skoda_kid

Been reading alot into this scheme thats currently being tested by norwich union. Apparently 5000 people are testiun it out for a year.

Anyone on here??????

Would like to know if its worth having.

Cheers

Skoda_Kid

Mr Sympathy

i did read some stuff about this with most folk finding they are paying less pro-rata for their car use. it loads the time and location of your car according to risk and does seem to be a viable option for low mileage drivers who probably subsidise higher mileage drivers. as we pay for so much else according to how we use it, it will be interesting to see the results.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Please, don't even consider supporting this technology. It doesn't actually reduce the likelihood of accidents occurring, it only skews the cost of insurance premiums towards those who are not prepared to have a device log our exact position and speed at all times. It's in all our interests, to ensure that we never reach a state where you end up having to have one in order to get insurance at all.

If such devices did become common, not only is there the increased overhead of actually buying, maintaining and policing them (which we'd all end up paying for), but our insurance companies would be able to collect an enormous amount of sensitive personal data for which they have no legitimate need. It doesn't take much imagination to see that you could find your insurance reduced to third party only if you stray 1mph over the speed limit, or if you exceed some predetermined mileage limit. Details of exactly when and where you travel could be sold or - maybe worse - made available to the police. None of these things benefit you, of course.

Call me paranoid if you like, but I do believe that our ability to travel freely and with relative anonymity is under threat and worth protecting. Drive something smaller for a few years now and you'll reap the rewards for the rest of your driving career.

ali_j

i agree with andy, u lose ur freedom and there ma be cases where u might have to go above the limit to avoid a collision- what happens then. its not worth the hassle

Mr Sympathy

I am certainly no expert on this but as I understood it, the system does not log speed only location and time in snap shots, it will catch out people who register cars in low risk areas and drive in predominantly high risk areas for instance (like I used to, lived in suburbs, worked in Beirut area of Bham), night travel will be cheaper as will motorways but peak travel will be penalised as there is alink to accident rates I understand.

The technology exists in many forms already and if you carry a mobile phone your whereabouts can be constantly known to the police if they so desire anyway, so if you have nothing to hide? The boxes in the cars are not onerously expensive and the schemes may pay for themselves in time.

I dont think it is fair to slam a scheme as unworkable before the trail is even finished and I for one am keeping an open mind until the trial is completed then make my decision, but looking at both sides of the fence is not a strong point on here is it?

chrome

so you get penalised for having to commute to work- 'peak travel' (where you already pay NI/Income tax when you get paid from work, now we might get taxed to GO to work?? **** that.. I'll sit at home on the dole then and get the missus to pop out a dozen or so kids- no need to work then


...yeah great.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Mr Sympathy: nobody's slamming a scheme as unworkable, I'm arguing that it's undesirable. Not the same thing, I'm sure you'd agree. My concern is that, far from being unworkable, once they get a foothold in the market they may become inevitable. Just look at what's already happened with anti-theft trackers on performance cars, and remember who really benefits from retrieving your pride and joy once it's been thrashed to within an inch of its life by a joyrider or used in a ram raid.

The exact details of what a particular company's box does and does not log aren't really relevant; what's at stake is our ability to go about our lawful business without having some commercial organisation routinely track our movements. When only one company wants to do this, we have the choice of using another. When they all do it, we're stuck. Here's why:

Suppose these black boxes do make insurance cheaper for some, the rest of us will see increased premiums to make up the difference. This is inevitable, unless the total number of accidents which occur actually drops in order to make up for the reduction - something which I doubt very much will happen. We live in hope, I suppose.

So, the boxes become more pervasive as more and more people find they can't get a competitive quote without one. This skews the balance of insurance premiums further and further against those who don't have a box. Meanwhile, as the number of drivers with boxes goes up, their average discount gets eroded, since it's no longer just those with the most to gain by having their movements tracked that get them. The demographic of the box user tends back toward the average.

Taken to its logical conclusion, we all end up with a box, like it or not - and we all end up paying just the same as we did before. The boxes no longer benefit anyone, they are simply an administrative overhead that we all pay for as well. The insurance companies log our movements according to whatever T&C's they can get away with. Performance car drivers like ourselves already have few enough to choose from.

Moreover, drivers who do a lot of miles, travel in dodgy areas or have a poor record are more readily identified and face impossibly high premiums, negating the risk-spreading benefit that insurance is supposed to offer. The number of uninsured drivers, therefore, goes up - and they're all high risk.

Please, do consider the other side of the fence yourself, even though it's not a nice place to be.

Mr Sympathy

and that is exactly what i am doing, i do not quote a stream of possibles like you do, whilst i accept your points may be valid, you simply ream off a lot of down sides to the scheme that are still just not known yet. If that is your way of saying it is undesirable and we are talking semantics here then how would you define unworkable as you have confused me!