Insurance "Black Boxes" - The PH Way

[simoid]

"Black Boxes" are now gathering statistics for many drivers. Lateral G, speed, things like that I gather.

Presumably, they will lead them to make conclusions about the number of accidents drivers have, and the data gathered from "Black Boxes".

Does this mean that as a community of enthusiastic drivers, we can and should be able to:

a) get some black box insurance policies for our cars;
b) drive quickly and safely;
c) influence the statistics so that there is realistic evidence that speed is not dangerous if you are paying enough attention?

Ideally - the whole of PH would take part, get black boxes, hoon around, have very few accidents, and then it would become public knowledge that speed =/= accidents.

I can't see how it could fail. Who is with me?

[SlowStig]

I think these are aimed at those people who try and use speed irresponsibly and cause accidents due to driving dangerously. Speed doesn't kill, only when idiotic plebs try and out drive their own abilities, speed just makes the accident more severe.

I am curious about how these things work, do the GPS blockers which you can buy actually prevent them working? What about driving your car on a track day(with track day insurance) with one of these fitted for the public roads? Most crucially, would your insurance company report you to the police if you exceed the speed limit with one of these fitted?

[simoid]

There's a fair sized thread about what they can and cannot do.

See my logic?

This could be our way to show that speed is not dangerous if used responsibly.

[Nigel Worc's]

They are aimed at young drivers , not us.

For what my opinion is worth, I think they are fairly useless without video, and I think the video will follow very shortly, and then you will be driving with something like my roadhawk camera, but one that the insurance company will be able to access.

But ...... if they give a youngster the chance to insure a car, at a half reasonable cost, then we shouldn't really be looking for fault with them.

Insurance for kids is a nightmare, I never thought I'd see the day where a 125cc motorbike, that can be ridden unsupervised, is less than 10% of the cost of insuring some snotter my son can only drive whilst under supervision.

[simoid]

Nigel Worc's said:

They are aimed at young drivers , not us.

I'm 23...!

MoneySupermarket said:

However, it is not only young and inexperienced drivers who can benefit from telematics insurance. People who don't do many miles and travel in low-risk areas during off-peak hours could also see their premiums fall.

Telemetry may have further functions with insurers using information recorded by the black box to establish who is to blame in accidents and reduce the number of fraudulent claims. The technology may also bring down car theft as police will be able to track stolen vehicles.

No mention of the fact that the fast drivers may be the safest - this is what we as a community could change

[Nigel Worc's]

I've been talking to bell, regarding this stuff, as I have kids of 21,19 &16.

It isn't meant for "us" yet, (you really are an us, well you're an inbetweeny, between 21 & 25).

Because the girly stuff stops next month (sadly, this shouldn't be allowed to happen, if women are less of a risk then so be it, they should get cheaper premiums), I've been seeing if it would help my 21 year old with her Z3, although Admiral, (a bell sister company), have just sent through a renewal of £550.00 fully comp for her, so not too bad, I can usually get that down by a ton.

You'll not win anything I'm afraid, WE are in the minority, and speed kills has won.

[tank slapper]

simoid said:

This could be our way to show that speed is not dangerous if used responsibly.

The problem is that they will have already decided what readings constitute "dangerous" driving. They aren't interested in objectively assessing the data to work out whether a driver who is making progress is doing so safely or not - the box can't tell if it is someone being an idiot and getting away with it, or actually using proper observation and car control.

To them, fast = dangerous, high cornering forces = dangerous, rapid acceleration = dangerous, heavy braking = dangerous. Driving like a granny = safe.

All that would happen if you had one fitted and then drove enthusiastically would be that they would charge you more or cancel the policy.

[simoid]

tank slapper said:

All that would happen if you had one fitted and then drove enthusiastically would be that they would charge you more or cancel the policy.

...and if the whole of PH got one fitted and drove enthusiastically?

[Pints]

simoid said:

tank slapper said:

All that would happen if you had one fitted and then drove enthusiastically would be that they would charge you more or cancel the policy.

...and if the whole of PH got one fitted and drove enthusiastically?

Then we'd all get charged more.

[Dog Star]

This might be for kids now, but give it 5 years max and black boxes will be the norm; just you see. As the hardware and software as well as the infrastructure improves then it will only work in the inscos favour.

If you want a policy without it then you'll really be paying through the nose for it.

[Dark85]

tank slapper said:

The problem is that they will have already decided what readings constitute "dangerous" driving. They aren't interested in objectively assessing the data to work out whether a driver who is making progress is doing so safely or not - the box can't tell if it is someone being an idiot and getting away with it, or actually using proper observation and car control.

