Black box

[andygo]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance...


I know its been done to death already, but momentum is growing on this topic.

Not happy here.

[MrBarry123]

There'll always be specialists who offer policies which don't require a black box - probably at a slightly increased premium however, given all the hype generated when they ruled women couldn't pay less than men purely based on their gender and the relatively small premium increase (if any at all) women incurred, I'm not concerned.

Nothing like a bit of scaremongering for a Sunday morning eh!

[jmorgan]

I can see it happening. Insurance companies like a dead cert and loaded dice in their favour. And they have more lobbying power.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

For years people have moaned that insurance companies just treat them like a number. You just get lumped into a group of similar risks and rated accordingly, with no account taken of your individual behaviour.

Now the technology exists to rectify that injustice, and everyone is up in arms about it.

Funny old world.

[ging84]

the big problem with this is that if someone has ever had their insurance cancelled, then insurers are allowed to hold it against people for the rest of their lives.
It can already be difficult for some people to get insurance if they've once had insurance cancelled even if it was due to an error by the insurer or broker. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone who's had insurance cancelled for something like excessive speed.
Without a chance in the law anyone who gets their insurance cancelled as a result of the monitoring may well find themselves uninsurable

[andygo]

And just what is acceptable braking, acceleration and cornering? That's the real problem in my view. It will have everyone driving around on autopilot, much like when they are under 'supervision' by average speed cameras.

Its a dangerous precedent and one welcomed only by the likes of Miss Daisies chauffeur I fear.

[skeeterm5]

ging84 said:

the big problem with this is that if someone has ever had their insurance cancelled, then insurers are allowed to hold it against people for the rest of their lives.
It can already be difficult for some people to get insurance if they've once had insurance cancelled even if it was due to an error by the insurer or broker. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone who's had insurance cancelled for something like excessive speed.
Without a chance in the law anyone who gets their insurance cancelled as a result of the monitoring may well find themselves uninsurable

If it was the insurers fault than I am sure this can be quite simply corrected. For everyone else who has legitimately had their policy cancelled (ie most of them) then how is this different to today where you are asked as part of the proposal if this has ever happened to you?

[Dave Hedgehog]

andygo said:

And just what is acceptable braking, acceleration and cornering? That's the real problem in my view. It will have everyone driving around on autopilot, much like when they are under 'supervision' by average speed cameras.

Its a dangerous precedent and one welcomed only by the likes of Miss Daisies chauffeur I fear.

Under 0.05g

A fair few Americans gave reported that after taken these units there premiums (paying monthly) go up a lot

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Article said:

The Department for Transport commissioned research into telematics earlier this year. "The research will help us build a better understanding of how it can influence driver behaviour," a spokesman said. "We want to see how effective it can be in improving driver behaviour and reducing accident risk."

So all the insurers are jumping on the bandwagon because they don't want to miss out, but there's no actual evidence that it reduces claims?

I can't be the only one hoping that when hard data is available it'll show that low-g doesn't necessarily equate to good driving.

I have a suspicion that they're measuring what they can measure, not what's actually important.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

So all the insurers are jumping on the bandwagon because they don't want to miss out, but there's no actual evidence that it reduces claims?

I think with young drivers there is actual evidence that it reduces claims. The proof of this is lower premiums for young drivers who have one. They aren't a charity. If it didn't reduce claims, they wouldn't give reductions.

[PanzerCommander]

The issue I have with these is you are being judged by one standard. The type of car and the situation is not taken into account; for instance a performance car accelerating hard out of a tight corner on a clear country road and braking a bit later and harder than normal into a clear bend would be penalised for no good reason.

I dare say that what is deemed safe by an IAM or RoSPA instructor would likely be deemed out of the safe tolerance by the software with one of these boxes.

[herewego]

ging84 said:

the big problem with this is that if someone has ever had their insurance cancelled, then insurers are allowed to hold it against people for the rest of their lives.
It can already be difficult for some people to get insurance if they've once had insurance cancelled even if it was due to an error by the insurer or broker. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone who's had insurance cancelled for something like excessive speed.
Without a chance in the law anyone who gets their insurance cancelled as a result of the monitoring may well find themselves uninsurable

Under what circumstances do insurance companies cancel a policy? Do they hand back the premium?

