PDA

View Full Version : Quote me "profiteering big brother " !!


Krystal n chips
1st Oct 2006, 15:50
From the orgsanisation whose proud advertising slogan we all know, a "nice little earner" as Arfur would have said. Now, apart from the fact said black box can clearly keep a track of when and where etc----and just what business is it of any insurance company to intrude into my, or anybody else's private life ---or indeed working life---anyway:mad: the little matter of £200 for an installation then pay per mile er, will not ( sums were never my strong point I admit :rolleyes: ) save money. Lets take a simple example. Drive from here in sunny Manchester to say-Aberdeen--that's roughly 372miles--at 0.6p/ p mile ---and then I come back again--How, exactly, will that be saving me money on my insurance ?---clearly the NU's way of doing sums is different to us mere mortals.

Then comes the bit about travelling at night. Well as it happens, I prefer to travel "off peak" for a variety of reasons, one for example being the fac there is less traffic and hence less chance of a long delay--and excess fuel consumption for a start. Not to mention you can actually plan a realistic time from A-B.

Read on :

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2382681,00.html


Got to love the words of the man at the top---albeit ironic I suppose-- when he says "People will begin to understand exactly what they're paying for" Brilliant :rolleyes: --- yes they will ---and it's known as profiteering actually !!----and while we are about it, who exactly authorised you and your organisation to become the arbiter as to how, when and where I should drive--a daft question I know, but I don't recall any legislation giving any insurance company the right to dictate how I live my life.

G-CPTN
1st Oct 2006, 16:08
So anybody wanting to avoid congestion (and drive less-stressfully) at night when the roads are less crowded will have to pay MORE for the priviledge?

Fits in with the 'logic' of the TRRL (now Transport Research Laboratory) that your chance of being involved in a collision is directly proportional to the length of time spent on a journey - ie drive FASTER and be safer! :ugh:

allan907
1st Oct 2006, 16:23
Sounds like the sort of scheme that a wet behind the ears, recently graduated, y generation nerd, scrambler for promotion, w*nker would think up - corporate greed then gives the idea legs.

I was recently quoted $450 for comp insurance on my Landrover Defender. I asked if there was a possibility of a reduction as I had driven it for a total of 5,000 km in the last 2 years. "**** Off", was the loud reply. "**** Off yerself", was my retort, "I won't insure it at all" (the State incorporates compulsory 3rd party insurance in the registration). So the insurance company instead of gaining $200 manages to lose $450!

Hope a nerd gets sacked.

Krystal n chips
1st Oct 2006, 16:46
"Hope a nerd gets sacked" ----

Be ironic if your excellent assessment proved to be correct---and said nerd did exist and lost it's job as a result of the outsourcing excercise they are about to carry out :E ( not applicable to those other poor sods who are about to lose their jobs as a result of this I hasten to add )

Be better still if the CEO went when profits fell as a result of this proposal.

G-CPTN
1st Oct 2006, 16:50
11pm-6am, when youngsters are more likely to be seriously injured or killed in a car accident.
:confused:

AcroChik
2nd Oct 2006, 05:16
This entire concept is the complete inverse of the off-peak-time pricing schemes proposed by Columbia University economist William Vickry. Vickry demonstrated ~ both theoretically and practically ~ that by pricing off-peak-time travel (let's say, tolls across bridges) less expensively, traffic flows could be evened out, congestion eased, pollution reduced, vehicle wear and tear reduced, etc.

Vickry also applied his pricing theories to industrial-scale power consumption: give an electrical aluminum smelter a lower price for operating at a time when the entire grid isn't already at capacity and thus reduce the cost of grid infrastructure, etc.

There's a lot more to this than one can fit into a forum post.

Vickry won the Nobel Prize in economics for developing and applying his pricing theories. It seems someone is hoping to make a profit out of applying the reverse. The scheme sounds so unappealing, it's hard to see a crowd rushing to sign up for it. But I'm proven wrong many times a day.

slim_slag
2nd Oct 2006, 09:10
But the insurance company is not interested in evening out traffic flow. They are interested in matching premium to risk, and they consider night driving to be increased risk so demands higher premiums.

