TV on the go.

[Ashley]

We’re just took delivery of my wife’s new CLK 320 elegance. She loves the car although I think it a bit girly for my liking and will stick to my old rust bucket of an e class. Anyway the TV doesn’t work once the car is moving can I bypass it. The MB dealer won’t do it for safety reasons. I don’t mind if I have to pay someone at the local dealers a backhander to get the job done, I just need to know if it can be done first.

Incidentally so far my older e320 seems to be faster. But she wont give me a race to find out.

 

[Maff]

Yes it can be done, and most likely a back hander will be required, or a trip to Braybrooks in Herts with £50 cash.

 

[Thmsshaun]

Most In Car Audio / Electronics shops would be able to do the job but like maff says pay cash and dont expect a reciept.

 

[Maff]

Who ever does it needs to have a 'Star diagnostic computer' as this is the bit of equipment that tells the systems to allow it above 10mph, allow when handbrake off etc. (Three interlocks from memory)

 

[Ashley]

Cheers that’s a real help at least now I’ll sound like I know what I’m on about.

 

[peterchurch]

The MB dealer won’t do it for safety reasons.

Its very illiegal as well! They would be in deepest doo doo if you crashed the car and attributed the change to them...

Concider this. If your wife had an accident she would not have any insurance cover. Regardless the DVD Player being on or not. I concede that the insurance company would have to find the mod first, but I would not want to take the risk on a car that cost as much as a new CLK... If a police car came past her while it was on then she would automatically be picked up for for driving without due care and attention and her insurance would probably be cancelled as well...

Yes you might be able to fight both of these cases in a court, but the extra effort and stress to do it, is not worth the risk (IMO)

I know I sound like an old fart , and you did not ask for a lecture on the legality of the issue, but more weight needs to be applied to this aspect, as the benifits of making the change seem so cool and easy at the time...

I have talked myself out of a complete media system for my car on the same points that I have used above, and I don't care what anyone says about the picture not being a distraction. If the film is running you will find your attention diverted to it

DVD on the move is cool but it is just not worth the risks...

 

[Thmsshaun]

Who ever does it needs to have a 'Star diagnostic computer' as this is the bit of equipment that tells the systems to allow it above 10mph, allow when handbrake off etc. (Three interlocks from memory)

I dont know if its the same on the OEM installs but for the aftermarket jobs its just a simple case of earthing the wire that connects to the handbrake.

 

[SilverSaloon]

I dont know if its the same on the OEM installs but for the aftermarket jobs its just a simple case of earthing the wire that connects to the handbrake.

the checks are built into comand too so that wont work....

on comand 2.0 u can just cut the canbus/speed pulse line via a switch but not sure about it on newer models.

my comand works on the move as i used an AV adaptor rather than a TV tuner to connect my DVD player to it. i didnt do this for watching dvds on the move tho - i did it so the track listings etc of the mp3 dvds i can now play show up on the comand screen for easy switching between tracks etc.

 

[Will]

Concider this. If your wife had an accident she would not have any insurance cover. Regardless the DVD Player being on or not. I concede that the insurance company would have to find the mod first, but I would not want to take the risk on a car that cost as much as a new CLK... If a police car came past her while it was on then she would automatically be picked up for for driving without due care and attention and her insurance would probably be cancelled as well...

Not wanting to sound like an argumentative git, but I would be extremely surprised if an insurance company would have grounds to cancel your cover on such grounds? Not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, being over the drink-drive limits, using a mobile phone - all illegal, but would this stop them from covering your vehicle, let alone paying out to a third party?

I must agree that for a driver to be watching films at the wheel is most definately insane, and certainly not condoned, but I can't see how this would leave you with no cover?

Will

 

[peterchurch]

Not wanting to sound like an argumentative git, but I would be extremely surprised if an insurance company would have grounds to cancel your cover on such grounds? Not wearing a seatbelt, speeding, being over the drink-drive limits, using a mobile phone - all illegal, but would this stop them from covering your vehicle, let alone paying out to a third party?

I must agree that for a driver to be watching films at the wheel is most definately insane, and certainly not condoned, but I can't see how this would leave you with no cover?

Will

Why don't you phone them up and ask them if you can install a tv screen in your car (in the drivers view) and then disable its safety mechanisms to allow the driver to watch it while on the move then ask them If they will cover the said driver when he/she rear ends another car / kills a pedestrian causes the closure of the M5 through their actions ???

Yes they do invalidate your insurance if you are under the influence of drink or drugs in the event of an accident... Its now a standard clause...

They would actually cancel the policy on the ground that you modified the car and did not tell them what you had done... The fact that the mod makes the car illegal to drive on the road would just ice the cake...

 

[Will]

Why don't you phone them up and ask them if you can install a tv screen in your car (in the drivers view) and then disable its safety mechanisms to allow the driver to watch it while on the move then ask them If they will cover the said driver when he/she rear ends another car / kills a pedestrian causes the closure of the M5 through their actions ???

