Your thoughts

[waremark]

How does the use of these devices result in the insurer being more profitable without improving the identification of risk?

I suggest that use of the devices will reduce risk, but not because of any ability on the part of the device to measure risk. The reduction of risk will come through the effect on the behaviour of the monitored driver. In terms of measuring risk, I believe these devices are an abomination - if anyone has evidence to the contrary I should love to be corrected.

We have heard from Dom of this forum (new Chairman of his local IAM Group, congratulations) that he achieved an obvious and exceptional deterioration in his black box assessment when he attended an IAM Regional training day; not because of harsh braking but because of use of firmer braking and acceleration. I heard from an HPC member that his results were universally awful for two reasons, confirmed by the black box company but nonetheless recorded by them - he was working on shifts in a hotel and was therefore regularly out late, and his route to and from home involved 'traffic calming measures', driving over which was treated by the insurance company as though it was harsh braking because of the accelerations recorded.

[sussex2]

How does the use of these devices result in the insurer being more profitable without improving the identification of risk?

I don't know.
However when I were a young 'un my insurance was next to nothing and so was the cost of the car I bought; yet road casualties were three times what they are now.
How come insurance is so expensive now?
It's not really a question but more a point of interest and I have a sneaking feeling we are being conned.

[MGF]

...In terms of measuring risk, I believe these devices are an abomination - if anyone has evidence to the contrary I should love to be corrected.

Individual risk quite probably. Class risk, which is what actuaries use, should be quite possible when there is sufficient data to be useful to them.

[sussex2]

Insurers exist to make money and should not be seen as arbiters of good driving.

[trashbat]

Surely insurers exist for one purpose only; to make money.
The tinkers will invent any means and foist any contraption on the gullible to achieve that aim.

AFAIK, most of them make a net loss on their car insurance products. However the business provides them with a very large amount of cash that they can invest and reap greater reward from - as well as profile and business in non-car markets.

I think that they do have an interest in reducing your accident rate or at the very least understanding your personal risk better, since they definitely have a need to be competitive, and this in turn requires careful risk management.

[TripleS]

These black boxes do nothing to measure whether the driving is safe.

That's a very bold statement; what proof do you have?

Well it seems to me they can not possibly be a very precise measure as to the safety and the overall quality of a driver's performance.

Perhaps it is early days yet, and further development of the monitoring systems, and their interpretation of the data provided might, in due course, give a better guide. I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Right, that's the attempt at a rational and measured response to the issue.

However, I want nothing to do with 'black boxes' or any form of in-car, or external, monitoring. I've caused very little trouble in my 56 years of driving, and I do not want some smart arse coming along now with a technology based system to supervise me. Balls to that!

[TripleS]

In time the data will be sufficient to yield useful information for assessing risk. In the meantime some speculation is necessary.

No it isn't, we don't want speculation, which might take us in the wrong direction.

What we need is the collection of data, from those who are willing to participate in this system, and an assessment of that data. We then need to figure out what the important factors are, in terms of driver behaviour, and see how they affect our overall performance in the safety stakes. Then we might learn something useful, and be able to apply it.

It seems to me this entire approach is still at an early stage. Patience.

[trashbat]

It's also possible that the ADUK target market are irrelevant outliers.

It may be that the most talented amongst an advanced driving group massively exceed the speed limit on a regular basis and without incident over several decades (this is fiction and I'm genuinely not suggesting it happens, much less advocating it).

It may also be that of the target market for black boxes, again for example, 90% of those who ever exceed 90 mph have a major accident within a year.

Therefore when looking at the population, it's entirely reasonable for the system to look for speed excursions and have them render you uninsurable. It won't suit you and in your particular case will be some value of unfair, but while you don't need to change your driving, the insurer doesn't need to change their model to accommodate you either.

[waremark]

It's also possible that the ADUK target market are irrelevant outliers.

It may be that the most talented amongst an advanced driving group massively exceed the speed limit on a regular basis and without incident over several decades (this is fiction and I'm genuinely not suggesting it happens, much less advocating it).

It may also be that of the target market for black boxes, again for example, 90% of those who ever exceed 90 mph have a major accident within a year.

Therefore when looking at the population, it's entirely reasonable for the system to look for speed excursions and have them render you uninsurable. It won't suit you and in your particular case will be some value of unfair, but while you don't need to change your driving, the insurer doesn't need to change their model to accommodate you either.

That would all be quite possible, and I agree we are irrelevant outliers. But I don't think Dom on his IAM Regional Training Day was exceeding 90 mph (or the speed limit), nor was the hotel employee who is a member of HPC. My belief is that what these boxes can measure has little relationship with safe driving. That doesn't mean they won't reduce insurance risk, because they will make the drivers whose cars are fitted with them take more care. I speculate that no-one will be researching the data in a way which will reveal whether they can assess safe driving.

Have they for example been fitted to a large population of experienced drivers' cars, to determine the correlation between the results and past insurance history?

[MGF]

In time the data will be sufficient to yield useful information for assessing risk. In the meantime some speculation is necessary.

No it isn't, we don't want speculation, which might take us in the wrong direction.

Yes it is. On the basis that the insurers have decided to use the data currently. Whether or not it is necessary for them to do so is another matter and probably not relevant to their decision to do so.

[TripleS]

In time the data will be sufficient to yield useful information for assessing risk. In the meantime some speculation is necessary.

No it isn't....

Yes it is....

We could go on for quite a while like this, but we won't.

[onlinegenie]

Yes we will

[TripleS]

Yes we will

Ah, I meant 'im and me. At any rate, ah'm oot.