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

Generali

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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.

But my previous point remains.

If enough careful drivers select themselves into the pool of black box monitored customers then they effectively force he rest in just as, in your example, fully comprehensive clients are pushing up the cost of FPFT insurance to the extent that it's cheaper to be overinsured.

Generali

Walcott wrote: »

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.

Presumably what will end up happening is that over time the insurers will work out the behaviours that correspond to low claim rates.

Joe_Horner

Generali wrote: »

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)

How exactly does possibly not wanting an insurance company (who may or may not keep the data secure) tracking my every move make me a "careless driver"?

Does the lack of a black box magically invalidate the 30 year record in which I've already proved myself to be about the lowest risk they'll see this year?

Why should I have to "prove" my safety with telemetrics when I have 30 years of accident and claim free driving of between 10k and 25k miles per year in everything from Minis to HGV? And, in all those 100s of k miles have only ever had 3 points for getting caught, about 24 years ago?

patman99

The Co-Op offer black box insurance to young drivers and will adjust the premium cost on a monthly basis so you can see on-line what your estimated renewal premium will be.

The only problem with such 'spy in the cab' devices is 'how do you account for when your car is being driven by A. N. Other?'.

As an aside, if you have a self-driving car, I will presume that it will not have any controls. In which case, as a passenger, surely you would not need a driving license.

Joe_Horner

patman99 wrote: »

As an aside, if you have a self-driving car, I will presume that it will not have any controls. In which case, as a passenger, surely you would not need a driving license.

Good point - or insurance (although you might have to take reasonable steps to ensure the computer was insured), and if the MOT was out then it's the responsibility of the driver, so sue the computer :beer:

Herzlos

Generali wrote: »

Presumably what will end up happening is that over time the insurers will work out the behaviours that correspond to low claim rates.

The real risk is that the metrics recorded are utterly without context. A good driver could have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a bad driver that carries on at a constant speed regardless, but the good driver will look worse on the computer. It also doesn't factor in traffic or external conditions; so someone driving at just above the speed limit on an empty motoroway on a clear dry day will look statistically worse than someone driving just under it in heavy traffic in the rain, with a lane closed due to a breakdown of a truck spilling ball bearings over the carriageway :j.

It may prove useful in the same way aircraft boxes are; what's happened in the 30 seconds before the crash? How fast were both cars going and when did they apply the brakes? But before that? it sounds like a way to charge drivers more whilst teaming them to drive to the metrics and not the road.

Nodding_Donkey

Walcott wrote: »

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.

i agree they don't, but what they will do is end up penalising people that maybe fit decent tyres on their car rather than whatever happens to be cheapest at Kwik-Fit. Who is actually the better risk? The guy that buys quality components for his car or the guy that just buys whatever is cheapest. And it doesn't end with tyres, suspension and brakes also play a big part in road safety.

Buellguy

Herzlos wrote: »

The real risk is that the metrics recorded are utterly without context. A good driver could have to slam on the brakes to avoid hitting a bad driver that carries on at a constant speed regardless, but the good driver will look worse on the computer. It also doesn't factor in traffic or external conditions; so someone driving at just above the speed limit on an empty motoroway on a clear dry day will look statistically worse than someone driving just under it in heavy traffic in the rain, with a lane closed due to a breakdown of a truck spilling ball bearings over the carriageway :j.

It may prove useful in the same way aircraft boxes are; what's happened in the 30 seconds before the crash? How fast were both cars going and when did they apply the brakes? But before that? it sounds like a way to charge drivers more whilst teaming them to drive to the metrics and not the road.

Bit like speed cameras do now then LOL

InsideInsurance

Generali wrote: »

But my previous point remains.

If enough careful drivers select themselves into the pool of black box monitored customers then they effectively force he rest in just as, in your example, fully comprehensive clients are pushing up the cost of FPFT insurance to the extent that it's cheaper to be overinsured.

Did you read my other posts?

TPFT this has happened with, blanket policies it hasnt. Logically it should have happened with both.

There are certain other requirements to force it to happen beyond simply negative selection - ie people have to actually start that selection. At the moment if anything the opposite is happening, the "bad drivers" (ie young drivers) are the ones taking out the black box and not the good drivers. Blackbox at the moment for me is massively more expensive than normally rated products

Generali

Joe_Horner wrote: »

How exactly does possibly not wanting an insurance company (who may or may not keep the data secure) tracking my every move make me a "careless driver"?

Does the lack of a black box magically invalidate the 30 year record in which I've already proved myself to be about the lowest risk they'll see this year?

Why should I have to "prove" my safety with telemetrics when I have 30 years of accident and claim free driving of between 10k and 25k miles per year in everything from Minis to HGV? And, in all those 100s of k miles have only ever had 3 points for getting caught, about 24 years ago?

You seem to want to frame some kind of moral framework around this when it's simply about accurately measuring risk.

If this black box thing happens, and I think it will, then you'll have to pay an ever increasing premium not to have a black box in your car.

Nobody in insurance companies cares about your protestations of driving excellence. They just want to make as much money as possible and that depends on them measuring risk accurately.