Challenge incorrect insurance telematics data?

dannyrst

I'm not sure if this has been confirmed, but OP...if you can recall, did your son brake fairly harshly when approaching the car infront?

If so, it's possible that the person reviewing the data has seen that the car came to a stop in a short period of time and given that the car infront was hit, jump to the conclusion that your sons deceleration was caused because he hit the car infront. He was then hit from behind by the next car.

I'm not sure how a black box with no video capability could distinguish between a crash and harsh braking, especially at relatively low speed.

justinhow

He did brake fairly strongly from what I remember - never locking up though. So it is possible the engineer got confused.
I agree on another point which GPS takes a while to settle down after stopping and may not be very clear as to whether we were stopped (which we were) for a few seconds before being hit from behind. It is also not very precise at exact positioning either - could it clearly differentiate the 4-6 feet or so we were shunted forward for example. From what I read the simple answer is no way - Garmin say 15m and I think very few if any will say less than 4m. So this may primarily come to the G sensor and time.

I guess this gets to the main question - how much interpretation was done by the engineer looking at the data and how irrefutable is the data. What is the margin of error given by the manufacturer of the box for the various sensors.
I will put my hands up if at fault in an accident. My son was not though - I have no reason to lie to this forum as no one knows me here. I personally pretty much hate insurance fraud - it so wise spread and we all end up paying.
It is strange that all this time we were preying they could recover the black box data as it would undeniably show we were an innocent party - I am shocked that this is not so though. It makes me question the complete telematics/black box push by the insurance companies.

benten69

justinhow wrote: »

It makes me question the complete telematics/black box push by the insurance companies.

I'm surprised you didn't question it earlier. They don't push these things out to help your or I, they do it for their own benefit and if it helps them avoid paying out because you were doing 33 in a 30, then they are happy.

Hope you get it all sorted and I'll be watching this thread with interest, but as I said before, you couldn't pay me to fit one of these devices into my car.

Dash cam is a far better way of proving fault.

justinhow

benten69 wrote: »

I'm surprised you didn't question it earlier. They don't push these things out to help your or I, they do it for their own benefit and if it helps them avoid paying out because you were doing 33 in a 30, then they are happy.

Hope you get it all sorted and I'll be watching this thread with interest, but as I said before, you couldn't pay me to fit one of these devices into my car.

Dash cam is a far better way of proving fault.

Unfortunately in practise new drivers will often have to have a black box fitted just to get insurance at any sort of reasonable price. Reasonable being less than £2000!!!

rudekid48

If you post who you bought the policy from, I should be able to tell you who made the box.

POPPYOSCAR

justinhow wrote: »

Unfortunately in practise new drivers will often have to have a black box fitted just to get insurance at any sort of reasonable price. Reasonable being less than £2000!!!

Quite right.

Paradigm

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Quite right.

I'm not so sure!
At the moment young drivers are the thin end of the wedge for the technology.
When it's been refined & demonstrated to work I don't think it will be very long before it's an "optional extra" for all drivers.
Of course there will be the option of refusing one but, like now for young drivers, premiums will be sky high for policies without a box.
As someone said above, these boxes are for the insurance companies benefit... they won't ignore it!


Give it 5 years & they will be standard fitment for all wanting insurance at a reasonable price.

Mercdriver

In Korea, they have started fitting the black box system to cars during car assembly. Also 7+ seaters (non commercial as well as commercial) have speed limiters fitted. That is the way of the future...

Paradigm

Isn't technology a wonderful thing?

[Deleted User]

justinhow wrote: »

The guy in the front most car says he does not know whether we were stationary behind him before he was hit - he did not look in those 5 seconds.

This is nonsense. He heard the sound of two impacts one after the other, and the bump he felt was simultaneous with either the first or the second. No confusion, it's was obvious to him.

I was hit by a car driven by a woman that couldn't stop in time, and then another car that couldn't stop ran into the back of hers. It was obvious in which sequence the impacts occurred.

Strider590 wrote: »

I can't find any solid information that suggests these boxes have the external sensors required to differentiate front/rear impacts. It would require independent accelerometers in front and rear locations on the vehicle, I seriously doubt that happens and more likely there is a single sensor within the actual unit.

When the car is hit from behind there is a sudden impulse of acceleration at the point of impact, when it hits the car in front there is a sudden impulse of deceleration. The order in which these are recorded tells you which order the impacts occurred.