The concept makes sense to me, high risk drivers like 17 year olds can decide not to drive at night so reduce their insurance costs. Right now they pay for night driving even if they only use their car during the day. When the teenager does something useful for a change and comes get me from the pub I'll just give them another tenner to cover their insurance.

The problem is whenever these sort of changes happen they use it to hide a significant price hike. I suppose the theory is that competitive forces will sort this out eventually. The other problem is privacy issues, but I doubt the current government will be too bothered with this.

Squealing Pig
2nd Oct 2006, 09:51
And Here it Is !

http://www.norwichunion.com/pay-as-you-drive/index.htm

SP

Grainger
2nd Oct 2006, 14:17
. . . high risk drivers like 17 year olds can decide not to drive at night . . .Of course, we could change the driving test to include training on how to drive at night and on motorways . . . oh, hang on, that would be sensible so it's not going to happen :rolleyes:

cessna l plate
2nd Oct 2006, 14:44
Let's not get me started on this. The standard of driving in this country is appauling at best, middle lane owners, no-one is ever wrong, everyone is the best driver since the invention of the infernal combustion engine.

The only way to sort it all out is to make the advanced class 3 the normal standard, and then make everyone re-sit the test every 5 years. That should wake a good 10 million up.

In the meantime, can we assume that one has just had ones insurance renewal notice, and finds an acrid taste towards the rear of ones kisser Mr Chips????

Krystal n chips
2nd Oct 2006, 14:48
AcroChik,
A very interesting an relevant post that summates the logic of this charade very well, Thanks for that:ok:

Sadly, we Brits are gullible creatures. Mention "saving money" add a well known brand name, roll out an aggressive "soft sell " marketing and advertising campaign ( not the oxymoron it appears by the way ) and hey presto---we sign up. A few months later----oooh :ooh: this deal is costing us more than they said ( choose any sector here of course ) and by then it's too late. This scheme has all the portents of a disaster waiting to happen--for those who subscribe.

Suppose an average family are based in York---relatives live in say East Anglia or Scotland or Wales or wherever that involves a lengthy journey to see them---then one becomes ill and the visits have to increase. Sorry, we can't make it this week as the IMF haven't approved our insurance loan---wel not quite but I am sure you get the drift.

The question is, will others follow here---or will they see an opportunity to pick up disaffected ex customers once the penny drops ?

And do they really think the average kid is going to sign up to something as blatant as this ? -----.

Krystal n chips
2nd Oct 2006, 14:55
Let's not get me started on this. The standard of driving in this country is appauling at best, middle lane owners, no-one is ever wrong, everyone is the best driver since the invention of the infernal combustion engine.
The only way to sort it all out is to make the advanced class 3 the normal standard, and then make everyone re-sit the test every 5 years. That should wake a good 10 million up.
In the meantime, can we assume that one has just had ones insurance renewal notice, and finds an acrid taste towards the rear of ones kisser Mr Chips????

Very true in most respects---I concur wholeheartedly in fact.

As for one's insurance, it was reduced actually by virtue of being pretty well damn near perfect ;) :p :E --as you will see from the pax seat en route to Glasgow---at 0300 hrs! Modesty is my other virtue by the way:D :E

slim_slag
2nd Oct 2006, 15:03
Just some back of the fag packet calculations rounded to nearest significant number. On 15,000 miles per year, it costs me approx 10p per mile for fuel and 2p per mile for insurance. So if you have to take extra trips your fuel is the financially limiting factor, not the insurance. Not that I am defending insurance companies, but no point in attacking them for extra cost when there are higher costs elsewhere.

As for extra training, well of course that would make sense, but a 17 year old is still seen by insurance companies as a higher risk. They appear to be a higher risk at night. So charging them more when they are at greater chance to make a claim (which I pay for as a safer driver) makes sense.

