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

Generali

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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

Yes I read your posts. Did you read mine? It seems polite to ask back.

Black box might be expensive at the moment. It would be relatively simple to make an app that would work with a £200 smart phone. I see no reason for this to stay expensive.

InsideInsurance

Generali wrote: »

Yes I read your posts. Did you read mine? It seems polite to ask back.

Black box might be expensive at the moment. It would be relatively simple to make an app that would work with a £200 smart phone. I see no reason for this to stay expensive.

How do you ensure the user always has the phone with them/ app turned on when they are driving? How do you ensure they are actually driving when its on and arent in the car of a more mature/ safer driver or even their car with someone else driving it?

colino

DirectLine invested in the gubbins when they thought they had understood the previous government were heading towards the pay to play car tax model. As this didn't materialise, they bailed, but there are plenty others in the field that can install the black boxes relatively easily and cheaply. The parameters they work to though (apart from the absolutes; driving in peak hours and breaking speed limits) are too wide for even the keenest of actuary to get their hands on. Taking a sharp bend at 60 in a Porsche is a laugh, taking the same corner in a Kia with Wanlis fitted at half that speed is scary.
I don't want my insurer assuming I'm a terrible driver and forcing me to have their Premiumupometer 2000 installed. However I'm not entirely against them. I see them as the equivalent of an ankle bracelet that our chavs and chavettes regularly sport.
If you have committed a serious, or totted up enough, driving offences, get the tag on and only when you've proven yourself sane again, go back to be treated as a decent citizen.
I don't see them being widespread in this country at all.

Generali

InsideInsurance wrote: »

How do you ensure the user always has the phone with them/ app turned on when they are driving? How do you ensure they are actually driving when its on and arent in the car of a more mature/ safer driver or even their car with someone else driving it?

You can't.

What you can do is if/when there is a claim you can investigate for inconsistencies, just as the insurance industry does at present.

You work in insurance or claim to. What does the company you work for do when a 'non-smoker' gets a cancer that is only caused by smoking or if a car is insured for 5,000 miles a year has 20,000 after 6 months? It's the same thing.

Herzlos

Buellguy wrote: »

Bit like speed cameras do now then LOL

I did actually compare it to speed cameras and then removed the comment.

InsideInsurance wrote: »

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

This is true; currently the black boxes will only appeal to those with no or poor insurance history (i.e. new drivers, drivers with points or lots of claims) whilst for experienced drivers it's not a worthwhile option. So the bad drivers are more likely to end up with boxes.

On the flip-side, it does mean that new drivers are likely to start with a box until it becomes cheaper to get rid of it, and as such means that whilst we object to the idea of the boxes after a generation or so they won't be regarded as anything unusual.

InsideInsurance

Generali wrote: »

What does the company you work for do when a 'non-smoker' gets a cancer that is only caused by smoking or if a car is insured for 5,000 miles a year has 20,000 after 6 months? It's the same thing.

Smoking can be tested for in most cases from what I know, not my area.

Mileage is pretty difficult to validate, particularly for one under 3 years of age or where the policyholder switches insurers regularly as insurers dont ask for an opening mileage for a policy. As said there can also be a friend that frequently drives the car under DOC on their own policy. In all my years of motor claims I cant remember it ever being brought up as an indemnity issue.

Mileage however doesnt carry much of a rating factor, changing a quote from 5,000 miles to 20,000 miles on my car only changes the premium by less than 10%

Where the vehicle is kept over night is the other classic one for fraud, in fact its so heavily fraudulant that a fair number of people stopped rating on it and some dont even ask it as a question any more. Before my prior client stopped rating on it they would occasionally void a policy for fraud when the PH had said it had been kept in the garage and on investigation they didnt even have a garage.

Some black boxes however are talking about having a 50% impact on premium which is much more significant. Also some may think the insurer has a way to validate mileage, and they can to some degree with older cars the PH has had for a while, but I think many will be fairly clued up that the insurer can do little about a mobile based app and fraud

System

Generali wrote: »

Yes I read your posts. Did you read mine? It seems polite to ask back.

Black box might be expensive at the moment. It would be relatively simple to make an app that would work with a £200 smart phone. I see no reason for this to stay expensive.

That is not how the technology that is being tested works. Devices such as the Calamp LMU2720 work alongside the vehicles diagnostics/ecu. A phone would not be able to do most of the things that the insurers are actually interested in.

Cornucopia

I'm not sure I see how this works financially - for safe, mature drivers.

It potentially works for high-risk/high-premium drivers, because there is some potential with a £1000+ premium for a reduction in return for taking measures that genuinely reduce claims.

However, in a premium of £250, where is the margin/incentive to provide for the cost of the box and the monitoring?

I value my privacy at maybe £75-100 per year, so that's a fairly large hurdle for the companies to overcome. And if it is such a hurdle, there will be other companies looking to exploit it by offering blackbox-free policies.

sh0597

I see this as a good thing. Anything that allows insurers to accurately measure risk is a good thing.

esuhl

Driving badly can kill, so it's only right that high standards are demanded from anyone wanting to drive. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and (in my experience on the roads) dangerous driving is endemic.

So, assuming the "black box" data are interpreted appropriately, I think it's a great idea to require them to be fitted to all motorised road vehicles.

The privacy issue is a separate thing. The problem is that most companies don't take security seriously. The "black boxes" could be programmed to discard any data that aren't considered relevant (i.e. your precise location at every minute of the day) and only store amalgumated metrics (i.e. mean lateral g-force when cornering, mean speed on motorways, percentage of time that the speed limit was broken, etc.) then privacy could be maintained whilst still reporting driving style to the insurer.

If it means that people take fewer risks on the road (as it should), I think it's a great idea. Can't wait till everyone on the road has one!

Generali wrote: »

What does the company you work for do when a 'non-smoker' gets a cancer that is only caused by smoking...

Cancers are caused by random genetic mutations of cells. Smoking can increase the rate of mutation, but there are no cancers that can only be caused by smoking.