Yes they do invalidate your insurance if you are under the influence of drink or drugs in the event of an accident... Its now a standard clause...

They would actually cancel the policy on the ground that you modified the car and did not tell them what you had done... The fact that the mod makes the car illegal to drive on the road would just ice the cake...

Are you sure that they can actually 'invalidate' your insurance. Ie, they will not cover you (as in legally - cover to third parties at least) if you were over the drink drive limit? This is for all insurance companies?

Surely installing any kind of audio/AV equipment would be classed as a mod, whether it is incorrectly installed may be different. If you declare the AV system as installed, do they ask to see if it is fitted correctly?

I am really certainly not trying to condone driving whilst watching TV or or whilst over the limit but I can't see exactly how an insurer would be able to wipe it's hands clean of their legal obligations?

Will

 

[Will]

Just to add that WRT phoning your insurer and asking about doing illegal things in your car (ie, watching a film!) what would they say if you wanted to watch a film on a laptop or use a mobile phone? Obviously illegal and unlikely to impress them, but failing them being your shadow 24/7 how would they prevent this from happening?

 

[marcos]

My freind is an insurance assesor and I just spoke to him on the phone about this after reading the thread.

It would invalidate your insurance, and he says that they are already coming across this problem and only last month an S-Class driver lost the full value of their car because of this.

 

[Thmsshaun]

If you were watching at the time of accident then they could invalidate your policy however if it wasnt on at the time then it cannot be proven to have any link whatsover to the cause. So they would have no grounds to invalidate the policy.

 

[Will]

My freind is an insurance assesor and I just spoke to him on the phone about this after reading the thread.

It would invalidate your insurance, and he says that they are already coming across this problem and only last month an S-Class driver lost the full value of their car because of this.

Would they actually be able to not cover your liability to a third party? Does this differ to other non-conformaties. Eg, watching a film on a laptop computer or similar?

Will

 

[peterchurch]

Would they actually be able to not cover your liability to a third party? Does this differ to other non-conformaties. Eg, watching a film on a laptop computer or similar?

Will

Yes ! You broke the contract not them Its _YOUR_ fault Every company I have ever delt with, issues a warning that failing to disclose any information during the quote, could invalidate the policy...? Not telling them about your modification would be enough to get them off the hook of paying out...

 

[marcos]

Yes ! You broke the contract not them Its _YOUR_ fault Every company I have ever delt with, issues a warning that failing to disclose any information during the quote, could invalidate the policy...? Not telling them about your modification would be enough to get them off the hook of paying out...

My freind Mark agrees with the above. Remember, you pay your insurance premium and the buggers will try every trick in the book to not pay up when they have to.

 

[Will]

Yes ! You broke the contract not them Its _YOUR_ fault Every company I have ever delt with, issues a warning that failing to disclose any information during the quote, could invalidate the policy...? Not telling them about your modification would be enough to get them off the hook of paying out...

Hi Peter,

I understand fully the principles of insurance, and definately agree 110% regarding disclosing all material facts etc, including modifications. It is in fact something which I actively encourage for some of the reasons highlighted on these forums.

What I am interested in is whether all insurance companies will not pay a third party in the event of a claim where the insured may well have been 'acting illegally'. Eg, you have mentioned the example of Drink and Drug clauses - and that it 'invalidates' any insurance. Just checked with my insurer (online, easy! ) and have found the following extract covering this:

12.Drink and drugs clause
If an accident happens and as a result you or any person
entitled to drive under section 5 of your current Certificate
of Motor Insurance is convicted of an offence involving drink
or drugs, or was driving when under the influence of drink
or drugs, cover will be restricted to our liability under the
Road Traffic Act.

Now, to me that means third party liability is covered? Couldn't find any specific referances to watching TV on the move (which no doubt could be classed as a material fact), but if you were to ask your insurers any manner of questions such as this it is obvious that they would not approve.

I am still curious as to the difference between, say, watching a film on a laptop computer, or using a mobile telephone in such a way that it is illegal (for example, in a non conforming car kit requiring user interferance), and watching TV on a car's screen. All illegal whilst driving - but does each and every offence automatically terminate all insurance policies from all insurers?

Just trying to clear up the facts.

Will

 

[Mr E]

Yes - how could a law-abiding insurer provide cover for a policy holder acting illegally?

One of the things we're currently looking at for various "pay-as-you-drive" scenarios is full integration with telematic systems. So the car tells tales on what you were doing at the time of the incident. So, slightest excuse and they don't pay.

The premise is that as soon as you act illegally in the car, during that period the insurers liability is restricted to RTA - i.e. very little.

To take an example - the DVD is on, the big action scene goes "BOOM", you look at the screen and mow down the four-year-old...you're on your own. The insurer "may" pay out but will be after you.

Remember, they are not in the game to be fair to you - they make money for shareholder's. Don't give them the slightest excuse because they have the wriggle down to a fine art.

 

[Plodd]

I'm not getting started on the legalities of this as I would think you could guess my view.

As to the insurance question, third parties involved would be covered.