Black Box Mileage Limit

[Countdown]

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think that's absolutely true, and is pretty well acknowledged in the industry. The mere fact of accepting a black box separates out the wheat from the chaff. Morons are never going to accept a black box, and the kids that do are the more sensible ones. Also, if they think they are being monitored, they will drive accordingly, so you could probably fit a dummy black box and achieve pretty much the same results. So long as they didn't know.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 8th February 09:49

Except that is not evidenced in the quotes for my kids. Always ticked "no" always able to get as cheap a price without

If they always ticked “No” to the Black Box option they wouldn’t have been offered any quotes with a Black Box. So how did they know it was the cheapest?

[Countdown]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Even taking into account the huge cost savings for many people (your experience isn't what other people necessarily experience, especially in high risk areas), stats show a 40% reduction in accidents for young drivers with black boxes, and because the accidents they do have are often at a lower speed, a 60% reduction in KSI numbers. And even without any cost savings, that's a good enough reason for many parents if they are the ones funding the car and /or insurance.

Indeed.

Another minor benefit was that the BB also worked as a tracker, in case the car got stolen.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blueg33 said:

One child of each flavour so I can discount gender bias.

Gender bias was outlawed in insurance 8 years ago. So you can indeed discount it.

[Every day a journey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think that's absolutely true, and is pretty well acknowledged in the industry. The mere fact of accepting a black box separates out the wheat from the chaff. Morons are never going to accept a black box, and the kids that do are the more sensible ones. Also, if they think they are being monitored, they will drive accordingly, so you could probably fit a dummy black box and achieve pretty much the same results. So long as they didn't know.

A friend of mine was an armed police officer, involved in VIP protection. He told me he got the gig because someone came to his station and asked who wanted to be an armed police officer. He didn't put himself forward. When asked why, he said that he had no experience or interest in guns, it just wasn't his thing. So they said he was just what they were looking for. All of those who expressed an interest in being an armed officer were rejected immediately.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 8th February 09:49

Nonsense. I know plenty of armed officers, many of wh are ex services who ARE interested in firearms.

[Hol]

blueg33 said:

I found for my kids I could get insurance just as cheap without a black box. Can’t see why folks choose to have them.

It was slightly higher for my two, but I decided to pay it anyway.

Neither of them, have clocked up any accidents or penalty points, despite taking their cars to university towns they were unfamiliar with.


Interestingly, I do seem to make a habit of finding that my real-life experiences differ to others opinions of what should have happened.

[Uncle John]

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think that's absolutely true, and is pretty well acknowledged in the industry. The mere fact of accepting a black box separates out the wheat from the chaff. Morons are never going to accept a black box, and the kids that do are the more sensible ones. Also, if they think they are being monitored, they will drive accordingly, so you could probably fit a dummy black box and achieve pretty much the same results. So long as they didn't know.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 8th February 09:49

Except that is not evidenced in the quotes for my kids. Always ticked "no" always able to get as cheap a price without

Just sorted the insurance for my 18 year old on a Fiesta Zetec S & non black box policies were almost double.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Every day a journey said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I think that's absolutely true, and is pretty well acknowledged in the industry. The mere fact of accepting a black box separates out the wheat from the chaff. Morons are never going to accept a black box, and the kids that do are the more sensible ones. Also, if they think they are being monitored, they will drive accordingly, so you could probably fit a dummy black box and achieve pretty much the same results. So long as they didn't know.

A friend of mine was an armed police officer, involved in VIP protection. He told me he got the gig because someone came to his station and asked who wanted to be an armed police officer. He didn't put himself forward. When asked why, he said that he had no experience or interest in guns, it just wasn't his thing. So they said he was just what they were looking for. All of those who expressed an interest in being an armed officer were rejected immediately.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Monday 8th February 09:49

Nonsense. I know plenty of armed officers, many of wh are ex services who ARE interested in firearms.

I never claimed it was a universal policy. It's just what the criteria was in this case.

[AndrewGP]

Baldchap said:

Our eldest is learning at the moment and when I look back and consider our Wednesday 'Boy racer night' every week when I was 17/18, where we'd pick a place on the map and race there, then drive to the pub, I absolutely want them to have black boxes. No place in this day and age for behaviour like that.

Absolutely! As a member of my schools 'Friday Afternoon Car Caning Club' when I was 17, I wholeheartedly agree with you

[blueg33]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

One child of each flavour so I can discount gender bias.

Gender bias was outlawed in insurance 8 years ago. So you can indeed discount it.

Indeed, however, I do wonder sometimes

[TwigtheWonderkid]

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

One child of each flavour so I can discount gender bias.

Gender bias was outlawed in insurance 8 years ago. So you can indeed discount it.

Indeed, however, I do wonder sometimes

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

[blueg33]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

blueg33 said:

One child of each flavour so I can discount gender bias.

Gender bias was outlawed in insurance 8 years ago. So you can indeed discount it.

Indeed, however, I do wonder sometimes

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

Both of mine were students

[pincher]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

Sneaky buggers

[Eyersey1234]

Did the OP manage to sort his mileage problem out in the end?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

pincher said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

Sneaky buggers

Perhaps. Females are a lower risk than males. That's a fact. The EU outlawing rating discrimination between the sexes doesn't change that. So it's highly likely that a beautician would be likely to be a lower risk than her twin brother who installs satellite dishes.

[blueg33]

pincher said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

Sneaky buggers

I have always wanted a job as a bra fitter.............

[otolith]

pincher said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

They cannot discriminate by sex, but they can by occupation (so sex by default). Offering lower rates to beauticians, bra fitters, nail technicians, primary school teachers, nurses, or any other job mainly done by females. And charge extra for service engineers, motorcycle mechanics, bricklayers, and other jobs mainly done by males.

Sneaky buggers

It's not even sneaky, it's unintended consequences. If you aren't allowed to discriminate on gender then you can't separate the effect of gender from the effect of proxies for gender.

[808 Estate]

My current insurance policy is milage limited (import vehicle, no black box). I have already upped it once, but cannot do so again. I will run out of mileage with 5 weeks to go.Rang round a few other insurance companies and explained the situation and they were happy to offer a full 1 years NCD even though the policy will be cancelled early.

[CanAm]

CanAm said:

So OP, what happened?

Eyersey1234 said:

Did the OP manage to sort his mileage problem out in the end?

Well, we don't know, of course. Typical PH. New member lobs in hand grenade, and buggers off without replying, leaving PHers arguing amongst themselves.