Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MiniDriver
    • By MiniDriver 14th Jun 17, 9:16 AM
    • 2Posts
    • 0Thanks
    MiniDriver
    Telematics a con?
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 17, 9:16 AM
    Telematics a con? 14th Jun 17 at 9:16 AM
    Telematics has been around for several years now. The figures I see quoted about the accident rate for young drivers has not changed since most have been forced to have telematic devices as part of their insurance.

    Presumably there is evidence that such devices improve the driving of young drivers and hence they have less crashes. Therefore, the cost of insurance with Telematics should have come down. Based on my experience with my children, this is not the case.

    So as young drivers expect to pay high premiums, are insurance companies just using them to bolster their profits?
Page 1
    • AdrianC
    • By AdrianC 14th Jun 17, 9:53 AM
    • 14,710 Posts
    • 13,077 Thanks
    AdrianC
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 17, 9:53 AM
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 17, 9:53 AM
    Telematics has been around for several years now. The figures I see quoted about the accident rate for young drivers has not changed since most have been forced to have telematic devices as part of their insurance.

    Presumably there is evidence that such devices improve the driving of young drivers and hence they have less crashes. Therefore, the cost of insurance with Telematics should have come down. Based on my experience with my children, this is not the case.

    So as young drivers expect to pay high premiums, are insurance companies just using them to bolster their profits?
    Originally posted by MiniDriver
    By telematics, I presume you mean insurance "black boxes"?

    They aren't intended to reduce the number of crashes. They are intended to allow insurers to better predict which drivers will be involved in those crashes, so reduce premiums for the ones who won't.

    If your childrens' insurance premiums aren't reducing, then it's probably because of what is being shown about their driving.
    • motorguy
    • By motorguy 14th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    • 15,087 Posts
    • 8,517 Thanks
    motorguy
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    By telematics, I presume you mean insurance "black boxes"?

    They aren't intended to reduce the number of crashes. They are intended to allow insurers to better predict which drivers will be involved in those crashes, so reduce premiums for the ones who won't.

    If your childrens' insurance premiums aren't reducing, then it's probably because of what is being shown about their driving.
    Originally posted by AdrianC
    +1

    Thats it wholly.
    You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.
    • CardinalWolsey
    • By CardinalWolsey 14th Jun 17, 1:16 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 61 Thanks
    CardinalWolsey
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 17, 1:16 PM
    • #4
    • 14th Jun 17, 1:16 PM
    My (now 18 yo) daughter has a telematics device fitted to her car. Her second year insurance premium (after having completed one year with the telematics device) is around 50% of the first year cost (when taking in to account the "cashback" she gets credited to a pre-paid card for good driving). The difference between how she drives and her elder sister (who was never required to have a telematics device) is significant!
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 14th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    • 25,279 Posts
    • 10,033 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 2:57 PM
    Thats strange because my little ones insurance this year was actually more expensive with the black boxes.

    Why do i think the people that designed the software to determine premiums were jokers and made the algorithm so random nobody could work out their actual premium.

    Pretend i have 50 years no claims instead of none, result a dearer qute than zero no claims?

    Pretend i have had no claims, result a dearer quote than if you had claims?
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • Car 54
    • By Car 54 14th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    • 2,015 Posts
    • 1,277 Thanks
    Car 54
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 3:40 PM
    Thats strange because my little ones insurance this year was actually more expensive with the black boxes.

    Why do i think the people that designed the software to determine premiums were jokers and made the algorithm so random nobody could work out their actual premium.

    Pretend i have 50 years no claims instead of none, result a dearer qute than zero no claims?

    Pretend i have had no claims, result a dearer quote than if you had claims?
    Originally posted by forgotmyname
    Maybe the quotes aren't random, but the software spots the comedians who get multiple quotes and penalises them accordingly.
    • CardinalWolsey
    • By CardinalWolsey 14th Jun 17, 4:46 PM
    • 56 Posts
    • 61 Thanks
    CardinalWolsey
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 4:46 PM
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 4:46 PM
    Thats strange because my little ones insurance this year was actually more expensive with the black boxes.
    Originally posted by forgotmyname
    Your little one's insurance is more expensive because the insurer can see how they drive, perhaps? My elder daughter should be thankful she's not asked to have one fitted.
    • Jlawson118
    • By Jlawson118 15th Jun 17, 12:24 PM
    • 715 Posts
    • 88 Thanks
    Jlawson118
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 12:24 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 17, 12:24 PM
    I've heard on numerous occasions of people being scammed by these black boxes. A friend was telling me a few years ago somebody he knows was driving through the city centre and had to break heavily when somebody stepped out in front of her car. The insurance company noted this exact incident and gave her a 'fine' for it. Although I do know you can get insurance companies that don't fine you for things like that but they will knock off your insurance if you are a repeat offender. I'm pretty sure she'd have been in more trouble for running a person over, her fault or not.

    Another story was of when the car went in for a service/MOT and they ran the car on the tracks way over 70mph and had their insurance voided for speeding.