[LoonR1]

herewego said:

ging84 said:

the big problem with this is that if someone has ever had their insurance cancelled, then insurers are allowed to hold it against people for the rest of their lives.
It can already be difficult for some people to get insurance if they've once had insurance cancelled even if it was due to an error by the insurer or broker. Imagine how difficult it would be for someone who's had insurance cancelled for something like excessive speed.
Without a chance in the law anyone who gets their insurance cancelled as a result of the monitoring may well find themselves uninsurable

Under what circumstances do insurance companies cancel a policy? Do they hand back the premium?

They could only cancel a policy if it was part of the T&Cs, it's not on any policy that I'm aware of, but obviously that shouldn't get in the way of the tinfoil hattery.

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

herewego said:

Under what circumstances do insurance companies cancel a policy? Do they hand back the premium?

As an example, I believe many of the black box insurers will cancel a policy (with all the associated problems when you try to get another policy) if they record you travelling over 100mph.

[LoonR1]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

As an example, I believe many of the black box insurers will cancel a policy (with all the associated problems when you try to get another policy) if they record you travelling over 100mph.

Forget "I believe" show us the specific wording in those polices. You seem to be pretty clued up in your own head, so let's see this for real.

[Nigel Worc's]

LoonR1 said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

As an example, I believe many of the black box insurers will cancel a policy (with all the associated problems when you try to get another policy) if they record you travelling over 100mph.

Forget "I believe" show us the specific wording in those polices. You seem to be pretty clued up in your own head, so let's see this for real.

I remember seeing that clause when we were first chatting about them Loon, ages ago, one of the Admiral group of companies, Bell or something ?

He isn't making it up.

[LoonR1]

Nigel Worc's said:

LoonR1 said:

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

As an example, I believe many of the black box insurers will cancel a policy (with all the associated problems when you try to get another policy) if they record you travelling over 100mph.

Forget "I believe" show us the specific wording in those polices. You seem to be pretty clued up in your own head, so let's see this for real.

I remember seeing that clause when we were first chatting about them Loon, ages ago, one of the Admiral group of companies, Bell or something ?

He isn't making it up.

Even if he isn't then one Admiral brand doesn't equate to "many of the black box insurers"

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

I have had conversations with a black box manufacturer who are partners with a major insurance company. He's definitely mentioned a '100 club' of people who've fallen foul of this clause.

It could have still been 'in my own head' though, so Google provides:

Policy Docs said:

The Policyholder agrees that in the instance that the car travels in excess of 100mph, the policy will be cancelled immediately.

http://www.autosaint.co.uk/terms.html


This is the one Nigel mentions from a Bell policy:

Policy Docs said:

IMPORTANT – Dangerous speeding

As this is a Safe Driver policy, dangerous speeds are treated seriously. As a result, if the Telematic Unit detects that your vehicle has been driven at 100mph or over on a public road, your policy will be cancelled. We will write to you and provide you with seven days’ notice of cancellation before your policy is terminated.

http://www.bell.co.uk/policyDocs/BL110_TELEMATICS_PB_A5_POLICY_BOOK_0512.pdf

Policy Docs said:

Cancellation Alert

If Smartbox identifies that the vehicle has been driven at reckless speeds we will send you an email and write to you that our product is not for you and that cover will be cancelled with nine days notice, without any prior alerts.

http://www.co-operativeinsurance.co.uk/youngdriverinsurance/driving-alerts

Insurance Website said:

Why will you cancel my policy if I go over 100mph?

As BoxyMo rewards you for safer driving, dangerous speeds are treated seriously. Driving at/or over 100mph would probably result in an instant ban if you were caught by the Police and we believe that, as this is a policy aimed at safe drivers, anyone driving at such an illegally high speed is not suitable for such a product. As a result we would write to you and provide you with seven days’ notice of cancellation before your policy is terminated.

http://www.boxymo.co.uk/telematics.aspx

[LoonR1]

That's 3 insurers, fair enough.

The interesting piece is that this discussion started, because the driver would be so hard done to if the insurer cancelled the policy, hardly hidden away is it?

[andygo]

The reason I started this topic is because it appeared from the 'sensationalist' article that it would be difficult to obtain insurance at normal rates unless one had a black box fitted. Anyone who was reluctant to have a box fitted would be viewed (potentially rightly or wrongly) as potentially delinquent and therefore not attractive to insure.

I am unhappy with that scenario.

I don't believe I mentioned cancellation of a policy.