To them, fast = dangerous, high cornering forces = dangerous, rapid acceleration = dangerous, heavy braking = dangerous. Driving like a granny = safe.

All that would happen if you had one fitted and then drove enthusiastically would be that they would charge you more or cancel the policy.

Of course they are interested in the actual data. Insurance companies are not BRAKE, they have no anti speed agenda, their agenda is maximise profit

If, and it's a big if, the data shows people who drive faster do not claim more than those that don't the insurance companies will start looking for other causes. OP's point is that it should be possible to skew the stats that way if the 'driving Gods of PH' all get black boxes and drive enthusiastically with few incidents.

Certainly at the very least they would make the 'speed' debate much more informed on all sides.

I still wont be getting one.

[simoid]

Thinking about it more - they claim it may save folk money if they drove low miles at non-rush hour times.

Shirley this is for the army of PHers with a weekend car...?

I'd need to ask a few questions before I got one, such as "what is the maximum amount I can pay if you think I accelerate too quickly and go round wide open roundabouts a bit fast?"

And: "can you tell when I'm accelerating up a motorway slip road from a standstill and congratulate me in reaching 70 in a safe manner, in under 10 seconds?"

If it was cost-neutral I'd strongly consider it.

[simoid]

Pints said:

simoid said:

tank slapper said:

All that would happen if you had one fitted and then drove enthusiastically would be that they would charge you more or cancel the policy.

...and if the whole of PH got one fitted and drove enthusiastically?

Then we'd all get charged more.

If we made up 50% of the black boxes, and were the fastest 50% acceleraters/cornerers (when safe) and were also the safest, it wouldn't take the insurance companies long to realise speed =/= unsafe.

[16v stretch]

I have one on my Z4. I'm 22, insured with Bell.

Quote was about £1.5k more for a non box company, I currently have 1 years ncb, and a claim (still not finished) from 3 years ago, a poor rated postcode as well, I pay 2.3k fully comp, and to pay monthly loads about 1k onto the premium and their customer service has been poor to say the least.

On the plus side, I don't have a mid year review, don't pay "fines" for "poor driving". But I cannot exceed 100mph or policy cancellation will follow.

[SuperchargedVR6]

But there's an underlying "pay per mph" implication here, i.e. you would pay for the privilige of breaking the law. I can't see any insurance company going along with it as they would get their collars felt by the fuzz.

[simoid]

16v stretch said:

I have one on my Z4. I'm 22, insured with Bell.

Quote was about £1.5k more for a non box company, I currently have 1 years ncb, and a claim (still not finished) from 3 years ago, a poor rated postcode as well, I pay 2.3k fully comp, and to pay monthly loads about 1k onto the premium and their customer service has been poor to say the least.

On the plus side, I don't have a mid year review, don't pay "fines" for "poor driving". But I cannot exceed 100mph or policy cancellation will follow.

Thanks for the insight - so it costs you a flat rate whether you drive 5000 miles gently or 10000 enthusiastically, is that what you mean by no "fines"?

Asked them about track days/trips to Germany and the 100 mph rule?

I hope you're doing your bit to skew the stats positively for speed vs safety

[StottyZr]

Its a good plan, although there is a flaw.

What about the idiotic people who drive fast, according the the GPS they would be alongside us on measurable driving performance but they would actually crash.

[simoid]

StottyZr said:

Its a good plan, although there is a flaw.

What about the idiotic people who drive fast, according the the GPS they would be alongside us on measurable driving performance but they would actually crash.

Slow idiots/unfortunate people crash too.

We just need to crash proportionately less than them, or be the fastest and have proportionately fewer crashes.

Some slow people will crash.

Some fast people will crash.

PHers driving fast will (hopefully!) crash least, since we'll be using the speed/acceleration appropriately - long straight sections, up motorway sliproads and so on.

[paranoid airbag]

Pints said:

Then we'd all get charged more.

Then we'd all change to another insurance company that has realised it can charge less and still profit. Allowing that company to destroy the original in terms of market share.

In theory, anyway.

[simoid]

SuperchargedVR6 said:

But there's an underlying "pay per mph" implication here, i.e. you would pay for the privilige of breaking the law. I can't see any insurance company going along with it as they would get their collars felt by the fuzz.

Who said anything about breaking speed limits?

Not me - I'm just saying we'd do the speed limit where appropriate (60/70/20 whatever), use sliproads to reach motorway speed safely, pull out onto A roads and accelerate quickly up to the appropriate speed.

These black boxes seem to advocate that dawdling is safer.