Norwich Union Pay as you go insurance.

[Satch]

Lot of press noise about this. Good thing? Bad thing? Depends on who you are, where and when you drive.

But some can barely conceal their glee:

Rob Gifford, director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said that the system would make it easier to prosecute dangerous drivers. Only one in nine road deaths results in a prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving. He said: “This should provide important corroborative evidence for police. It will be especially useful now that anti-lock brakes mean there are few if any skid marks from which to determine speed.”

Police have already requested information from Norwich Union about two crashes involving drivers taking part in trials.

A Norwich Union spokesman said: “We have to provide the data if the police request it but only if it is part of an investigation. It is only right for people who have been breaking the law and driving dangerously to be prosecuted. But we do not use the system ourselves to check speed and it is the insurer’s job to pay out on claims regardless of liability.”

Yes, yes, I know, dangerous drivers deserve the be called to book, but without doubt it is the thin end of the wedge and is a stalking horse for Road Pricing/Speed Uber-Control technology.

Bad enough to discover that I already have damn spy chips installed on my wheelie bins!

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I guess there are two things here:

(1) The concept of PAYG insurance.
(2) Big-brother watching what we do.

I guess it's the latter that is the purpose for raising though. It's only a matter of time before technologies in each of our cars can be used in a similar way.

Things like congestion charging and tolling will see the introduction of similar technology that will track our movements, for which there seems resistance at the moment. ANPR technology can be used to track movements too.

I recall similar resistance with the widespread introduction of CCTV. I don't think there are many people left that have yet to accept it as being necessary these days. I suspect the same will come with other technologies that are perceived to be "big brother watching".

Anything that protects the innocent and exposes the guilty is undeniably a good thing. I think the problem lies with the huge grey area in between, where no harm is done, but technically a law brokem - where the line is drawn will be the contentious issue.

For example, if technoloogy is used to identify the guilty party in a hit and run that's great. If it's used to fine drivers for doing 77mph in clear conditions on an empty motorway in the dead of night, where no harm is done, it could be perceived as invasive.

My two penneth said.

 

[190cossie]

why is it the government wants to monitor everything we do

 

[graeme73s]

why is it the government wants to monitor everything we do

So they are able to charge us for it