LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16969509
Good or bad idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16969509
Good or bad idea?
Nothing new, other companies already do it. Good idea IMHO - why not match the premiums better to your risk, and if it encourages people to drive more safely then cool. My only concern is gaming the system.Originally Posted by blueball
I think this would be a good idea.
Because if you pay your premiums knowing that your car is 'tracked' I would suspect that one would put more thought into how they drive; as alot or the majority of young drivers just insure their car and then just blitz the road...
Thereafter the insurance only comes to mind when either it's renewal time or accident.
And again the parents can check up on them if they are using their car?
I know it's not specifically aimed at younger drives but thats where I think it's beneficial.
Bloody awful idea, it'll be poorly implemented, badly designed and arbitrarily set at the dumbest settings known to mankind.
And it wont stay voluntary for long.
How so?
I agree with you on the voluntary part, insurance companies are paying stupid figures and I can only think the government will go down this road to bring the figures down and thus lead to insurance companies making more profit possibly?
Exactly that.
And then will come the limitations on what time of day/night you can use your car (as is already the case for some young driver sat nav tracked insurance policies).
Oh, and then the fact you drove at 35mph in a 30 zone 6 months ago? £60 extra for your premium.....and how long before evidence from such systems becomes admissible for evidence in speeding prosecutions? I remember where one GPS tracking system was used to disprove the charge of excess speed, but what about the other way round?
Nope. Insurance companies can make their judgment on me from the characteristics of my age group (under 25) gender (male) car (BMW) performance (230bhp) location (Essex) etc etc. and charge me through the nose anyway.
Giving them remit for anything else is just going to add another justification for a price increase - lets face it, are they actually going to give a discount for this extra information in the long run? Lets face it - the broad claims characteristics, the cost of claims, number, frequency etc, is unlikely to change by any statistically significant amount to allow them to reduce safe driver's insurance policies any further than they are already. (Car insurance is, largely, loss making).
They are paying out a lot based on all the "No Win, No Fee" claims for whiplash etc, its not really related to speed or how careful the vehicle is being driven when most of these claims are fraudulent and the claimants get away with it.
Insert signature here.
If an insurance company informed you were only able to drive between certain times; simply reject the policy and move to someone else; I don't doubt for a minute that will affect alot of people.
If you have already been driving for 5yrs+ and had no claims which I suspect alot of people that I know have, then restrictions wouldn't be applied.
If i thought the honest intention was to help younger drivers with their insurance premium then fine, but before long something like this is likely to become mandatory so i think its the worst thing that has happened to driving ever.
This quote pretty much sums it up
Which is blatantly what will happen in the long run.But Keith Peat, a spokesman for the Association for British Drivers, told the BBC he was worried that drivers who did not want to allow telematics in their vehicle would face higher costs.
"Providing the drivers give their consent it is OK," he said.
"But what we are totally against is people who don't give their consent being penalised."
I can see it now
"Due to our tracking records showing you speeding 3 times in the day prior to your accident, we are not paying out your claim".
By means of simple example, we ALL know a high performance car can corner safely as speeds that would simply tip a transit over. It is abundantly possible for maximum safe cornering speed in terms of through the bend visibility/visible stopping distance to be far in excess of the maximum stable speed of vehicle taking said corner.
There are other problems, of course, but that's one of the easiest to demonstrate.
Basically I'm betting the software isn't calibrated per vehicle, it'll be broad brush, lowest possible thresholds. If Miss Daisy can't do it in her 1950 ford anglia, you're a child killing sociopath with a 7 figure insurance bill.
Furthermore I'd venture the burden of proof is on the driver if the system craps up/they are not driving it. Track day? Mechanic ragging it? Another named driver having some fun? What about a dyno - that's going to look a bit suspect. Proving it wasn't you will be difficult.
In short it won't be done properly, it won't be done well and it will spread and become mandatory in the name of 'safety'.
The thing that bemuses me most is the whole 'it'll encourage people to be safer'....I contend that not many people set out to prang their car since those costs far outweigh any loaded premiums, plus there's the whole...death/injury thing. I can't see someone thinking "I'd better not rag it, not because I'll die, but it might cost me a tenner."
That's wrong IMHO. The cause of most crashes is lack of observation, and visibility round a bend is exactly the same for a transit (maybe better even) than a high performance car. GPS can show how fast you are going, and how tight the bend is, so it's fairly easy to make calculations about travelling faster than line of sight allows (though granted, makes no provision for roadside decor).
Possible, but usually not the case.It is abundantly possible for maximum safe cornering speed in terms of through the bend visibility/visible stopping distance to be far in excess of the maximum stable speed of vehicle taking said corner.
I can - people already only obey driving guidelines if there are financial/criminal consequences they want to avoid - just look at the ridiculous behaviour around speed cameras.The thing that bemuses me most is the whole 'it'll encourage people to be safer'....I contend that not many people set out to prang their car since those costs far outweigh any loaded premiums, plus there's the whole...death/injury thing. I can't see someone thinking "I'd better not rag it, not because I'll die, but it might cost me a tenner."
I can see a lot of paranoid wives getting this put in their husbands cars...
Worst thing ever, don't want it, where I drive to is my business and no-one elses.. Unless that ducks still following me
But a transit could be doing 9/10ths and, say a porsche could be going 5mph quicker but relatively only doing 6/10ths - the box will show the latter as 'more dangerous' when that is simply not the case.
That's not the money, that's the points. Funnily enough, on the odd (very odd) well sited/appropriately limited roads, people don't behave oddly. I only see that behaviour when the limit appears to have been set on the average driving ability of a stoned chimpanzee and the camera popped on the only straight section for miles. imo public trust in limits/cameras has been eroded to the point of no return hence the behaviour observed, however that's a different thread
Hell, she can pay my insurance thenI can see a lot of paranoid wives getting this put in their husbands cars...
Worst thing ever, don't want it, where I drive to is my business and no-one elses.. Unless that ducks still following me
So insurances will go through all the trouble and potential costs involved in establishing and maintaining this new service simply to save safe drivers some money? And they wont use it as an excuse to increases charges on their "average" drivers?
Seems nice of them, no wonder they have such a nice reputation
.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