I guess it's a similar concept to having a water meter, makes sense for some but not others. It's the privacy implications and the fact once they get something like this in the car the guvmint will be able to stealth tax all sorts of things. I guess somebody has to pay for Galileo and this will fit the bill nicely.

cessna l plate
2nd Oct 2006, 15:28
Very true in most respects---I concur wholeheartedly in fact.
As for one's insurance, it was reduced actually by virtue of being pretty well damn near perfect ;) :p :E --as you will see from the pax seat en route to Glasgow---at 0300 hrs! Modesty is my other virtue by the way:D :E

I find little perfect about 0300. Are you telling me that there is more than one 3o'clock in the day:confused: And indeed you are perfect:yuk: :yuk: Apart from your :mad: desire to put :mad: smileys on your :} posts a lot :=

Still, it is another way for the governemt to tax us even more. A thought crossed my mind the other day, whilst stood at the pump watching the display do a good impression of a catherine wheel. When I first started driving I could get 9.63ltrs (don't ask me how I remember this figure) for my fiver. Nowadays the same volume costs me nearly £10 and hardly wets the tank. A ten fold increase in 17 years, my insurance has stayed relatively the same through the years so I don't have a great problem with insurance costs, that said this must be one of the facets of motoring that our wonderfully open govt. have yet to attack, so it looks like we are now on the starting blocks...:ugh:

AcroChik
2nd Oct 2006, 15:46
But the insurance company is not interested in evening out traffic flow. They are interested in matching premium to risk, and they consider night driving to be increased risk so demands higher premiums.

The other problem is privacy issues, but I doubt the current government will be too bothered with this.

I'm in complete agreement with your well-stated point concerning matching insurance premiums collected to the risk premium incurred above an average risk index, and the disinterest of insurance companies in evening out traffic volumes. The core interest of an insurance company is to collect more premium revenue than is paid out in claims, resulting in a profit for their shareholders.

The point I was trying to make ~ and perhaps failed to state clearly ~ is that the economic incentive of drivers also comes into play: their incentive is to pay the lowest possible premium. This scheme could result in the company losing premium income as drivers shy away from paying a premium above average market cost for coverage. Bill Vickry's work demonstrated this in a variety of market settings, having specifically to do with automobiles.

The privacy issues involved are, indeed, sensitive ones. I recently rented a car that had a GPS installed and learned upon returning it that the rental company was able to download my routes and destinations ~ without my having entered anything into the device ~ to see if I had abided by the rental terms (which included staying within the NY-tristate area).

As I remarked in another thread, we seem to live in an age where everything is secret but nothing is private. Legal norms have yet to catch up with technological possibility.

ORAC
5th Oct 2006, 05:31
Insurance car tracker will be spy for police (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,173-2388996,00.html): POLICE will be able to tell whether drivers who crash were speeding by checking the black boxes being fitted to thousands of cars by Britainís biggest insurance company...... The company, which expects to fit the boxes to 100,000 cars over the next year, said that the information would be given only to police investigating a crash and would not be used to issue speeding penalties....


Yeah, right....at first... :hmm:

Grainger
5th Oct 2006, 08:10
And how are they going to prove causation ?

In the vast majority of cases, the cause of the accident may have nothing to do with the speed of the vehicle. But now all that will happen is the label "speeding" will be applied and the true cause ignored and therefore not rectified. How that is an improvement in safety is beyond me.

Oh, sorry, I forgot - it's not about eliminating the cause of the accident, it's about finding someone to blame . . .

AcroChik
5th Oct 2006, 08:19
My understanding of these automotive black boxes ~ given to me by the owner of the VW dealership where I just bought a car ~ is that they function similarly to airplane black boxes. They store information not only on speed, but rates of acceleration and decelleration and a wide spectrum of system performance and behavior, including operator inputs. The dealer wasn't a fan of these things, citing privacy issues and a couple other items, but said that it's only a matter of a very short time before all new cars come with these preinstalled.

Grainger
5th Oct 2006, 08:56
And only a short matter of time later before mine has a close encounter with Mr Microwave :E

Have to queue up behind the "spy-in-the-bin" mind you.

Krystal n chips
5th Oct 2006, 16:26
[QUOTE=ORAC;2889702....
Yeah, right....at first... :hmm:[/QUOTE]

Oh ye of little faith--;) we have the Data Protection Act of course to prevent this---and this would never be open to abuse now would it ? :rolleyes: Oddly enough, this featured in the Beebs lunchtime bulletin--but they said £50 per box--I think --which is a slight difference from the £200 quoted in the article.

I have to say, the ideology behind this as spouted by those who support the scheme in the various official views expressed in the links here, has a close resemblance to the "doing this for your own good" one as expressed when I was subjected to state sanctioned flagellation many years ago.

I did not agree with that sentiment at the time and I don't agree with those who echo similar in this case.