BB. If it does catch on, I bet the black boxes evolve very quickly and the monitoring gets commoditised into the mobile phone!
Bert
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. ETA obviously a completely different use case for the BB. If it does catch on, I bet the black boxes evolve very quickly and the monitoring gets commoditised into the mobile phone!
Bert
Edited by BertBert on Saturday 4th July 07:50
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!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff