To wonder why all car insurance companies don't do this?

[bendmeoverbackwards]

I have a box fitted in my car that my insurance company have as part of their terms and conditions. It monitors my driving and I get regular email updates.

I think it's good and makes me think about my speed, braking and acceleration which should make me a safer driver.

I'm wondering why all insurance companies don't do similar? Surely this is the best way to catch people who speed or drive aggressively and increase their premiums accordingly?

Op could voluntarily wear one of those police ankle bracelets too.

That will monitor her actions. Keep her and others safe and her where abouts at all times right.

I don’t even drive and this has annoyed me

Maybe police could be given the funds to be able to tackle all those cars not taxed and moted.

I can see one form my window right now. Apparently over due since December.

Don’t want any company to know anything more than already about me or my doings !
Saw something yesterday about tv streaming service which can count the number of people in the room to enable charging for rented stuff. Think it was Netflix and think headline said people really didn’t like it - maybe it’s being trialled ? (Even having written that I’m wondering if it was an April fools)

Because its not cost effective for me to do it. If it was cheaper I would however my car insurance is doubled by having one fitted!

We're looking at insurance for my steo son at the moment based on him.having just passed his test. In a bog standard, small engined car the insurance (with box) is coming back at £2500 per year! I've tried sooooo many different cars now too

I agree with everything @Giraffe96 says too.
All my dc had a look, when they first passed, but, because of the shifts they work, a lot had to be ruled out anyway.

I would be more on board with the idea of all new vehicles being fitted with some sort of dash cam, as standard - recording both what the driver was doing and the road ahead. I can see that still is very '1984', but actually it would be very useful for insurance claims. Not sure how the technology would work, but I could see it would give more accurate reporting of the times when you needed to brake or accelerate any less than smoothly.

lots of them play up, sending incorrect data to the company, so can be a real problem

If this ever became
Mandatory I would feel rather childishly like going to empty car park and doing some great handbrake turns and burning rubber generally. Totally out of character for me !

They allow for unusual circumstances. Generally speaking those incidents of sharp acceleration/braking when avoiding hazards are not that frequent if you allow plenty of space and anticipate.

I felt quite competitive about it, as my son and I shared a car. I like to see whether I was driving well!

The issue for us was a vague fault that developed around the time it was fitted. It may not have been the box, but it may have been!

I would hate it. I’ve been a good driver for years, really careful, no accidents, good at motoring economically, rarely drive at night and so on.
I don’t want them to be tracking my movements and telling me how to drive. I’d rather pay the higher premium.

[quote BackforGood]@bendmeoverbackwards

I remember having this discussion with a 19 yr old back in the 80s. He said his insurance premium quotes were around £1000. His mate had just been given a fixed penalty fine for driving with no insurance, of £200. Obviously I'm not condoning it, but you can understand the temptation.
I've just done a quick Google, and it said the fixed penalty fine for driving with no insurance today is £300. I don't know what a male, 19 yr old, employed as a mechanic 's insurance would be now but I'm going to take a stab at around the £1600 mark, going on what my dc have been quoted. When you think you are invincible, and a great driver (as many 19 yr olds will), and you are on NMW or worse, apprenticeship wage, then you can see why people are tempted.[/quote]
Bloody hell, I’m amazed at the low penalties for no insurance!

@Somerford

That's what I mean - if all insurance companies did them, there is nowhere to hide. There is always the risk of people driving uninsured but the penalties for this I imagine are huge and not a risk most people would take

Not everyone yearns to be watched, monitored and micro managed the way that you seem to. If you want that for yourself, fair enough. But don't insist upon it for everyone else.

Do you think you would feel different if you involved in an accident caused by a dangerous driver?

I read in a Telegraph article that young drivers who use them aren't seeing benefits in the policy renewals. I am concerned that if they need to overtake, their safety could be compromised by slow speed.

@DayBath

Both acceleration and braking should be smooth and controlled.

Righto. I'll just very slowly apply my brakes and risk a collision when a child runs out in front of me then. Can't have the insurance company thinking my braking isn't smooth and controlled can I?

I think you will be less enamoured of your shiny black box when you start getting "feedback" from it. Computers can be very stupid things.

Children running out in front of you doesn’t happen that often. Of course we all need to brake sharply sometimes to prevent an accident. But in normal day to day driving around town, braking should ideally be smooth. Many drivers don’t anticipate hazards ahead and act accordingly.

@NutellaEllaElla

It's a bit 1984 for my liking

I agree. It is the future though, sadly.

I would happily consider using them if the insurance company make public their algorithms and explicit details of how they use the data.

[quote BackforGood]@bendmeoverbackwards

I remember having this discussion with a 19 yr old back in the 80s. He said his insurance premium quotes were around £1000. His mate had just been given a fixed penalty fine for driving with no insurance, of £200. Obviously I'm not condoning it, but you can understand the temptation.
I've just done a quick Google, and it said the fixed penalty fine for driving with no insurance today is £300. I don't know what a male, 19 yr old, employed as a mechanic 's insurance would be now but I'm going to take a stab at around the £1600 mark, going on what my dc have been quoted. When you think you are invincible, and a great driver (as many 19 yr olds will), and you are on NMW or worse, apprenticeship wage, then you can see why people are tempted.[/quote]
I think you get 6 points as well as a £300 fine for driving without insurance. If you have had your full licence for less than 2 years and get 6 points you lose your licence and have to retake your test.

I was hit by an uninsured driver who lost his insurance after too many accidents. I still don't think they should be forced on everyone. I drive very carefully and it feels like an impingement of my freedom to be honest

It will be a way for insurance companies to not pay out on claims. They’ll call you a “speeder” because you once drove 36 in a 35mph zone etc.

Don’t think for one second that insurance companies are doing this for our good. It will always be to lessen payouts.

@MindGrapes

I would happily consider using them if the insurance company make public their algorithms and explicit details of how they use the data.

This is the problem, it’s a brilliant idea if the companies genuinely used them for the good of the customer. If they kept it simple so if you drive within the speed limit in a smooth controlled manner you get rewarded with lower premiums, with maybe the option of a voluntary curfew for new drivers to further reduce the premiums. But they don’t!

I’ve had 3 young drivers go through this stage and none of them chose the black box option, in many cases it was actually more expensive. I was speaking to a lady from one of the companies and she actually read out a list of things that effect the premium (I doubt she was supposed to) I can’t remember all of them but they included the time of day you travel, so regularly using your car during rush hour, ya know when the majority of people need the car to get to work, puts the premium up. Another thing was constant stopping and starting, so if your regular commute includes a regular traffic jam, so that’s most peoples, up goes your premium. It’s also effected by which roads you travel on, I think country lanes put it up so you can’t even use the back roads to avoid the traffic jams.

I do get the freedom point. But if you are in charge of a metal box that has the capacity to hurt or kill other people, some of that freedom is lost. Everyone has the responsibility to drive safety but unfortunately not everyone complies with this.

Most insurers do but yeah, tend to target new drivers. In my case my first policy had a black box and promised me a reduction due to good driving - until I had a crash, d'oh! IIRC in my third year of driving I switched to a different insurer and no more box.

For experienced drivers they're usually more expensive for similar reasons to third party ending up more expensive than comp I think - the very fact someone is seeking such a policy is seen as indicating they're higher risk. And add the cost of the box as mentioned.

I also agree it's very likely to be used to penalise drivers for perceived wrongdoing that is in fact not bad driving. And there have been fatal crashes when drivers were trying to get home before the black box curfew. Most insurers have ditched curfews and late-driving penalties because of such incidents, but not all.

I live rurally, you get to test your emergency stop frequently through no fault of your own. Even at low speeds- cyclists, horses, sheep, cattle, unexpected floods, branches all sorts. I have a dash cam and think that's a fair compromise.

@bendmeoverbackwards

I do get the freedom point. But if you are in charge of a metal box that has the capacity to hurt or kill other people, some of that freedom is lost. Everyone has the responsibility to drive safety but unfortunately not everyone complies with this.

So do you know specifically what actions you may take that may raise your premium? Is it just eg staying under the speed limit, or do they consider people averaging a speed of 0.8 standard deviations below the limit to be actually driving at optimum safety?

It's a "black box" in more ways than one.

@bendmeoverbackwards

My acceleration is smooth and controlled. However, since my car will do 0 - 60 in 5.75 I suspect a black box wouldn't like it.

Because it means people will be penalised if they speed a lot, cos you know it’s perfectly acceptable to break that law!