RoADAR/Universty of Sussex research

[michael769]

I have just received an email from Rospa HQ:

The University of Sussex is conducting a study on behalf of RoSPA to investigate the link between advanced driving and its apparent reduction of insurance claims. The results of the survey will be used to assist the whole advanced driver community to access lower cost insurance. As a ROADAR member, we would like to ask you to complete this important survey.

I suspect of of the registered RoADAR folks will also get an invite

Nice to see RoSPA are making an attempt to objectively measure the impact on AD.

[waremark]

But an astonishing survey when you respond to it.

Questions about insurance claims history related only to the last three years. While the last three years may be the most relevant period for insurance quotations, surely to investigate the relationship between advanced driving and claims history looking at a longer period would provide more data (in my household it is several decades since there has been a motor insurance claim). What I would really like to be able to show insurers is that there are more advanced drivers than other drivers with an otherwise apparently comparable insurance profile who have gone for very long periods without adverse insurance history.

All the questions are those which you are asked when getting an insurance quote. The survey claims to be anonymous, but if it wasn't it would look like a piece of marketing for a car insurance scheme.

[martine]

...Nice to see RoSPA are making an attempt to objectively measure the impact on AD.

Yes indeed.

Might make sense for ROSPA and IAM to pool their research budgets on this. The IAM did the 'Brunel' project in 2006 which was with a very small sample.

http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/news-items/press/ne_24848

More recently there has been the imaginatively titled "Brunel 2" project but I haven't seen the results.

[michael769]

All the questions are those which you are asked when getting an insurance quote. The survey claims to be anonymous, but if it wasn't it would look like a piece of marketing for a car insurance scheme.

Presumably this is because their control group will consist of data gathered from insurance applications?

[Angus]

I too was surprised at the "quality" of the questions.

But this has been done using a free questionnaire program which limits the number of questions that may be asked.

As this has the backing of RoSPA, I wouldn't have objected to providing an email address to receive a more detailed questionnaire which may provide better data

[WhoseGeneration]

I'm wondering about how the researchers might contact prospective respondents, such as me and Mrs. WG.
That is, those who have achieved an AD qualification but are not, currently, a member of any AD organisation.
Information from that group might be of greater value.

[Angus]

I'm wondering about how the researchers might contact prospective respondents, such as me and Mrs. WG.
That is, those who have achieved an AD qualification but are not, currently, a member of any AD organisation.
Information from that group might be of greater value.

A good point. I've heard it said that undertaking training but failing or not taking the test still makes you a safer driver.

But for how long?

[waremark]

All the questions are those which you are asked when getting an insurance quote. The survey claims to be anonymous, but if it wasn't it would look like a piece of marketing for a car insurance scheme.

Presumably this is because their control group will consist of data gathered from insurance applications?

Why would they ask the cost of your insurance? (I made up an answer, because I don't have figures for our different individual vehicles).

The best evidence of the relationship between IAM membership and insurance risk should come from the Adelaide scheme claims ratio. Since they generally beat other quotes, if the claims ratio is favourable that will be a very strong indication of the benefits of having had advanced training at some time in the past. If not ...

I am surprised we have not yet started to hear the indications from this source.

[martine]

I am surprised we have not yet started to hear the indications from this source.

Not quite as simple as that as it's quite possible people who use Surety are not 'typical' Advanced Drivers...for a start they have to be members of the IAM!

Surety have stated the number of claims is no lower but the value is...I think they put this down to lots of low-speed car-park type of incidents but fewer high-speed ones than would be expected.

Which is interesting...as an Observer I don't spend much time at all with my associates perfecting manouevres (I find them boring) and would much rather concentrate on coaching them to drive a rural road well...perhaps I shouldn't!

[michael769]

Why would they ask the cost of your insurance? (I made up an answer, because I don't have figures for our different individual vehicles).

To collect statistics on how much the treatment group are being charged currently, and compare that to the control group?

[waremark]

Why would they ask the cost of your insurance? (I made up an answer, because I don't have figures for our different individual vehicles).

To collect statistics on how much the treatment group are being charged currently, and compare that to the control group?

How would that information be used in relation to the stated purpose of the survey?

[waremark]

Surety have stated the number of claims is no lower but the value is...I think they put this down to lots of low-speed car-park type of incidents but fewer high-speed ones than would be expected.

I find it hard to imagine people claiming for car-park type incidents. We have discussed before that some insurers charge less if you park your car on the street than if you park it in the garage. I believe this is because cars parked in garages are stolen by thieves who break into the house to find the keys. When the car is parked on the street it suffers more minor damage, but the thieves don't know where to look for the keys. The relevance of this is that the minor damage done in the street does not affect the insurers because people don't claim for it. I believe. Which does not quite fit with the explanation given.

[michael769]

How would that information be used in relation to the stated purpose of the survey?

To understand to what extent AD drivers already enjoy lower premiums, and if this it proportionate to the reduction in claims (assuming said reduction is shown to exist)?

[michael769]

Surety have stated the number of claims is no lower but the value is...I think they put this down to lots of low-speed car-park type of incidents but fewer high-speed ones than would be expected.

This statement pretty much describes the claims history of your average male, non company car driver, aged 35 -75, with 5 or more years driving experience, when compared to the overall population of licensed drivers. I wonder how much of this is down to AD and how much to the typical demographic profile of an AD driver?

[gannet]

Surety have stated the number of claims is no lower but the value is...I think they put this down to lots of low-speed car-park type of incidents but fewer high-speed ones than would be expected.

I find it hard to imagine people claiming for car-park type incidents.

well... speaking as someone who has claimed for two (would have been three if I was paying) - it is surprising how costly it can be

The one I didn't claim for, was a shopping trolley that had rolled down a hill into the side of our car - two small dents. unfortunately right on the crease line - £550 to repair. Fortunately (for us) the person whose trolley it had been fessed up and paid out of his pocket.

The other two very minor but with similar cost - both of which were around £600 to fix... my insurance excess is far less than that.... Isn't this what insurance is for?