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

InsideInsurance

Cornucopia wrote: »

That doesn't really make sense - an arbitrary set of issues, which may well have little or no bearing on claims. And if there is no bearing on claims, there is no scope for a discount.

For safe, mature drivers, accidents are freak occurrences. Typical accident frequency: every 7 years/84000 miles. For me personally, it has been much longer than that.

Most those issues will affect both frequency and severity. If you constantly drive at 45mph in 30 zones then you will cause/ have more damage when that freak occurrence happens than if you drive around at 30. I am sure we all remember the adverts about the death rate for kids when hit by a car at 30 -v- a car at 40

Likewise the odds of you having an accident are going to be higher if you always break late and hard. Simple logic says if you do this you have less margin for error or correcting a mistake if traction is lost etc.

InsideInsurance

Walcott wrote: »

The technology for what is being mentioned already exists. Commercial fleets are tracking their vehicles and logging driver statistics already. There are already established devices like an LMU2720 that work in conjunction with a cars own diagnostics to give accurate data feedback.

This isn't really going to be a GPS solution (as GPS isn't really that reliable at accurately tracking - as shown by missing plane MH370). This will probably be a M2M solution which will require a SIM loaded configured device to a network, with insurers white labelling established and maintained platforms (or outsourcing this function).

Not saying it cant work, just saying I dont see it being the majority of private motor insurance within 10 years without a government mandate to push it.

Cornucopia

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Most those issues will affect both frequency and severity. If you constantly drive at 45mph in 30 zones then you will cause/ have more damage when that freak occurrence happens than if you drive around at 30. I am sure we all remember the adverts about the death rate for kids when hit by a car at 30 -v- a car at 40

Likewise the odds of you having an accident are going to be higher if you always break late and hard. Simple logic says if you do this you have less margin for error or correcting a mistake if traction is lost etc.

I'm not convinced. I suspect that accident causation and outcome is much more sensitive to driver skill, experience and existing under-writing factors than to easily measurable arbitrary driving characteristics. (If not, why are young drivers so much more likely to have accidents and have correspondingly high premiums).

And even if there were isolated cases where that wasn't the case, diminishing NCD would rapidly even things out.

I suppose there was always going to come a time when big brother surveillance was brought to bear upon us all. I just think we owe it to ourselves to resist it.

InsideInsurance

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm not convinced. I suspect that accident causation and outcome is much more sensitive to driver skill, experience and existing under-writing factors than to easily measurable arbitrary driving characteristics. (If not, why are young drivers so much more likely to have accidents and have correspondingly high premiums).

And even if there were isolated cases where that wasn't the case, diminishing NCD would rapidly even things out.

These are other factors and all will be considered when pricing. The statistics nuts in the pricing departments will slice and dice the data they receive and compare it to claims data to derive the technical premium that needs to be charged.

Of cause if they find that speeding doesnt materially impact premium the technical rater would be a 0 load/ discount for it. There can however be a commercial decision to create a loading because the common perception is that speeding is bad and thus people may swallow it that if they are shown to be a speeder their prices are loaded slightly.

Cornucopia

Exactly - the imposition of arbitrary rules for PR rather than safety reasons.

I'd be concerned that poorer, less attentive driving was being incentivised by such a measure, ultimately making driving less safe overall.

InsideInsurance

Cornucopia wrote: »

Exactly - the imposition of arbitrary rules for PR rather than safety reasons.

I'd be concerned that poorer, less attentive driving was being incentivised by such a measure, ultimately making driving less safe overall.

Then as you say, that becomes self correcting by the accidents they have and the loadings received for both the driver history and impact on NCD

Cornucopia

Sorry, should have said: making the roads less safe overall.

Stoke

I wonder how easy these things would be to spoof

Nodding_Donkey

So how would it take handling characteristics or even the type of tyres fitted into account. I can go around a corner quite safely in say an MX5 fitted with good tyres at speeds that would see the average Mundano fitted with Ditchfinders in the, er, ditch.

System

Nodding_Donkey wrote: »

So how would it take handling characteristics or even the type of tyres fitted into account. I can go around a corner quite safely in say an MX5 fitted with good tyres at speeds that would see the average Mundano fitted with Ditchfinders in the, er, ditch.

I think you misunderstand what the insurance companies want from these. They don't want to evaluate how well a particular car can take a corner. Mazda MX-5 vs Ford Mondeo safety and handling characteristics are already factored into the equation pre any device even being fitted into the vehicle.