Drivers without insurance 'black box' could be forced off the road within 10 years

Joe_Horner

londonTiger wrote: »

2) saves fuel, driverless cars can drive on motorways just 2 feet between each other. drastically reducing aerodynamic drag

Unless you're at the front of the queue, of course, in which case your consumption goes throught the roof.


eta:

Incidentally, "driving along a motorway 2 feet from each other" is one of the very simplest things for a self-driving car to do. That could be done with a zx81 and a few sensors / actuators. It's why people fall asleep on the motorway - because it's boring, repetetive and mentally unchallenging.

The difficult parts (which they're not close to solving yet) are dealing with off-motorway and, particularly, town driving where the information that needs to be processed is several orders of magnitude higher than a motorway. Everything from jay walkers to cyclists, pheasants, sheep, fallen trees, and Mrs Jones' moggy, all potentially acting in unpredictable ways, have to be tracked and allowed for.

fivetide

Ford have had self parkign for years though (reversing into a space), I'm sure others will too.

As said, auto brakes, Mercede's distronic cruise control so your car always stays a safe distance from the car in front and maintains whatever speed needed to do so. Lane control etc etc.

With the box on board and the rapid increase in the availabiltiy of fast, reliable mobile data collection and of course the emergency boxs that will be in use very soon, there will be less and less argument for actually giving the driver any control.

I don't like it because although I don't drive like a loon I do like driving and I am aware of the risks posed. I don't like the big brother nature of it and it is another product/service that no one has asked for.

InsideInsurance

londonTiger wrote: »

People won't have pride of ownership over a driverless car. If you don't drive it, you don't consider it as yours. So people will carpool more. Maybe a few people will get together and buy a driverless car to share between them. This will drop car sales.

How do you not have the pride of ownership? Surely the thing bigger than having a Rolls Phantom is to have a Rolls Phantom and your own driver for whenever you dont want to drive yourself? Why doesnt that apply to other vehicles?

Why would people share cars any more or less than they do today? Presumably auto driving mode will be an optional feature with certain safety features being able to be on/off independently to the full driverless mode. I guess you are arguing your car will be safer in the hands of someone else because you arent reliant on their driving skills but if they borrow your sports car and turn off the features they could still wrap it round a tree.

There are certainly some people that like manual driving and wont want one, agree with that. You only need to look at the low take up of auto gearboxes in the UK compared to other countries. Most people will eventually come round to the idea of a car that can do the boring motorway drive for you allowing you to watch a film or read a book etc but still get to play on the country roads at the weekend when you want the fun of driving. Just like the auto gear boxes that come with flappy paddles.

kaya

I'll find a way around their black box witchcraft, my old firm had a gps tracker in the car which surprisingly wouldn't work when I put a copy of the King James Bible on the dashboard directly above it

londonTiger

kaya wrote: »

I'll find a way around their black box witchcraft, my old firm had a gps tracker in the car which surprisingly wouldn't work when I put a copy of the King James Bible on the dashboard directly above it

A tracker does not need live link to work. it can just store the data until it has a connection.

If it does not have a connection for a long time it may refuse to turn the ignition on or insurance may be voided if a connection is not made in a long period of time.

Generali

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But there's a world of difference between "offering discounts for..." and "artificially inflating prices for not..."

Not in legal terms. Anyway, what's artificial about inflating prices for careless drivers? We already do the same via higher premia for convicted drunk-drivers, young people and reduced prices for people who fail to be involved in accidents (no claims bonus)

HoofeHearted

Also, the EU are planning to bring in a new law for new cars.
http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/comment/comment/yourview/11223570.Say_No_to_Big_Brother/

Just read the Telegraph article and this is mentioned there; October 2015.

So is the EU starting this, and the insurance firms getting on the band-wagon?

InsideInsurance

Generali wrote: »

Anyway, what's artificial about inflating prices for careless drivers? We already do the same via higher premia for convicted drunk-drivers, young people and reduced prices for people who fail to be involved in accidents (no claims bonus)

Thats not whats being said but we are talking about negative selection instead.

If bad drivers mainly buy non-blackbox insurance and most good drivers only buy blackbox insurance that means that a good driver who doesnt want a blackbox for some reason will also have to pay higher insurance because they join a common pool that is skewed towards higher claimers.

It is similar to the fact that for an average person it is cheaper to buy Comprehensive insurance than TPFT despite the cover being worse because TPFT is favoured by the poor risk people and so the common pool gets skewed.

fivetide

InsideInsurance wrote: »

If bad drivers mainly buy non-blackbox insurance and most good drivers only buy blackbox insurance that means that a good driver who doesnt want a blackbox for some reason will also have to pay higher insurance because they join a common pool that is skewed towards higher claimers.

It is similar to the fact that for an average person it is cheaper to buy Comprehensive insurance than TPFT despite the cover being worse because TPFT is favoured by the poor risk people and so the common pool gets skewed.

Which is a large part of my arguement above.

InsideInsurance

fivetide wrote: »

Which is a large part of my arguement above.

And I agreed with it conceptually but as I pointed out there are other similar examples (eg bedroom rated Home policies) where this actually hasnt happened despite it being "logical" that it would

For it to happen there is the assumption that the majority of good drivers are willing to have one and that the majority of bad drivers dont realise that its bad for them to have one (ie arent taken in by marketing or low headline prices etc or dont realise they are bad)