Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by MercFanUk, Feb 9, 2012.
BBC News - AA to launch sat-nav tech tracking insurance policy
Great for the new drivers with >£1000 insurance policies, but I'm about £300 these days, so have little further to gain from it.
Though I would like to read that letter warning me of my excessive speed and braking.........around Cadwell Park
Do trackdays not void it.
Not a fan of "tracking". I'd be happy to pay the extra for my insurance even if were a £500 saving.
With the level of companies now taking this up, I wonder how many years we have left until this becomes an unwritten mandatory device to have if you want insurance.
I don't mind being tracked so much, but it's the having to prove your a good driver that bothers me. I mean I passed my test, and I've had no at fault claims - why should I have to prove even more?
It's ok if the car that runs into you has one.
You can be the best driver in the world then someone can come along and either hit you or cause you to have an accident.
Bit like the saying "never had an accident but seen plenty" if you catch my drift
Perhaps these should be fitted to motorists who do have at fault claims? I know we all make mistakes at times, but I wouldn't mind being asked to have one fitted if I was a slightly higher risk, to keep my premiums down.
It's the "You've done nothing wrong, but we'll still penalise you for not letting us track the way you drive" that peeves me.
And if you lend your car to someone else, can you temporarily turn it off?
The thing that concerns me about this initiative is that I fail to see how the 'sat-nav' can be aware of the road conditions. Is driving up an empty motorway at 85mph in good conditions more dangerous than driving at 60mph on the same motorway in torrential rain with lots of traffic. How does this device differentiate between a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre resulting in evasive action and a close miss, versus braking hard to avoid a deer which runs onto the road?
How long before advertising companies start using the information?
Do lots of miles and use mostly Shell petrol? Get a discount voucher for a Texaco on your normal route.
Drive to Tesco carpark too often?..get lots of advertising for a rival near you...
Then, when everyone has one, speed cameras will be a thing of the past..
My team were involved in a lot of this quite a few years back - it got very good feedback from the indurance companies involved in the pilot and (IIRC) NU piloted it with about 2000 policy holders.
Two benefits were found from the pilot - a 25-30% reduction in claims (and this carried across to a control group who had dummy devices fitted too), and access to more data allowing a better quality of claims investigation.
One thing it could never do was relating real-time driving behaviour with traffic/weather conditions - the data doesn't exist that allows you to do that. But it does give a reasonable indication about driving behaviour - pre-pilot work showed that those who registered quite highly on scores based on what we called "g-plotting", or the g forces recorded due to acceleration/braking and cornering. It does not look at one-off incidents, but looks at the pattern of samples. It's also good at recording when people drive - restricting driving to low-risk times reduces the number and size of claims.
However, when it came to claim investigation, the data around speed and location proved very useful, and this can be combined with local reports regarding weather conditions, traffic levels, etc.
Master E is looking at insurance as a 17-year-old, and can halve his premium under such schemes. He's looked at a couple that exclude driving between 2300 and 0600 (which suits him) and allow him a couple of "red" days each month - break the rules and it costs extra for the next month. Might sound extreme, but he can get insured on a 1.6 Golf at 17 (assuming he passes his test...) for under £1200. Wouldn't we rather riskier drivers have this cheaper option rather than have no insurance at all?
Once you get into mainstream low/medium risk drivers, there are less and less benefits to the scheme. At the end of the day, insurers are unlikely to require all drvers to have one. How would you approach the technology aspect - standard box? one data collector? end-of-life? Just not currently realistic or workable. Advertising - possible (we didn't look at this) but plenty of issues around data privacy and protection, plus you'd have the option to choose to opt out anyway.
Does passing your test qualify you as a good driver?
Does a no-fault claim record qualify you as a good driver?
I know at least two claim-free drivers who I personally won't ride with when they are behind the wheel - in fact both have had "accidents" which they have settled directly...
For younger and at-risk drivers, this is an excellent system.
By "at-risk", I mean drivers who have received cautions for their driving behaviour, positive breath test, etc. People who know their driving is being monitored stand a better chance of being more careful.
Thing is, The insurance company charges me. If I claim or I'm claimed against - yes maybe I expect a hike as I'm costing them. If I settle outside of the insurance company, I shouldn't cost them anything, and therefore not be a risk to them. (Sounds odd, but in a financial sense it's what it comes down to).
So why should I have to further prove that I'm capable?
I can see why it might me useful for younger drivers, they have yet to prove they wont cost the insurance company. But when you have many years no claims... it's like being treated as a child quite frankly.
Of course all this is mute unless is one day becomes mandatory, but even if it doesn't, as it gets cheaper and cheaper to fit/track - I can see it being one of those cases where you'll find it hard to get a policy where you don't need one of these to get a reasonable quote.
I kind of see where you are coming from - but hiding the risk doesn't make the risk go away. In fact it probably increases the risk of a higher claim being made at some point - if you feel that you'd rather not claim because of the frequency of these minor "accidents" for example. BTW, I'm not saying that this is true in your case.
At the end of the day, the insurer is a business. There is no sense in driving away low risk drivers by making life more difficult for them. I see the only wat this could become mandatory is via a road pricing scheme - again one which my team have been involved in and in no way has a viable business case to implement. There is a burden in having to process and feedback the data collected - why would any sensible business do that for a large market segment where there is no benefit. Rather, concentrate on a part of the market that pays a premium price for the service - you can substantially reduce the risk involved and have an increased profit margin whilst offering a reduce rate. That's why they are doing it.
It's a shame we're not allowed to divulge the details of this - I'm sure that a lot of the perceived issues would be answered.
I guess my worry is that when technology like this comes along - while it can be fantastic, it can also end up either being abused or used against us in a way.
Being that insurance companies in general don't exactly inspire great thoughts, it's easy to imagine how they might use it if they could.
As an aside, we are getting a hire car imminently and the contract says