    Obviously these are stories I've heard so I don't know if they're true, but they do put me off having a box. I paid £1000 extra last year to just not have one, my family were against the idea of me having a box installed too. They seem like more hassle than what they are worth
    • takman
    • By takman 15th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    • 2,393 Posts
    • 2,011 Thanks
    takman
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 17, 1:05 PM
    I've heard on numerous occasions of people being scammed by these black boxes. A friend was telling me a few years ago somebody he knows was driving through the city centre and had to break heavily when somebody stepped out in front of her car. The insurance company noted this exact incident and gave her a 'fine' for it. Although I do know you can get insurance companies that don't fine you for things like that but they will knock off your insurance if you are a repeat offender. I'm pretty sure she'd have been in more trouble for running a person over, her fault or not.
    Originally posted by Jlawson118
    So a friend of a friend told you they got "fined" for braking hard. They probably forgot to tell your friend about all the other times they had braked hard. None of the insurance companies will penalise someone for braking hard once.

    Another story was of when the car went in for a service/MOT and they ran the car on the tracks way over 70mph and had their insurance voided for speeding.
    Originally posted by Jlawson118
    Unless you mean a race track then that is a load of rubbish! the speed of the car is measured by GPS so it needs to be moving at that speed, they don't use the wheel speed sensors.
    If they used the wheel speed sensors then the decision could have easily been disputed by getting them to look at the GPS record where the car is stationary.

    Obviously these are stories I've heard so I don't know if they're true, but they do put me off having a box. I paid £1000 extra last year to just not have one, my family were against the idea of me having a box installed too. They seem like more hassle than what they are worth
    Originally posted by Jlawson118
    If you could have saved £1000 then i would have seriously considered having one for at least the first year of driving. Even if you make a few mistakes they wouldn't increase the premium by £1000 so you would have saved money overall.
    • bertiewhite
    • By bertiewhite 15th Jun 17, 3:07 PM
    • 391 Posts
    • 366 Thanks
    bertiewhite
    Telematics certainly kept my Stepson off the roads at night and kept him within the speed limits because he was paranoid about his premium going up.
    • rudekid48
    • By rudekid48 15th Jun 17, 3:42 PM
    • 1,985 Posts
    • 3,476 Thanks
    rudekid48
    Telematics has been around for several years now. The figures I see quoted about the accident rate for young drivers has not changed since most have been forced to have telematic devices as part of their insurance.

    Presumably there is evidence that such devices improve the driving of young drivers and hence they have less crashes. Therefore, the cost of insurance with Telematics should have come down. Based on my experience with my children, this is not the case.

    So as young drivers expect to pay high premiums, are insurance companies just using them to bolster their profits?
    Originally posted by MiniDriver
    I can't find the detailed evidence (presumably it's confidential) but this article from Insurance Times from late 2015 makes reference to a 42% reduction in accidents involving young drivers using telematics..

    http://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/carrot-insurance-turns-tragedy-into-award-winning-telematics/1417582.article
    All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves.
    • forgotmyname
    • By forgotmyname 15th Jun 17, 7:28 PM
    • 25,279 Posts
    • 10,033 Thanks
    forgotmyname
    Your little one's insurance is more expensive because the insurer can see how they drive, perhaps? My elder daughter should be thankful she's not asked to have one fitted.
    Originally posted by CardinalWolsey
    Maybe my post is not clear. The prices on the comparison sites this year were dearer WITH a black box than quotes without the black box.

    Nobody knows how my little one drives, not had a blackbox before although quotes last year were slightly cheaper with one. But not so cheap that it was worth risking one of those policies.

    Just the quotes were dearer with the box.


    Car54. Nah that was last year i was banned from the comparison site for doing too many quotes

    This year it was a handful of cars only
    Punctuation, Spelling and Grammar will be used sparingly. Due to rising costs of inflation.

    My contribution to MSE. Other contributions will only be used if they cost me nothing.

    Due to me being a tight git.
    • MiniDriver
    • By MiniDriver 16th Jun 17, 8:12 PM
    • 2 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    MiniDriver
    If your childrens' insurance premiums aren't reducing, then it's probably because of what is being shown about their driving.
    Let me clarify I was referring to the first years premium - thus there is no record of how they drive.

    I accept and agree that proven poor driving should be penalised.

    The point I was making is that new driver premiums are not reflective of the improvements that just having a black box promotes - as pointed out by rudekid48
    I can't find the detailed evidence (presumably it's confidential) but this article from Insurance Times from late 2015 makes reference to a 42% reduction in accidents involving young drivers using telematics..
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

232Posts Today

3,346Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Byebye! I'm about to stop work & twitter, to instead spend glorious time with Mrs & mini MSE. Wishing u a lovely summer. See u in 10 days.

  • WARNING Did you start Uni in or after 2012? The interest's rising to 6.1%; yet it doesnt work like you think. See https://t.co/IQ8f0Vyetu RT

  • RT @JanaBeee: @MartinSLewis Boris is the anomaly (coffee), the others are versions of normal (beer). Lots of same candidates = vote share d?

  • Follow Martin